By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. Claimants/appellants have preferred the instant First Appeal From Order under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of compensation awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Ballia, vide its award dated 14.2.2012 passed in MAC Case No. 79 /2011, on the ground that income of deceased has wrongly been assessed on notional basis at Rs. 15,000/- per annum, whereas the claimants have categorically stated in their claim petition that the deceased was earning Rs. 3000/- per month through domestic work.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and adequate compensation. The Tribunal fell into error in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 15000/- per anum, which is a paltry sum. According to him, even a housewife can earn Rs. 100/- per day through domestic work and this very aspect of the matter has been ignored by the Court below.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant lastly contended that Competent Authority under Minimum Wages Act has notified Rs. 100/- per day as wages for unskilled labour with effect from 1.3.2008, therefore, also income of Rs. 3000/- per month can safely be accepted as income of the deceased.

5. Learned counsel for respondent opposed the appeal and submitted that appellant merely asserted that the deceased Late Smt. Kanchan Devi was earning Rs. 3000/- per month through domestic work but failed to produce any evidence in this regard. Therefore, learned Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation assuming deceased to be a house wife and her notional income to be Rs. 15,000/- per annum.

6. Before proceeding further, we would like to refer the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, wherein the Apex Court answered the question relating to ‘just compensation’ in accident matters and while reiterating the principles laid down in the General Manager Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and others, (1994) 2 SCC 176 and observed as under :

“16. Compensation awarded does not become “just compensation” merely because the Tribunal considers it to be just. For example, if on the same or similar facts (say the deceased aged 40 years having annual income of Rs. 45,000 leaving his surviving wife and child), one Tribunal awards Rs. 10,00,000 another awards Rs. 5,00,000, and yet another awards Rs. 1,00,000, all believing that the amount is just, it cannot be said that what is awarded in the first case and the last case is just compensation. “Just compensation” is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well-settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit.

17. Assessment of compensation though involving certain hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be objective. Justice and justness emanate from equality in treatment, consistency and thoroughness in adjudication, and fairness and uniformity in the decision-making process and the decisions. While it may not be possible to have mathematical precision or identical awards in assessing compensation, same or similar facts should lead to awards in the same range. When the factors/inputs are the same, and the formula/legal principles are the same, consistency and uniformity, and not divergence and freakiness, should be the result of adjudication to arrive at just compensation. In Susamma Thomas, this Court stated: (SCC p.185, para 16) “16. ... The proper method of computation is the multiplier method. Any departure, except in exceptional and extraordinary cases, would introduce inconsistency of principle, lack of uniformity and an element of unpredicta