THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Principal Seat at Guwahati MAC Appeal Nos. 638/2017 & 469/2017. I. MAC Appeal No.638/2017 Smt. Lakhimi Mazumdar, W/o Late Prafulla Mazumdar, Resident of Vill-Namdonga, PO-Balilecha, PS-Nalbari, Dist.-Nalbari, Assam. …… Appellant. -Versus- 1. Shri Vijay Kr. Shah, S/o Late K.N. Shah, Permanent resident of 18 Mukta Ram Babu Street, Kolkata, West Bengal, Pin-700007. Temporary Address: Chandmari, Kohima, Nagaland, Pin-797001. [Owner of offending vehicle bearing No.NL-01A-8672 (Box Body Truck)] 2. Md. Mamud Alam, S/o Late Kalimuddin, Permanent resident of Village-Bakshu Bigha, Near ITI, PS-Civil Line, Dist.-Gaya, Bihar, Pin-823001. Temporary Address: GAHC010057822017 Rajib Kumar Roy Digitally signed by Rajib Kumar Roy Date: 2025.11.13 17:24:39 +05'30' Gandhi Park, P.C. Colony, Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh, Pin-233001. [Driver of the offending vehicle bearing No.NL-01A-8672 (Box Body Truck)] 3. Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd., Represented by the Branch Manager (Legal), Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd., Christian Basti, G.S. Road, Guwahati-5, Kamrup(M), Assam, Having its Head Office at 502, 5th Floor, Avani Signature, 91A/1 Park Street, Kolkata, West Bengal, Pin-700016. [Insurer of the offending vehicle bearing No.NL-01A-8672 (Box Body Truck)] …… Respondents. Advocate for the Appellant : Mr. A.D. Choudhury. Advocate for the Respondents : Mr. R. Goswami. II. MAC Appeal No.469/2017 Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd., Having its registered office and head office at Indiabulls Finance Centre, Tower-3, 6th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone(W), Mumbai-400013, Represented by the Branch Manager at R.D. Enclave, 2nd Floor, Opposite Central Mall, Christian Basti, G.S. Road, Guwahati-781005. …… Appellant. -Versus- 1. Smt. Lakhmi Majumdar, W/o Late Prafulla Majumdar, Resident of Vill-Namdonga, PS-Nalbari, PO-Balilecha, Dist.-Nalbari, Assam, Pin-781334. 2. Struck off. 3. Md. Mamud Alam, S/o Late Kalimuddin, Resident of Vill-Bakshu Bigha, Near ITI, Dist.-Gaya, Bihar, Pin-823001. [Driver of the vehicle No.NL-01A-8672 (Box Body Truck)] …… Respondents. Advocate for the Appellant : Mr. R. Goswami. Advocate for the Respondents : Mr. A.D. Choudhury. BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN Date of Hearing :- 04.11.2025. Date on which judgment is reserved :- 04.11.2025 Date of pronouncement of judgment :- 10.11.2025 Whether the pronouncement of is of the :- N/A operative part of the judgment? Whether the full judgment has been :- Yes. pronounced? JUDGEMENT & ORDER (CAV) Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant in MAC Appeal No. 469 of 2017 and Mr. A.D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Also heard Mr. A.D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant in MAC Appeal No. 638 of 2017 and Mr. R. Goswami learned counsel for the respondents. 3. These two appeals, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act, 1988 hereinafter), are directed against the same Judgment and Award dated 25.04.2017, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati (Tribunal hereinafter) in M.A.C. Case No. 2239/2014. 3.1 It is to be noted here that vide impugned Judgment and Award dated 25.04.2017, the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 70,39,700/- only, being the compensation on account of death of Late Bhabesh Mazumdar, in a motor accident that took place on 12.10.2014. 3.2 As both appeals are being preferred against the same Judgment and Award dated 25.04.2017, and as agreed upon by both the parties, it is proposed to dispose of the same by this common Judgment. Background Facts:- 4. The background facts, leading to filing of the present appeals, are adumbrated herein below:- “On 12-10-2014, at about 08:30 P.M., one Babesh Mazumdar (since deceased) was proceeding on his Motor Cycle from Barama towards Nalbari, through the National Highway No.31 and when he reached Suradi, near the Saikia Petrol Pump, he was knocked down by the Truck, bearing registration No.NL-01- A-8672. Said Truck was coming from the opposite direction in a very rash and negligent manner, as a result of which Bhabesh Mazumdar had sustained grievous injuries on his person and died on the spot. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Truck, bearing registration No.NL-01-A-8672. In connection with the accident one FIR was lodged with the Nalbari Sadar P.S., upon which Nalbari Sadar P.S. Case No. 690 of 2014 was registered, under Sections 279, 338 & 304(A) of the Indian Panel Code, and investigation was carried out and on completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the driver of the offending Truck. Thereafter, Smti. Laxmi Mazumdar, the mother of the deceased, had filed a claim petition seeking compensation on account of death of her son, before the Tribunal upon which MAC Case No. 2239 of 2014, was registered and notice was issued to the respondents. The O.P. No. 1 & 2, the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, had failed to turn up inspite of service of summon for which the case proceeded ex-parte against them. The Opposite Party No.3, the insurer of the Box Body Truck, bearing registration No.NL-01-A-8672, entered appearance and filed its written statement, wherein it has taken a stand that the claim petition is not maintainable and is barred by estoppels, waiver and acquiescence and liable to be dismissed and also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It had denied the name, address, age, occupation and monthly income of the deceased and denied the statements made in the claim petition and also denied that the Truck was involved with the accident. It is contended that the liability, if any, of the answering opposite party will always be subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Under the above circumstances, it is contended to dismiss the claim petition. Upon pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the victim Bhabesh Mazumdar died as a result of the accident that occurred on 12-10- 2014 involving the vehicle bearing registration No.NL-01-A-8672 (Box Body Truck)? 2. Whether the said accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle-in-question? 3. Whether the driving license and insurance policy were valid at the time of accident to cover up the accident? 4. Whether the claimants are entitled to get any compensation for the death of the deceased, and if so, to what extent and by whom amongst the opposite parties, the said compensation amount will be payable? Thereafter, examining the witnesses of both sides and hearing arguments of learned counsels for both sides, the learned Tribunal had allowed the claim petition on contest and a sum of Rs.70,39,700/- (rupees seventy lakh thirty nine thousand and seven hundred only), was directed to be paid as compensation to the claimant and directed the Opposite Party No.3, the Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd., the insurer of the offending Truck No.NL-01-A-8672, to pay the aforesaid compensation amount along with interest at the rate of 6% percent per annum from the date of filing of the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, till the date of payment.” 5. It is to be noted here that MAC Appeal No. 638 of 2017 has been preferred on the following grounds that:- (i) The learned Tribunal had failed to appreciate the evidence in its true prospective and as such, it has committed error in calculating the amount of compensation. (ii) The learned Tribunal has committed manifest error in calculating the monthly income of the deceased son of the claimant. The claimant in her evidence-on-affidavit has clearly stated that her deceased son was working as Consultant in the department of Pathology in Pragati Nursing Home' at Hajo road, Nalbari Mediscan Diagnostic Centre at Hajo Road, Nalbari and in Dr. N.M.B. Baruah Nursing Home at Baruah road, Nalbari, and during cross examination also, she stood firm regarding the monthly income of her deceased son. But, the learned Tribunal, while calculating the monthly income of the deceased, did not take into consideration of the income of the deceased which he used to receive from Dr. N.M.B. Baruah Nursing Home and calculated the monthly income of the deceased only on the basis of the income that the deceased used to receive from Pragati Nursing Home and Mediscan Diagnostic Centre. While calculating the monthly income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal, in its Judgment dated 25/04/2017, did not say anything as to why it has not taken into consideration the income of the deceased that he used to receive from Dr. N.M.B. Baruah Nursing Home. As such, the learned Tribunal erred in calculating the monthly income of the deceased son of the claimant. (iii) The learned Tribunal committed manifested error while selecting the multiplier. While deciding the multiplier, the learned Tribunal had relied on the decision of Sarla Verma and Others -Vs- Delhi Transport Corporation [reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121] and selected the multiplier as 9. While selecting the said multiplier, the learned Tribunal has taken note of the age of the claimant for reference. But, in the very decision which was relied upon by the learned Tribunal in selecting the multiplier, the Hon'ble Supreme court has directed to select the multiplier depending on the age of the victim. As such, the learned Tribunal committed apparent error in selecting the multiplier. There are conflicting decisions from the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue of selection of multipliers. In some cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed to take the age of the parents while selecting the multiplier and in some other cases, it was directed to take the age of the victim. But, after the decision in Reshma Kumari-Vs- Madan Mohan [reported in (2013) 9 SCC 65] and Munna Lal Jain -Vs- Vipin Kumar Sharma [reported in (2015) 6 SCC 347], there is no more conflict in this regard as in the said two cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined for taking the age of the victim in selecting the multiplier. It is relevant to quote the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard as opined in Munna Lal Jain (supra): "Whether the multiplier should depend on the age of the dependents or that of the deceased, has been hanging fire for some time, but that has been given a quietus by another three Judge Bench decision in Reshma Kumari. It was held that the multiplier is to be used with reference to the age of the deceased. One reason appears to be that there is certainty with regard to the age of the deceased, but as far as that of dependents is concerned, there will always be room for dispute as to whether the age of the eldest or youngest or even the average, etc., is to be taken." As such, there is no more conflict on the issue as to whether age of the deceased or the age of the claimants to be considered in selecting the multiplier. Seeing the differences of opinions in this regard rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a Single Judge of this Court, in MAC Appeal No. 128/2016, referred the matter to the Division Bench of this Court to decide on the issue whether age of the deceased was to be taken in consideration or the age of the parents to be considered while choosing the multiplier. The Division Bench of this Court, after analyzing all the conflicting decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard, decided the reference by opining that the age of the deceased to be considered while selecting the multiplier. As such, there is no more conflict in this regard and the age of the deceased is to be taken into consideration while selecting the multiplier. Since in the instant motor accident claim case, the age of the deceased was 29 years, the learned Tribunal should have taken 17 as the multiplier depending upon the age of the deceased, instead of 9, which was selected depending upon the age of the claimant. (iv) The learned Tribunal also committed error while applying the rate of interest in the awarded amount. Learned Tribunal directed the insurance company to pay the awarded amount to the claimant along with interest at the rate of 06% per annum from the date of filing of the application under Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988 till the date of payment. But, in the case of Golap Lata (Smti.) & another -Vs- Ajit Deka & others, reported in 2016 (2) GLT 809), this Court, relying on the decision of Josphine James -Vs- United India Insurance Company Limited & another, reported in (2013) 16 SCC 711, imposed the interest at the rate of 9% per annum instead of 6% per annum. Accordingly, the learned court below should have directed the Respondent No. 3 to pay the compensation at the rate of 9% per annum, instead of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the application under Section 166 of MV Act, 1988. 6. On the other hand, MAC Appeal No. 469/2027 has been preferred on the following grounds that :- I. The impugned Judgment and Award dated 25.04.2017 in MAC Case No.2239/2014 is bad in law and facts and is liable to be set aside. II. The learned Tribunal ought to have appreciated the fact that Claimant had failed to prove the income of the deceased. But, inspite of the absence of any document like the Income Tax Return, Bank Statement etc. to prove the income of the deceased who was stated to be a Doctor, the learned Tribunal considered the income of the deceased to be Rs. 93,000/- per month from two sources. It was claimed by the claimant that the deceased used to earn Rs. Rs.55,000/- from one hospital, namely Pragati Nursing Home and another Rs.38,000/- from another source, namely Mediscan Diagnostics". III. The learned Tribunal ought to have appreciated the fact that in the absence of any document to prove the income and employment of the deceased who was stated to be working as a honorary Doctor in the diagnosis centre under the name and style “Mediscan Diagnostics", the income of the deceased from “Mediscan Diagnostics", cannot be presumed to be Rs.38,000/- per month. IV. The learned Tribunal ought to have taken note of the cross examination of PW 3 who was the Medical Practitioner (Radiologist) as well as owner of the diagnosis centre under the name and style “Mediscan Diagnostics", who very clearly stated in his cross examination that he has not maintained any register to prove that the deceased was working in his diagnosis centre and that he paid him monthly salary of Rs.38,000/- per month. Neither the bank statement of the employer nor of the receiver/deceased was produced before the Tribunal to prove that the deceased used to receive Rs.38,000/- from the said employer i.e. “Mediscan Diagnostics". V. The learned Tribunal did not consider the denials of the appellant on the point of income of the deceased and made an observation that these were not disputed by the appellant and proceeding on this incorrect observation, the Court below considered arbitrarily the income of the deceased as Rs.55,000/- + Rs.38,000/- = Rs. 93,000/- per month. VI. The impugned Judgment and the Award is manifestly wrong in law, in as much as the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned award has entirely ignored the evidence as regards income and employment and in spite of the fact that the income and employment of the deceased were not proved, the learned Tribunal had arbitrarily assessed Rs. 55,000/- + Rs.38,000/- = Rs.93,000/- per month as the monthly income of the deceased. And therefore, the same being untenable, is liable to be quashed and set aside. VII. The Judgment and the Award dated 25.04.2017, was passed without application of mind and has only added to the uncertainty and lack of reasonable uniformity in the matter of determination of compensation payable in case of road accident victims. Submissions:- 7. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant in MAC Appeal No.638/2017, firstly, submits that the son of the appellant was working as a Doctor and while assessing the monthly income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal had arrived at a wrong finding in as much as it has failed to take into account the 3rd source of income of the son of the appellant. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the son of the appellant was working in three establishments, namely, (1) Pragati Nursing Home, (2) Mediscan Diagnostic Centre and (3) Dr. N.M.B. Baruah Nursing Home, Nalbari and while calculating the income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal had ignored the 3rd source of income and as such, the compensation, so awarded to the claimant is not just and in accordance with law. 7.1 Secondly, Mr. Choudhury submits that the learned Tribunal has wrongly selected the multiplier as 9. Mr. Choudhury pointed out that at the relevant point of time, the age of the deceased was 29 years and in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, multiplier should be selected on the basis of the age of the deceased and in para No.42 of the said decision it has been held that multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in the column No. (4) of the Table in para No.40. 7.2 Thirdly, Mr. Choudhury submits that the learned Tribunal had awarded interest upon the compensation amount @ 6% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition, but the same ought to have been 9% in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association & Ors, reported in (2011) 14 SCC 481, and under such circumstances, Mr. Choudhury submits that the impugned judgment and award, so passed by the learned Tribunal, has to be interfered with and just and proper compensation, which the claimant is entitled to, has to be awarded and accordingly, Mr. Choudhury has contended to allow this appeal. 7.3 Mr. Choudhury, in support of his submission has referred following decisions:- (i) Munna Lal Jain & Anr. v. Vipin Kumar Sharma & Ors., reported in (2015) 6 SCC 347; (ii) Eunus Ali v. Branch Manager (Legal) Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2017 (3) GLT 817; (iii) Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association (supra); and (iv) Golaplata Goswami (Smt.) & Anr. v. Ajit Deka & Ors., reported in 2016 (2) GLT 809. 7.4 Further, Mr. Choudhury, appearing for the respondent No.1 in MAC Appeal No.469/2017, submits that the grounds, based on which the said appeal has been filed by the appellant Insurance Company of the offending vehicle, are not at all reasonable and justified and on such count, the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. Per contra, Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company in MAC Appeal No.638/2017, and for the appellant in MAC Appeal No.469/2017, submits that though there is a contention from the claimant’s side that the 3rd source of income has not been taken into account by the learned Tribunal, yet, no documentary proof has been adduced in support of the said contention and without there being any documentary proof, merely on the oral statement, the claim made by the claimant, cannot be accepted. Referring to the evidence of PW-3, Mr. Goswami submits that in three months, three different amounts were paid to the deceased by the PW-3 and the 3rd amount is quite higher than the other two amounts and instead of taking the average of the three months’ income, the learned Tribunal has only taken note of the income in the last month and as such, the awarded amount become exorbitant and the same is liable to be interfered with. 8.1 Mr. Goswami further submits that while deducting the income tax, the learned Tribunal had failed to arrive at a reasonable and just finding and the deduction of income tax is not in accordance with law. 8.2 However, Mr. Goswami fairly submits that the multiplier has to be counted in accordance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), being affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, still, he has some reservation in respect of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (surpa). 8.3 Mr. Goswami also submits that the rate of interest so awarded by the Tribunal is justified and reasonable and the same requires no interference of this Court and at best it may be the bank interest prevailing at the relevant point of time. Under such circumstances, Mr. Goswami has contended to allow the MAC Appeal No.469/2017 and also contended to dismiss the MAC Appeal No.638/2017. 8.4 Mr. Goswami, in support of his submissions, has relied upon the following two cases :- (i) Sarla Verma (supra); (ii) Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., reported in (2013) 9 SCC 65; Discussion and Analysis:- 9. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the memo of appeals and the grounds mentioned therein and also gone through the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, so referred by Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant in MAC Appeal No.638/2017, and Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant in MAC Appeal No.469/2017. The Issue of Multiplier:- 10. A careful perusal of the impugned judgment and award, so passed by the learned Tribunal indicates that the learned Tribunal had applied the multiplier 9, which the claimant is entitled to, in spite of arriving at a finding that at the relevant time, the age of the deceased was 28 years 7 months and 11 days. And it appears that the learned Tribunal has taken note of the age of the mother of the deceased, who was, at the relevant time, within the age group of 56 to 60 years and also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). But, in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), which was also affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (surpa), the applicable multiplier in the present case ought to have been 17, instead of 9. 10.1 It is to be noted her in the case of Pranay Sethi (surpa), a five Judges Constitutional Bench has held as under:- “59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121, read with para 42 of that judgment.” 10.2 Notably, in the case of Sarala Verma (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court in para No.42 has held as under- “42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas [(1994) 2 SCC 176, Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC 362] and Charlie [(2005) 10 SCC 720], which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.” 10.3 Table in para No. 40 of the said case is indicated herein below:- Age of the deceased Multiplier scale as envisaged in Susamma Thomas [(1994) 2 SCC 176 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 335] Multiplier scale as adopted by Trilok Chandra [(19 96) 4 SCC 362] Multiplier scale in Trilok Chandra4as clarified in Charlie [(2005) 10 SCC 720 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1657] Multiplier specified in Second Column in the Table in Second Schedule to the MV Act Multiplier actually used in Second Schedule to the MV Act (as seen from the quantum of compensation) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Up to 15 yrs - - - 15 20 15 to 20 yrs 16 18 18 16 19 21 to 25 yrs 15 17 18 17 18 26 to 30 yrs 14 16 17 18 17 31 to 35 yrs 13 15 16 17 16 36 to 40 yrs 12 14 15 16 15 41 to 45 yrs 11 13 14 15 14 46 to 50 yrs 10 12 13 13 12 51 to 55 yrs 9 11 11 11 10 56 to 60 yrs 8 10 09 8 8 61 to 65 yrs 6 08 07 5 6 Above 65 yrs 5 05 05 5 5 10.4 In view of the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarala Verma (supra) and affirmed in Prany Sethi (supra), the application of multiplier, so applied by the learned Tribunal, while assessing the compensation, appears to be erroneous and liable to be interfered with. The Issue of Income of the Deceased:- 11. It appears from the impugned Judgment and Award that the learned Tribunal had, considering the evidence of the Claimant (P.W.1) and of P.W.-2, Dr. Barada Kanta Sharma, who is the Superintendent of Pragati Nursing Home, Nalbari, who had exhibited the appointment letter of the petitioner as Exhibit-3(1) and the Salary Certificate Exhibit-5, arrived at a conclusion that his monthly salary was, from the said Hospital as a Pathologist, was Rs.55,000/-. Then the learned Tribunal considering the evidence of P.W.-3, Dr. Jitendra Sharma, who has a diagnosis centre at Nalbari, under the name and style, Mediscan Diagnostics, wherein the deceased was working for three months, and who testified that for that period he had paid him Rs.20,500/-, Rs.25,600/- and Rs.38,000/-, respectively and arrived at a conclusion that from the above mentioned medical institutions, he was receiving monthly salary of Rs.55,000/- + Rs.38,000/- = Rs.93,000/- at the time of his death. 12. It also appears that though the claimant in her evidence, deposed that her deceased son was also appointed in the Dr. NMB Baruah Nursing Home, Nalbari and his monthly salary was Rs.30,000/- per month. But, in support of the said contention, she had not adduced any documentary proof nor she had examined any employee of the said Nursing Home. That being so, the learned Tribunal had, rightly, did not take into account the said piece of evidence of the claimant. Though Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant in MAC Appeal No. 638/2017, tried to convince this Court that evidence of the claimant to the effect that her son was also working in the Dr. NMB Baruah Nursing Home, Nalbari and his monthly salary was Rs.30,000/- per month, remained undisputed, yet, to a pointed query of this Court, as to whether there is any documentary proof to substantiate such a contention, Mr. Choudhury has answered the same in negative. Therefore, no fault can be found with the learned Tribunal for not taking into account the third source of income of the deceased son of the claimant. 12.1 This Court has also considered the submission of Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant insurance company in MAC Appeal No. 469/2017 in respect of taking the average of the three months’ income, which the P.W.3 had paid to the deceased, instead of last amount paid to him, yet, the same left this Court unimpressed, in as much as the income of the deceased at the time of his death has to be taken note of, not the average amount of the last and previous months. It is to be noted here that the deceased was working in the Mediscan Diagnostics Centre of P.W.3 for three months and for that period he paid him Rs.20,500/-, Rs.25,600/- and Rs.38,000/-, respectively. And the learned Tribunal had taken into account the amount paid in the last month. But, there is no such proposition of law that the average amount has to be taken note of. That being so, no fault can be found with the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal in taking into account, the income of the deceased for the last month. 12.2 It is however a fact that the PW-3 had not produced any documentary evidence of payment of aforesaid sums to the deceased. But, his evidence and the evidence of the PW-1 remained un-rebutted in cross-examination by the insurance company. Notably, the claimant as PW-1 has exhibited the appointment letter of the deceased son issued by the Director, Mediscan Diagnostic Centre (PW-3) as Exhibit-3(2), which indicates that his salary was a consolidated sum of Rs.40,000/-. Notably, the Exhibit-3(2) is not disputed by the insurance company during her cross-examination. And as such, no fault can be found with the finding of the learned Tribunal while taking into account the income of the deceased, as deposed by PW-3, from Mediscan Diagnostic Centre. The Issue of deduction of Income Tax:- 13. The learned Tribunal had dealt with this issue by holding that there is no evidence on record as to whether the deceased had paid income tax or not. It had also held that even in absence of evidence the income of the deceased at the time of his death in the year 2014 was taxable. Thereafter, it had held that since total annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.11,16,000/-, it has to be assumed that the deceased paid income tax. Then it had held that 10% would be deducted from his annual income towards his income tax. 13.1 Though Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant in MAC Appeal No.469/2017 and respondent in MAC Appeal No. 638/2017, submits that deduction of income tax, by the learned Tribunal was not in accordance with law, yet Mr. Goswami has failed to demonstrate before this Court with documentary evidence as to what was the actual Income Tax Slab prevailing at the relevant time. In absence of any such proof, this Court as well as the learned Tribunal is handicap to adjudicate such an issue. And interestingly, no such ground has ever been taken in the memo of appeal, by the appellant in MAC Appeal No.469/2017. The Issue of Interest:- 14. It appears from the impugned Judgment and Award of the learned Tribunal that the amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per cent per annum from the date of filing of the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, till the date of payment. The contention of Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant in MAC Appeal No. 638/2017 and respondent in MAC Appeal No. 469/2017, is that the 6% interest awarded by the learned Tribunal is in lower side and in view decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association and Others (supra), the rate of interest ought to have been 9% per annum. But, the contention of Mr. Goswami, the learned counsel for the appellant in MAC Appeal No.469/2017 and respondent in MAC Appeal No.638/2017, that the rate of interest so awarded by the Tribunal is justified and reasonable and the same requires no interference of this Court and his another contention is that at best it may be the bank interest, prevailing at the relevant point of time. 14.1 Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court finds substance in the submission of Mr. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the appellant in MAC Appeal No.638/2017 and respondent in MAC Appeal No.469/2017. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association and Others,(supra) held that the interest upon the compensation amount @ 9% per annum, would be justified. Same principle was followed in the case of Kalpanaraj vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, reported in (2014) C.R. 693 (SC) and also in the case of Josphine James (supra). In view of the aforesaid two decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is inclined to record concurrence with the submission of Mr. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the appellant in MAC Appeal No.638/2017 and respondent in MAC Appeal No.469/2017. The rate of interest in the case in hand ought to have been @ 9% per annum, which to the considered opinion of this Court would be just and reasonable. 15. It is worth mentioning in this context that rest of the issues/facts in the impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal had not been challenged by either of the parties. And as such, directing a discussion to the same is found to be not necessary herein these appeals. 16. It is to be noted here that the learned Tribunal had assessed the compensation, which the claimant is entitled to, as under:- Total monthly income : Rs.93,000/- Total Annual Income : Rs.11,16,000/- (93,000×12) Income Tax As per Income tax : Rs.11,16,000 - 2,00,000 (exemption) : Rs.9,16,000/- (taxable Income) Less Income tax 10% : Rs.9,16,000-10% = Rs.91,600 Total Annual salary : Rs. 11,16,000.00 (93,000x12) Less Income Tax : Rs. 91,600.00 : Rs.10,24,400.00 Add 50% : Rs. 10,24,400/-+50% : Rs.15,36,600/- Less 50% : Rs.15,36,600-50% : Rs.7,68,300/- Multiplier : 9 Total Compensation : Rs.7,68,300 x 09 : Rs.69,14,700/- 16.1 The learned Tribunal had also held that in addition to the aforesaid amount of Rs.69,14,700/-, the claimant is also entitled to receive an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of estate. In total, the claimant is entitled to receive Rs.70,39,700/- (rupees seventy lakh thirty nine thousand and seven hundred only), as compensation. 16.2 Thereafter, the learned Tribunal had held that the Opposite Party No.3, i.e. Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd., the insurer of Box Body Truck bearing registration No.NL-01-A-8672, has to satisfy the award of Rs.70,39,700/- (rupees seventy lakh thirty nine thousand and seven hundred only). The learned Tribunal had further provided that the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per cent per annum from the date of filing of the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, till the date of payment. 17. Thus, in view of the aforementioned discussion and finding in respect of multiplier and in respect of income and interest, this Court is inclined to assess just compensation, which the claimant is entitled to as under:- 17.1 In view of the discussion and finding recorded herein above, the income of the deceased has to be assessed at Rs.93,000/- per month. At the time of death, the deceased was working in Pragati Nursing Home, Nalbari, on part time basis and his monthly salary, from the said hospital as a Pathologist was Rs.55,000/-. As per evidence of the claimant the salary was consolidated and also as per her evidence, he also worked in Mediscan Diagnostics on consolidated salary and in that centre, the deceased was paid a consolidated sum of Rs.40,000/-. There is no pleading as well as evidence to suggest that the job of the deceased was permanent job. In absence of pleadings and evidence to that effect 40% of the same has to be added as future prospect, as at the time of accident the deceased was below 48 years, in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). After addition of 40% to Rs.93,000/- the amount would be Rs.1,30,200/- (Rs.93,000/- + Rs.37,200/- = Rs.1,30,200/-). The annual income would be Rs.1,30,200/- X 12 = Rs.15,62,400/-. This income appears to be in taxable range. As in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarala Verma (supra), actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.(para 24). 17.2 The learned Tribunal had deducted Rs.2,00,000/- being the exemption. Therefore, after deduction of said amount, the annual taxable income would be Rs.15,62,400/- – Rs.2,00,000/- = Rs.13,62,400/, which is the taxable income. The learned Tribunal had deducted 10% as income tax. And after deduction of 10% i.e. Rs.1,36,240 from Rs.13,62,400/ the amount would be Rs.13,62,400 – Rs. 1,36,240 = Rs.12,26,160/, which is the annual salary less tax. 17.3 Thereafter, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), 50% of the aforesaid amount has to be deducted as personal expenses since he was bachelor at the relevant time. After deducting 50% of the above, the amount would be Rs.6,13,080/- (Rs.12,26,160 – Rs.6,13,080 = Rs.6,13,080/-). 17.4 The multiplier applicable herein this would be 17, in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) since the age of the deceased, at the time of the accident was between 26 to 30 years. After application of multiplier, the amount would be Rs.1,04,22,360/- (Rs.6,13,080/ x 17 = Rs. 1,04,22,360/-). 17.5 Besides, under the conventional heads, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- has to be awarded under head loss of estate, a sum of Rs. 40,000/-, being the loss of consortium, and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- under head funeral expenses, and the aforesaid amounts should be enhanced by 10% in every 3 years, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). It is to be noted here that after the accident, almost 10 years elapsed. That being so, the aforesaid amounts have to be increased thrice. 17.6 The whole calculation, after application of the principle laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) and also in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), would be as under:- Sl. No. Heads Calculation I Monthly income Rs.93,000/ II 40 % of (i) to be added as future prospect (Rs.93,000 + Rs.37,200 = Rs. 130200/). III Annual Income= Rs.130200 X 12 = Rs. 15,62,400/-. IV Exemption Rs.2,00,000/(Rs.15,62,400 – Rs. 2,00,000/) = Rs.13,62,400/ (Taxable Income) V Less 10 % Tax = Rs. 13,62,400/ - Rs.1,36,240 = Rs.12,26,160/, VI 50% of the (V) has to be deducted as personal expenses of the deceased = (Rs. Rs.12,26,160/,– Rs.6,13,080/) = Rs. 6,13,080/- VII Compensation after multiplier of 17 is applied = (Rs. 6,13,080/ x 17). Rs. 1,04,22,360/- VIII Loss Estate Rs.15,000/ which has to be increased by 10% in every three years (15,000/100 x10=1500) x 3=4500/ Rs. 15,000/ + Rs.4500/= 19,500/ IX Loss of Consortium =Rs.40,000/, which has to be increased by 10% in each three years Rs. 40,000/ + Rs.12,000/ = 52,000/- X Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/, which has to be increased by 10% in each three years Rs. 15,000/ + Rs.4500/= 19,500 Total compensation awarded = Rs. 1,05,13,360/- 18. This, amount, i.e. Rs. 1,05,13,360/- (Rupees one crore five lacs thirteen thousand three hundred and sixty only), to the considered opinion of this Court, is just compensation in this case, which shall be paid by the Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd., the insurer of Box Body Truck, bearing registration No. NL-01-A-8672, the appellant in MAC Appeal No.469/2017 and respondent in MAC Appeal No.638/2017, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e. 10.12.2014, till the entire amount is paid. 19. This Court has gone through the other decision referred by Mr. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the appellant in MAC Appeal No.638/2017 and respondent in MAC Appeal No.469/2017 and also the decisions referred by Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant in MAC Appeal No.469/2017 and respondent in MAC Appeal No.638/2017. There is no quarrel at the Bar about the proposition of law laid down in the said cases. But, to decide the issues, raised in these appeals, reference to all those decisions are found to be not necessary except whatever has been discussed herein above. 20. In the result, MAC Appeal No. 638/2017 stands allowed. However, MAC Appeal No. 469/2017 stands dismissed. The Registry shall send down the record of the learned Tribunal with a copy of this judgment and order forthwith. The parties have to bear their own cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant