JUDGMENT : JIYA LAL BHARDWAJ, J. Challenge in the present appeal is against the award dated 08.06.2015, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(II), Una, District Una, H.P., whereby the claim petition bearing No. MAC Petition RBT No. 144/2014, titled, Kaushalya Devi and others vs. Ashwani Kumar and others, preferred by the claimants was allowed and they were awarded a sum of Rs. 33,11,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till deposit of the award amount. 2. For deciding the appeal, the parties herein as referred to as they were in the claim petition. 3. The claimants had filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident on account of death of Uttam Chand, who was husband of claimant No.1, father of claimant No.2 and son of claimants No.3 and 4. The accident had taken place on 10.10.2014 involving Crusier Trax HP-01B-0464, when the driver of vehicle, who was respondent No.1 in the claim petition, struck the vehicle with the deceased, who was standing outside his furniture shop at village Kohdra, Tehsil Bangana, District Una, H.P. In the accident, the deceased sustained injuries and fell unconscious. He was taken to hospital at CHC Barsar through ambulance, wherefrom he was referred to Regional Hospital Una. From Una he was referred to PGI Chandigarh, but he succumbed to the injuries near the gate of Regional Hospital Una and Doctors declared him dead. 4. As per the pleadings in the claim petition, the deceased was earning Rs. 35,000/- per month, since he was running a shop and self-employed. It was submitted that the claimants were dependent upon the earnings of the deceased. 5. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed reply to the claim petition and pleaded that the accident was caused due to the negligence on the part of the deceased, since he without waiting for the clearance of the road all of a sudden jumped to cross the road by running from left to right side of the road at a sharp turn, though respondent No.1 applied brakes to stop the vehicle. 6. 6. Respondent No.3-insurance company filed separate reply and took preliminary objections that the driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the transport vehicle at the time of accident and, therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay any claim. It was also pleaded that the vehicle was not holding a valid route permit and further the vehicle was not fit to ply on the road. On merits, the insurance company has not specifically pleaded that the amount claimed is highly excessive. In reply to para 5 of the claim petition, where the claimants had pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.35,000/- per month, it was pleaded that the para No.5 of the petition is wrong, incorrect and therefore denied. 7. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings framed the following issues in the claim petition:- 1. Whether on 10.10.2014 around 3.00 PM at village Kohdra, District Una, Uttam Chand died due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle Crusier Trax No. HP-01B-0464 by respondent No. 1 Ashwani Sharma, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether respondent No. 1 driver of the vehicle was not holding valid and effective licence to drive the transport vehicle at the relevant point time as alleged? OPR-3 4. Whether the vehicle No. HP 01-B-0464 was being plied without valid fitness certificate and route permit at the relevant point of time and in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy as alleged? OPR-3 5. Relief. 8. The parties to the claim petition led their evidence and after recording the evidence, the Tribunal returned the findings that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle by respondent No.1 namely Ashwani Sharma and so far the compensation is concerned, the Tribunal after considering the statements of the witnesses returned the findings that the deceased was earning around Rs. 1500/- to Rs. 1800/- per day, as he was efficient carpenter having fairly good business in the area. However, for the purpose of calculating the compensation, the Tribunal took the income of the deceased as Rs. 1,000/- per day, meaning thereby Rs. 30,000/- per month. Since the deceased was 52 years of age and was running his own carpenter shop, addition of 15% was made. However, for the purpose of calculating the compensation, the Tribunal took the income of the deceased as Rs. 1,000/- per day, meaning thereby Rs. 30,000/- per month. Since the deceased was 52 years of age and was running his own carpenter shop, addition of 15% was made. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, multiplier of 11 was applied. For the purpose of calculating the compensation deduction of 1/3rd was made for personal expenses. Claimant No.1-wife has been held entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the loss of consortium and son has been awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of love and affection. The parents of the deceased have been held entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss of love and affection. Besides this, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- toward funeral expenses and thus, the total compensation was arrived at Rs. 33,11,000/-. Since the vehicle was insured with the appellant-insurance company, it was held liable to pay the compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the deposit of the awarded amount. 9. The appellant-insurance company has laid challenge to the award on the grounds that since the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and not having requisite endorsement to drive transport vehicle, there was fundamental breach on the part of the owner and thus, the Tribunal has wrongly held the appellant to pay the compensation amount. 10. The second ground in the appeal is to the effect that there is no documentary proof of the income and the Tribunal on the basis of the oral evidence has come to the conclusion that the income of the deceased was ranging from Rs. 1500/- to Rs. 1800/- per day and took his income as Rs. 1,000/- for assessing the compensation and further has wrongly granted the incremental increase of 15%, whereas it ought to have been 10% since the deceased was self-employed, as per the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others , (2017) 16 SCC 680 . Not only this, the amount to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- awarded in favour of the claimants on account of loss of consortium and loss of love and affection is also unreasonable. 11. Not only this, the amount to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- awarded in favour of the claimants on account of loss of consortium and loss of love and affection is also unreasonable. 11. The third ground in the appeal is to the effect that Tribunal below has also erred while awarding interest @ 9% per annum, which is on the higher side and is contrary to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 12. On the other hand, Mr. Y.P. Sood and Mr. Praveen Chauhan, learned counsel representing the claimants have supported the award passed by the Tribunal. Mr. Y.P. Sood, learned counsel for claimants vehemently argued that even in the absence of documentary evidence, the claimants have proved that the deceased at the time of accident was earning Rs. 35,000/- per month since he was carpenter and running the shop. Learned counsel has further argued that one of the claimants namely Kaushalya Devi, who is wife of the deceased, while appearing as PW-3, has deposed that her husband was running a carpenter shop and was earning a sum of Rs. 35,000/- per month and after his death, there is no source of income. Learned counsel also argued that the claimants have examined one Shri Som Nath, who appeared as PW-2, has also supported the version of PW-3 Smt. Kaushalaya Devi that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 35,000/- per month and he was working with him. Thus, he prayed that the award passed by the Tribunal does not require any interference and, the appeal may be dismissed. 13. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 14. So far as the first contention raised by Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Ishan Sharma, learned counsel, regarding not holding a valid and effected driving licence is concerned, the same deserves rejection in view of the fact that the vehicle involved in the question was Crusier Trax and as per copy of RC Ex. R-1, the unladen weight of the vehicle was 1,760 Kg and the driver namely Ashwani Kumar was having the licence to drive non transport vehicle as evident from Ex.R-4. R-1, the unladen weight of the vehicle was 1,760 Kg and the driver namely Ashwani Kumar was having the licence to drive non transport vehicle as evident from Ex.R-4. Since the weight of the vehicle was less than 7,500 Kg, there was no requirement to have the endorsement to drive the transport vehicle as has been held by the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited vs. Rambha Devi and others , (2025) 3 SCC 95 , wherein it has been held that if the driver is holding a licence for light motor vehicle class and the gross weight is 7,500 Kg, he is permitted to operate a transport vehicle without needing additional authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The relevant paras of the judgment are quoted hereinbelow :- 181. Our conclusions following the above discussion are as under:- 181.1. A driver holding a licence for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7,500 kg, is permitted to operate a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without needing additional authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act specifically for the ‘Transport Vehicle’ class. For licensing purposes, LMVs and Transport Vehicles are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists between the two. The special eligibility requirements will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts, e- rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods. 181.2. The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasizes the necessity of a specific requirement to drive a ‘Transport Vehicle,’ does not supersede the definition of LMV provided in Section 2(21) of the MV Act. 181.3 The additional eligibility criteria specified in the MV Act and MV Rules generally for driving ‘transport vehicles’ would apply only to those intending to operate vehicles with gross vehicle weight exceeding 7,500 kg i.e. ‘medium goods vehicle’, ‘medium passenger vehicle’, ‘heavy goods vehicle’ and ‘heavy passenger vehicle’. 181.4. The decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) is upheld but for reasons as explained by us in this judgment. In the absence of any obtrusive omission, the decision is not per incuriam, even if certain provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules were not considered in the said judgment. 15. So far as another point canvased by the learned senior counsel for the appellant-insurance company regarding assessing the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs. In the absence of any obtrusive omission, the decision is not per incuriam, even if certain provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules were not considered in the said judgment. 15. So far as another point canvased by the learned senior counsel for the appellant-insurance company regarding assessing the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs. 1,000/- per day and Rs. 30,000/- per month is concerned, the same is having merit. No doubt one of the claimants PW-3, Kaushalaya Devi has deposed in the evidence led by way of affidavit that the deceased was earning Rs. 35,000/- per month, which fact has also been supported by the statement of PW-2 Som Nath, but since no documentary evidence has been placed on record in respect to income of the deceased, the Tribunal below ought not to have been taken income of the deceased as Rs. 1,000/- per day. If the deceased was earning this much amount of Rs. 35,000/- per month, he ought to have been filing the income tax returns and the same could have been placed on record. Since no documentary evidence has been led to prove the income of the deceased, the income taken by the Tribunal to assess the compensation is definitely on the higher side. 16. Learned counsel representing the appellant- insurance company has vehemently argued that since there was no documentary evidence regarding the income of the deceased, his income can be taken as per the notification dated 28.05.2014 issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Department of Labour and Employment, wherein the income of highly skilled personal has been fixed as Rs. 227.12/- per day and monthly Rs. 6,814/-. No doubt the claimants have not placed on record any documentary evidence to prove the income of the deceased, but the overall evidence having been brought on record shows that the income of the deceased cannot be taken on the basis of the notification issued by the State Government. 17. 227.12/- per day and monthly Rs. 6,814/-. No doubt the claimants have not placed on record any documentary evidence to prove the income of the deceased, but the overall evidence having been brought on record shows that the income of the deceased cannot be taken on the basis of the notification issued by the State Government. 17. Learned counsel for the claimants have relied upon the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in FAO ( MVA ) No. 284 and 329 of 2016, wherein this Court has held that, where there is material on record in pleadings of claim petition, oral deposition of witnesses and the same having remained unrebutted, the determination of amount of compensation on the basis of lowest level of minimum wages to compute the monthly income is not justifiable. 18. No doubt the determination of compensation on the basis of lowest level of minimum wages can never be a criteria to determine the compensation, when there is other evidence available on record, which remained unrebutted. 19. In the present case, no doubt in the claim petition, the claimants have specifically pleaded in Para No.5 of the claim petition that the deceased was earning Rs. 35,000/- per month from shop business, which has been denied by the respondents by filing the reply. It is settled law that the onus to prove the income of the deceased was on the claimants. If the income is not proved by leading documentary evidence, the Court can take judicial notice of other factors for the purpose of assessing the income of the deceased. 20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6194 of 2002, titled, Rajani and others versus The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others , has approved the income of carpenter taken as Rs. 15,000/- per month by the Tribunal, which was reduced by the High Court. 21. In the present case, no doubt, there is no documentary evidence on record to prove the income of the deceased, but it has been proved that the deceased was working as a carpenter and was also running a shop in village Kohdra, as has been proved by the statement of PW-3 Kaushalaya Devi, wife of the deceased and PW-2 Som Nath, who was working with the deceased when the accident had occurred on 10.10.2014. Thus, the income of the deceased from doing the highly skilled work of carpenter and running shop can be taken as Rs. 800/- per day instead of Rs. 1,000/- as taken by the Tribunal. If the deceased was doing the work of carpenter only, his income could not have been taken as Rs. 800/- per day. 22. In the cross examination of PW-3 Kaushalaya Devi, the suggestion was put by the counsel representing the appellant-insurance company that the income of deceased was Rs. 250/-, which has been denied and the suggestion given that the deceased was not earning Rs. 35,000/- per month has also been denied. No doubt there is no documentary evidence available on record, but once it has been proved that the deceased was doing the work of carpenter and further running a shop, which fact has not been disproved by the appellant-insurance company, this Court is of the considered view that the income of the deceased can be taken as Rs. 800/- per day and Rs. 24,000/- per month by doing the work of carpenter and running a shop. If the deceased was simply doing the work of carpenter, his income would have been less, but since he was working as carpenter and running a shop as evident from the statement of PW-2 Som Nath, the income of the deceased is taken as Rs. 800/- per day and Rs. 24,000/- per month. 23. The Tribunal while computing the compensation has deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased noticing the judgment of the Hon’ble Court in Sarla Verma (SMT) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , but if the said judgment is perused, it has clearly been held that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be 1/4th, where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- 30.Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- 30.Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having a considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six. 24. A perusal of the above pronouncement clearly shows that where the claimants are 4 to 6, the deduction towards personal expenses would be only 1/4th and in the present case, the claimants were four in numbers, when the claim petition was filed. Thus, the Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased, whereas it ought to have been 1/4th. The Tribunal below has also erred while adding 15% of the monthly income of deceased, whereas it ought to have been 10% since the deceased was self-employed and between the age group of 50-60 years in view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others , (2017) 16 SCC 680 . The relevant para of the judgment is quoted hereinbelow:- 59.4. In case the deceased was self-emploved or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. 25. Further the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- consortium to the wife of the deceased and Rs. 50,000/- to the son as loss of love and affection. Similarly, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been awarded in favour of the parents under the head of “loss of love and affection”. 26. 25. Further the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- consortium to the wife of the deceased and Rs. 50,000/- to the son as loss of love and affection. Similarly, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been awarded in favour of the parents under the head of “loss of love and affection”. 26. As per the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others , (2018) 18 SCC 130 , the spouse, children and parents are entitled to consortium. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) has held that Rs. 40,000/- has to be awarded towards consortium and after every three years, the amount should be enhanced at the rate of 10%. Since the judgment has been pronounced in the year 2017, the claimants are held entitled to Rs. 50,000/- each on account of spousal consortium, parental consortium and filial consortium. 27. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses, whereas as per the dictum of the Constitution Bench judgment in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), the amount has been assessed as Rs. 15,000/- in the year 2017. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of estate, whereas as per the judgment in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), the claimants ought to have been awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate. Since the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) has directed that the amount of compensation awarded under the conventional heads should be increased at the rate of 10% in every three years, the claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs. 20,000/- each on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses. 28. Learned counsel has also argued that the interest awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 9% is on the higher side. However, the said contention raised by the learned senior counsel is rejected on the ground that the three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sube Singh and another vs. Shuam Singh (Dead) and others, (2018) 3 SCC 18 , had enhanced interest awarded at the rate 6% per annum by the Tribunal to 9% per annum on the compensation amount. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment in Jagdish vs. Mohan and others , (2018) 4 SCC 571 , which is again is by a three-Judge Bench had enhanced the rate of interest from 7.5% to 9% on the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. Similarly, in Nutan Rani and another vs. Gurmail Singh & others, (2018) 17 SCC 109 , the three-Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court has awarded interest @ 9% per annum on the compensation amount. The aforementioned dicta are binding on this court and, thus, the interest awarded by the Tribunal does not require any interference. 29. Keeping in view the above observation and findings, the claimants are held entitled to the compensation amount as determined below:- Item Description Amount (Rs.) 1. Monthly wages/salary Rs. 800/- per day X 30 days = Rs. 24,000/- 2. Addition towards future prospects (10% of monthly wages/salary) Rs. 24,000/- x 10%= Rs. 2400/- ( Rs. 24,000/- + Rs. 2400/- = Rs. 26,400/- monthly income) 3. Deduction (1/4th monthly income) Rs. 26,400 - Rs. 6600 = Rs. 19,800/- 4. Annual loss of dependency Rs. 19,800 x 12 = Rs. 2,37,600/- 5. Multiplier 11 Rs. 2,37,600 x 11 = Rs. 26,13,600/- 6. Loss of estate Rs. 20,000/- 7. Loss of consortium (Spousal (wife), Parental (son) and Filial (mother and father) consortium each Rs. 50,000/-) Rs. 2,00,000/- 8. Funeral charges Rs. 20,000/- Total Amount of Compensation 28,53,600/- 30. No other points have been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 31. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant-insurance company is partly allowed and the award dated 08.06.2015 passed by the Tribunal is modified and the claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs. 28,53,600/- instead of Rs. 33,11,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal along with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization. However, the order of Tribunal regarding apportionment is maintained. The pending miscellaneous applications, if any also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.