Hon’ble Devi Prasad Singh, J.—Instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act has been preferred against the impugned award dated 5.3.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/IV Additional District Judge, Pratapgarh in Claim Petition No. 121 of 2001.

2. Appellant being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal preferred the instant appeal. Deceased- Khursheed Ahmad, S/o Mohd. Qayum alias Kaljum, aged about 35 years was a truck driver. On 12.2.2001 he was going from District Pratapgarh to Reva, District Madhya Pradesh plying the truck bearing No. UP 70J9655. Near Thana Gangawan District Reva Madhya Pradesh truck collided with another truck No. MP 17 C 2628 and suffered with grievous injuries. He was admitted in Reva Medical College but could not be saved and ultimately succumbed to injuries. An FIR was lodged with regard to accident in question.

3. The claimant-appellant preferred the claim petition for compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,11,000/-. The Tribunal framed relevant issues with regard to accident, insurance policy, driving licence etc. Parties led evidence before the Tribunal. The factum of accident has not been denied by the respondent.

4. On the basis of evidence led by the claimant the tribunal arrived to the conclusion that truck No. MP 17 C 2628 insured by respondent United India Insurance Company, was driven rashly and negligently resulting into accident in question. There is no violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. The tribunal assessed the income of the deceased truck driver of Rs. 15,000/- per annum and apply the multiplier of 15. While awarding the compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,62,000/- and divided the compensation in appropriate proportion to the claimant Amina Khatoon and her 5 children as well as father and mother. It appears that driving was the source of income of the family of the deceased. While assessing income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum Tribunal had not considered the material evidence on record as well as case laws relied upon by the claimant. Ten judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court were cited by the appellant but without discussing or distinguishing the judgments the tribunal assessed the annual income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum.

5. The finding recorded by the Tribunal relying upon certain cases seems to be not elaborately dealt with while holding the annual income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum. We express our displeasure to the decision making process by the Tribunal while rendering the award in question. Tribunal must have discussed each and every judgment may be in brevity relied upon by the claimant and therefore finding should have been recorded keeping in view the evidence led by the parties.

6. In the present case, admittedly, respondents Insurance Company has not filed any appeal challenging the impugned award. However, learned counsel for the respondent submits that compensation awarded by the tribunal does not suffer from any impropriety or illegality.

7. Now it is well-settled proposition of law that IInd Schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act has outlived its utility and Courts/tribunal may award just and fair compensation in pursuance to power conferred by Section 166/168 of the Motor Vehicle Act.

8. After considering catena of judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court Division Bench of this Court delivered by one of us (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Devi Prasad Singh) decided on 3.3.2014 in FAFO No. 103 of 2014 had held as under :

“28. To sum up :

1. Burden of proof with regard to contributory negligence shall be on the party who pleads for it. The contributory negligence should be proved like other issues. No inference may be drawn solely from Naksha Nazari or mere pleading on record.

2. Compassionate appointment is the service condition of an employee applied in case the scheme has been framed by the employer. It is not an advantage receivable by heirs on account of death and have co-relation of amount receivable under