whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable or not. The specific contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that, the income taken by the Tribunal was extremely on the lower side. On perusal of the records, I find force in the said contention. The deceased claimed to be a ration dealer and to substantiate the same, Exts.A9 to A11 were relied on. Ext.A9, is an identity card of the deceased issued by the Kerala Ration Dealers Welfare Fund. Ext.A10, is the proceedings of the District Supply Officer appointing the deceased as the permanent licensee of ADR. Ext.A11, is the passbook of the Ration Dealers Welfare Fund. Ext.A21 is the extract of the statement showing the commission received by the deceased from the Civil Supplies Department. By placing reliance upon the same, the tribunal fixed the total annual income of the deceased as Rs.49,868/-. Considering the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2007, the said amount appears to be very meagre. It is to be noted in this regard that, when the method of computation evolved from the principles laid down in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd [(2011) 13 SCC 236], and
