materials placed on record, I am of the view that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, while assessing the compensation for loss of dependency, the Tribunal took a meagre monthly income of Rs.3,500/-. Of course, it is true that even though the appellant claimed that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.12,000/- from his avocation as a person managing a soda manufacturing unit and newspaper agency, the only evidence available on record is Ext.A9 licence issued for the soda manufacturing unit. Even though the said document would indicate that he was running an establishment, the said document is not sufficient to show the income which he used to derive from the said business. However, even if that be so, the monthly income of Rs.3,500/- taken by the Tribunal appears to be on the lower side, particularly in view of the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2008. When the method of computation of monthly income usually adopted by this Court, which is evolved from the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236] and Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. [2014 (2) SCC 735] is adopted, the monthly income of an ordinary worker without any evidence can
