IMPORTANT POINT
Tribunal constituted under Motor Vehicles Act is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which is to be in the real sense "damages" which in turn appears to it to be "just and reasonable".

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.- Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the legality and propriety of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, dismissing the appeal filed by the State of Haryana and General Manager, Road Transport, Fatehabad, the present appellants.

3. In a nutshell, the background facts relevant for the purpose of dealing with this appeal are as follows:

One Jagga Singh (hereinafter referred to as `the deceased ) lost his life in a vehicle accident on 3-2-1999. His widow (respondent No. 1) and minor son Sewak Singh (respondent No. 2) filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short `the Act ) for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 lakhs. In the claim petition the mother of the deceased was impleaded as proforma respondent. The claimants asserted in the claim petition that the vehicle involved in the accident was owned by the Haryana Roadways and one Om Parkash was driving the vehicle bearing No. HR-39-0418. It was pleaded that the deceased was 25 years old, was an agriculturist and was earning about Rs. 10,000/- per month by cultivating his agricultural land and from his avocation of purchasing and selling cattles, and by selling milk.

4. The claim was resisted by the appellant-Haryana Roadways by taking the stand that there was no rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle and in any event there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The claim was also resisted on the ground that amount claimed was highly exaggerated, without any rational basis and there was no material to show as to was the deceased s income and the deprivation of financial contribution by the deceased to his family. Another claim petition was filed by one Ajaib Singh who stated to have been injured in the accident in question. We are not presently concerned with his case. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehabad (in short "Tribunal ) by order dated 27-3-2001 held that the claimants were entitled to compensation of Rs. 6.5 lakhs for loss of pecuniary benefits. It was further stipulated that the claimants would be entitled to the interest @ 9% on the amount of compensation from the date of application till realization. For determining the compensation the Tribunal held that the monthly income of the deceased can be reasonably assessed at Rs. 4500 per month. After deducting Rs. 1500/- for personal expenses, the Tribunal took Rs. 3000/- per month to be the contribution and multiplier of 18 was applied as per second schedule to the Act. The appeal before the High Court filed by the present appellants was dismissed on the ground that there was no infirmity in the award.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that with practically no evidence the Tribunal and the High Court proceeded to award Rs. 6.5 lakhs. There was not even an iota of evidence to substantiate the claim of agricultural income from about 4 acres of land and there was no evidence that the deceased was having any income from sale of milk or cattle. The High Court having accepted that there was no material to show that the deceased had any income from sale of cattle or milk came to an abrupt and presumptuous conclusion that monthly income was Rs. 4500/-. There was no material to show as to what was the type of land, annual yield, if any, and therefore, the award is not sustainable in law, and the High Court erred in dismissing the appeal.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the High Court has gone by the probabilities and the realities of life. Even if it is accepted that there was no material to show the income from the agricultural or dairy, a rational view can be taken about the possible income from the agricultural land, which the Tribunal did and the High Court give its seal of approval.

7. It has to be kept in view that the Tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in Section 168 is required to make an award d