JUDGMENT :

1. This is a claimants' appeal, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

2. On 18th of September, 2007, Ramasrey, a resident of Village Jamhoura, Post Sikandrabad, Police Station Neemgaon, District Lakhimpur Kheri, had gone to the north of his village in the fields, to answer the call of nature. While returning home at 7:30 p.m. on the Sitapur-Lakhimpur Road, as he reached the culvert near Village Jamhoura, a U.P. Roadways bus bearing Registration No. UP-25G-9999, that was driven at a high speed and negligently, hit him head-on. He was grievously injured and conveyed by the members of his family to the District Hospital, Lakhimpur Kheri, where during treatment, he breathed his last. At the time of his demise, Ramasrey was aged about 48 years. He was engaged in agriculture as well as supply of milk. He had a monthly income of Rs.7,000/-. In future, this income was expected to go double as per his dependents' claim. He left behind his widow, Smt. Bhagauta Devi, besides three sons as his dependents.

3. The claimants petitioned the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lakhimpur Kheri seeking compensation in the sum of Rs. 20 lakhs. The claim petition was numbered as Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 207 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ District Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri.

4. A written statement was filed on behalf of the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'the Corporation), who denied the accident. They said that the bus in question, on the date of accident, was plying on the Sitapur-Gola Road. The bus was operated according to rules. It had all the necessary papers, such as the Registration Certificate, Road Tax Payment Certificate and Fitness Certificate. The driver had a valid and effective driving licence.

5. On the issue relating to the factum of accident involving the Corporation's bus, the Tribunal held that it was the Corporation's bus that was responsible for causing the accident, as it was driven negligently and at a high speed in the manner alleged by the claimants. The driving licence of the driver operating the bus was found valid and effective as also the other papers. There is just one remark by the Tribunal in its finding on the second issue that the route permit was not produced.

6. Before this Court, the issue is about the compensation, that is payable to the claimants, who are in appeal. The Tribunal, by the judgment impugned, has awarded the claimants compensation in the sum of Rs.1,48,670/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of order until realization. Out of the compensation payable, a two-thirds has been directed to be paid to the widow and one-third, in equal share, to the three sons of the deceased.

7. Dissatisfied by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have preferred the instant appeal.

8. Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel for the appellant-claimants and Mr. Prabhakar Tiwari, learned Counsel for the Corporation.

9. The Tribunal has proceeded to work out the compensation on the basis that there was no proof that the deceased had a monthly income of Rs.7000/-, and, therefore, his income would be reckoned on the daily-wage payable to an unskilled casual labourer, contemporaneous in time. The daily-wage of a casual labourer has been determined by the Tribunal at a figure of Rs.60/- per day, which would lead to an annual income of Rs.21,600/-. The Tribunal has made a deduction of Rs.600/- for the fact that a daily-wager/casual labourer would not earn throughout the year. Thus, annual income of the deceased has been determined at a sum of Rs.21,000/-.

10. There is no written certification of the deceased's age and, therefore, parole evidence, medical estimation and other circumstances have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal to arrive at