JUDGEMENT : SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J. Heard learned counsel Mr. P. Hazarika for the Insurance Company/appellant and learned counsel Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury for the respondents No. 1 to 4. 2. Respondents No. 1. Ms. Sufiya Khatun, 2. Sri Shahil Akhtar, 3. Ms. Salma Parveen and 4. Sri Shahanur Islam, were the claimants in the MAC Case No. 380/2013. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant laid stress in his argument that the Insurance Company is basically aggrieved by the quantum awarded vide judgment and order dated 16.12.2016 in connection with MAC Case No. 380/2013. It is submitted that a wrong multiplier was taken up while calculating the loss of dependency. The deceased was more than 55 (Fifty Five) years and the multiplier ought to have been 9 instead of 11. 4. The date of birth of the deceased was 01.04.1955 and he was 55 years 3 months 27 days of age when he passed away as a result of the accident. To substantiate his grievance, learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others-Versus- Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 wherein it has been held that :- "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, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), 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." 5. The other ground of contention is that the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle was not genuine. 6. It is submitted that the evidence of DW-2, Sri Vivekananda Dev Goswami, who was serving as a Junior Assistant at the office of the DTO, Nalbari, reveals that he has produced the relevant register book. The other ground of contention is that the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle was not genuine. 6. It is submitted that the evidence of DW-2, Sri Vivekananda Dev Goswami, who was serving as a Junior Assistant at the office of the DTO, Nalbari, reveals that he has produced the relevant register book. He has proved Exhibit-A1 as the M.V.I. report, issued by the office of the DTO, Nalbari and he has proved Exhibit-A1 (1) as the signature of the M.V.I., Nalbari, Sri Rajendra Kr. Dutta, as he is acquainted with the signature as both are co-workers. He has further deposed that as per the register of license, the number mentioned as 363/NB/04 is not to be found in the register in the year 2004 and thus, no driving license bearing No. 363/NB/04 was issued in the year 2004. 7. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that this proves that the driving license was not a genuine license and not the Insurer, but the owner is responsible and liable to pay the compensation as a result of the accident. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the Tribunal has overlooked the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) wherein it has been laid down that there should be no addition as future prospects of income when the age of deceased is 50 (Fifty) years. 8. In Rajesh-versus-Rajbir Singh & others reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 , the Supreme Court has held that the said principle in Sarla Verma's case has been laid in the case of salaried person and having regard to the fact that in the case of those self- employed or fixed wages, where there is normally no age of superannuation, it will only be just and equitable to provide an addition of 15% when the victim is between the age group of 50 to 60 years so as to make the compensation just, equitable, fair and reasonable and there shall normally be no addition thereafter. 9. 9. It is further submitted that in the instant case, the deceased was a Government servant working as an Assistant Teacher and from the proposition laid down in Sarla Verma's case and Rajesh-versus-Rajbir Singh's case, it is a settled principle of law that if the victim is more than 50 (Fifty) years of age and a Government servant, there will be no addition as future earning prospects. 10. It is thus contended that the Tribunal has erroneously added 15% as future prospects to the victim who was more than 50 (Fifty) years of age and was a Government servant. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied on the decision of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.-Versus- Champabati Ray reported in (2019) 0 Supreme (Gau) 896 wherein it has been held that :- "21. Another ground of challenge to the impugned judgment is that the learned Tribunal had awarded interest on future prospects, which could not be done. In the case of Khusboo Chirania @ Kanta Chirania v. Kamal Kumar Sovasaria, (2018) 0 Supreme (Gau) 966 and in the case of Nasima Begum v. Keramat Ali, (2019) 0 Supreme (Gau) 507, this Court has stated no interest on future prospects should be given. Though no reasons have been enunciated in the above judgments, the reason for the same seems to be due to the fact that future prospects is relatable to an income to be received in the future and as such, there could not be any loss to the claimants for the payment of future prospects, at the time the deceased met with the accident. The reason for awarding interest on the compensation amount, minus the future prospects is due to the fact that though the loss of dependency starts from the date of the accident and the compensation amount is computed on the date of the Award of the Tribunal, interest is awarded to compensate the loss of money value on account of lapse of time, such as time taken for the legal proceedings and for the denial of right to utilize the money when due. However, future prospects is with regard to the probable income to be received in the future and as such there is no requirement to compensate the claimant by way of future interest, for the loss that is to occur in the future, as the future is yet to happen. However, future prospects is with regard to the probable income to be received in the future and as such there is no requirement to compensate the claimant by way of future interest, for the loss that is to occur in the future, as the future is yet to happen. Further, future prospects is given for the entire future and as such, the claimant is getting compensation in a lumpsum under future prospects prior to the occurrence of future event/s. Thus, with regard to future prospects, this Court is also of the view that there cannot be any interest on future prospects, as the same relates to an income to be given in the future." 12. Moreover, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that contrary to the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents for enhancement of compensation, no order of enhancement can be passed as this is not an appeal for enhancement. 13. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited- Versus-Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , which is a decision of Constitution Bench, has affirmed paragraph 43.1 of Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan reported in (2013) 9 SCC 65 , by holding that :- "43.1. In the applications for compensation made under Section 166 of the 1988 Act in death cases where the age of the deceased is 15 years and above, the Claims Tribunals shall select the multiplier as indicated in Column (4) of the Table prepared in Sarla Verma read with para 42 of that judgment." "41. On a perusal of the analysis made in Sarla Verma which has been reconsidered in Reshma Kumari, we think it appropriate to state that as far as the guidance provided for appropriate deduction for personal and living expenses is concerned, the tribunals and courts should be guided by Conclusion 43.6 of Reshma Kumari. We concur with the same as we have no hesitation in approving the method provided therein." 14. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions at the bar. 15. The points for determination in this case are as follows :- (i) Whether the quantum of compensation was wrongly calculated by using wrong multiplier? (ii) Whether interest of future prospects was wrongly calculated? 16. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions at the bar. 15. The points for determination in this case are as follows :- (i) Whether the quantum of compensation was wrongly calculated by using wrong multiplier? (ii) Whether interest of future prospects was wrongly calculated? 16. To decide this case in its proper prospective, it would be necessary to advert to the decision of the learned Tribunal and also to re-appreciate the evidence. 17. The genesis of the case was that on 28.07.2013, the victim namely Saiful Islam, proceeded on his bicycle through National Highway No. 31. Suddenly, at about 12:00 Noon, a vehicle bearing registration No. AS-13/C-1658 (207 DI) knocked down the victim from the back side. The vehicle was driven speedily in a rash and negligent manner and this resulted in grave injuries sustained by the victim and he was immediately shifted to F.A.A. Medical College & Hospital, Barpeta. As the condition of the victim was deteriorating, he was forwarded to Gauhati Medical College and Hospital, but unfortunately, the victim succumbed to his injuries on his way. Postmortem was performed at Gauhati Medical College and Hospital and a Howly Police Station Case No. 430/2013 under Sections 279/338/304(A) of IPC, was registered. 18. After the deceased passed away, the claim petition was filed and registered as MAC Case No. 380/2013. The opposite party No. 1 is the Insurer of the vehicle which is a TATA 207 DI Half Body. 19. The Insurer arrayed as opposite party No. 1 in MAC Case No. 380/2013, filed written statement and stated that all the allegations are false and the claim petition is not maintainable either in law or in facts. The Insurer has further questioned the validity of the driving license of the driver of the vehicle (hereinafter referred as the offending vehicle). 20. It was further submitted that the offending vehicle was not insured by the Insurance Company and thus, the Insurer is not liable to exonerate the owner of the vehicle. It was further contended by the Insurer that the amount of compensation claimed was excessive and exorbitant. The rash and negligent driving of the vehicle was however denied by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. 21. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle were arrayed as opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 in MAC Case No. 380/2013. It was further contended by the Insurer that the amount of compensation claimed was excessive and exorbitant. The rash and negligent driving of the vehicle was however denied by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. 21. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle were arrayed as opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 in MAC Case No. 380/2013. They contested the proceeding and filed a joint written statement, denying the allegation of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. The driver has affirmed that he was carrying a valid driving license being D/L No. 363/NB/04 which was valid upto 13.03.2016. 22. It was further submitted that at the time of the accident, the vehicle was duly insured by the Insurer, namely, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited vide Policy OG/14/2405/1803/00000734, which was valid from 22.06.2013 to midnight of 21.06.2014. Thus, both the owner and the driver could be absolved of any liability of payment of compensation. 23. The learned Tribunal framed issues and after elaborate discussions on all the issues, it was held by the learned Tribunal that the Insurer may make the payment of Rs.28,65,160/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs Sixty Five Thousand One Hundred and Sixty) with interest @7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realization. The Insurer was granted a liberty to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle in accordance with law. 24. The claimant No. 1 through her evidence as CW-1 and through her petition, has deposed that her husband Saiful Islam had proceeded on a bicycle through National Highway No. 31 at Barpeta, Howly, on 28.07.2013 at about 12:00 noon, when suddenly the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, driven with excessive speed, mowed down her husband from behind. 25. The deceased who sustained grievous injuries, was immediately shifted to F.A.A. Medical College & Hospital, Barpeta and thereafter due to his serious injuries, he was referred to Gauhati Medical College & Hospital. Unfortunately, the deceased succumbed to his injuries on his way. 26. The claimant’s, CW-1's evidence and petition reveals that Howly Police Station Case No. 460/13 was registered under Sections 279/338/304(A) of the IPC. This CW-1 has also exhibited the charge sheet. Thus, considering the preponderance of probability, it can be held that the driver of the offending vehicle was at fault, moreso, when the eye witness, PW-2 Md. 26. The claimant’s, CW-1's evidence and petition reveals that Howly Police Station Case No. 460/13 was registered under Sections 279/338/304(A) of the IPC. This CW-1 has also exhibited the charge sheet. Thus, considering the preponderance of probability, it can be held that the driver of the offending vehicle was at fault, moreso, when the eye witness, PW-2 Md. Nurul Islam, has stated through his evidence that he witnessed the accident. He has stated through his evidence-in-chief that on 28.07.2013 at about 12:00 noon, while he was proceeding from Howly to Kalijhar as pillion rider of a motorcycle by the National Highway, he witnessed the accident near the Nath Hotel at Howly, as the deceased victim was just in front of their motorcycle and he was riding his bicycle. Suddenly, the offending vehicle knocked down the deceased from backside and the vehicle was driven with high speed in a rash and negligent manner. 27. Thus, the averments of the driver through the written statement that the driver was not driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, cannot be accepted at all. The opposite party could not rebut the evidence of this eye witness through rigorous cross-examination. 28. The income of the deceased was proved by the PW-3, Sri Dhajen Sarma, who was the Headmaster of Dhupguri M.V. School. He has deposed that the deceased was an Assistant Teacher. He has marked the certified copy of the service book of the deceased as Exhibit-8. He has identified the signature of Block Elementary Education Officer of Gobardhana as Exhibit-8(i). He has also marked the relevant portion of the acquaintance roll as Exhibit-9 and relevant entry of the acquaintance roll of the deceased as Exhibit-9 (i). He has proved that the net income of the deceased in his lifetime through Exhibit-9 as Rs.22,429/- (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty Nine) per month and gross income as Rs.23,837/- (Twenty Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty Seven) per month. He has also proved the age of the deceased and has stated in his cross-examination that the date of birth of the deceased was 01.04.1958. 29. As the offending vehicle was held liable, the Tribunal awarded the compensation but the validity of the driving license could not be proved by the claimants. 30. He has also proved the age of the deceased and has stated in his cross-examination that the date of birth of the deceased was 01.04.1958. 29. As the offending vehicle was held liable, the Tribunal awarded the compensation but the validity of the driving license could not be proved by the claimants. 30. To substantiate the plea of the opposite party, the Insurance Company adduced the evidence of DW-1, a Legal Executive (Claim) of the Insurance Company and the evidence of DW-2, a Junior Assistant in the office of the DTO. 31. Sri Joshobonto Kotoky stated as DW-1 that he scrutinized the claim petition and then on the investigation conducted by the Investigator, he submitted the report. They engaged investigator namely Sri Anup Das, who obtained a report from the office of the District Transport Office, Nalbari, pertaining to the driving licence being No. 363/NB/04. In response to their application, the District Transport Officer, Nalbari, issued a report on 07.05.2014, which reveals that the DL No. 363/NB/04 was not found in the concerned driving license register and the driver of the offending vehicle Amzad Ali was holding a fake driving licence. 32. This witness was cross-examined in extenso. He has deposed in his cross- examination that he has authorized the Legal Executive of Bajaj Allianz GIC Ltd. The vehicle bearing registration No. AS-13/C-1658, had a valid insurance on 28.07.2013 issued by their company, but the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle was not valid. He has identified the report of the DTO as Exhibit – A1 and the Insurance Policy of the offending vehicle as Exhibit - A2. He has identified the certified copy of the FIR as Exhibit - A3. In his cross- examination, he has also admitted that the DTO's report does not specifically mention that the driving licence was a fake licence. 33. The other witness for Insurer, Sri Vivekanda Dev Goswami, deposed as DW-2 that he has produced the relevant register book. He has proved Exhibit - A1 as the M.V.I. report issued by their office and he has identified the signature of the M.V.I., Nalbari, Sri Rajendra Kr. Dutta, as Exhibit - A1 (1). He has also affirmed that according to the register, no driving licence vide No. 363/NB/04 was issued by their office at Nalbari. He has proved Exhibit - A1 as the M.V.I. report issued by their office and he has identified the signature of the M.V.I., Nalbari, Sri Rajendra Kr. Dutta, as Exhibit - A1 (1). He has also affirmed that according to the register, no driving licence vide No. 363/NB/04 was issued by their office at Nalbari. Thus, it has been proved that the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was not issued by the DTO, Nalbari. 34. On cross-examination of DW-1, the claimants failed to rebut or negate the assertion of DW1 that the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was not issued by the office of the DTO, Nalbari. DW-2 was not cross-examined. 35. After considering the arguments and in the wake of the foregoing discussions, the sole grievance of the appellant appears to be the quantum of compensation. The claimants are also not aggrieved by the order of pay and recovery. 36. The owner and the driver of the offending vehicle were arrayed as respondents No. 5 and 6, but they failed to appear and place their submissions. As the respondents No. 5 and 6 have failed to appear and as both the parties are aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, directing the Insurer to pay the compensation and to recover the same from the owner as per due procedure of law, the issue narrows down only to the submissions of the parties relating to the quantum of compensation, and interests on future prospects. 37. The decision would be limited to the quantum of compensation and the multiplier used, as it has been correctly held by the learned Tribunal after assessing the evidence of the respondents that the driving licence of the driver was not a genuine licence. The other issue is the interest on future prospects. This has not been rebutted by the claimants. 38. The Tribunal directed the Insurer to pay the compensation and recover the same, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. The other issue is the interest on future prospects. This has not been rebutted by the claimants. 38. The Tribunal directed the Insurer to pay the compensation and recover the same, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Swaran Singh & ors reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 wherein it has been held that in the event of an accident of a person having driving licence, the tribunal ought to have fixed the liability on the basis of the driving licence and the Insurance Company cannot shirk the liability by saying that the driving licence was not valid or a fake. In the aforesaid case, reference of a case, Geeta Bhat (Chopra) was taken, where observation has been made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that while directing the Insurance Company to pay the awarded amount granted liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in an appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. As such, in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned Tribunal directed the Insurer to pay the compensation of Rs.28,65,160/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Thousand Sixty Five Thousand One Hundred and Sixty) with interest of 7% per annum. The Insurance Company was granted a liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in accordance with law. 39. Now, relating to the quantum of compensation, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) where the operative multiplier for the age group between 51-55 years is fixed at 11, and the multiplier for the age group above 55 years is fixed at 9. 40. Learned counsel for the respondents has raised serious objection and has submitted that the multiplier 9 is for the age group for 56-60 years and is not applicable while calculating the loss of dependency. In this case the deceased was in the age group of 51-55 years and not the age group as 56-60 years. I find force in the argument of learned counsel for the claimants/respondents. The multiplier was correctly taken up while computing the loss of dependency. The multiplier is to be taken when the deceased or the victim falls within the range of 56-60 years and not in the age group of 51-55 years. I find force in the argument of learned counsel for the claimants/respondents. The multiplier was correctly taken up while computing the loss of dependency. The multiplier is to be taken when the deceased or the victim falls within the range of 56-60 years and not in the age group of 51-55 years. There was no error while taking up the multiplier as 11 while calculating the loss of dependency. 41. However, the appellant is aggrieved by the future prospects added to the quantum of compensation. It is contended that 15% has been erroneously added as interest of future prospects to the victim who was more than 50 years of age and was a Government servant. 42. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision of this Court in Champabati Ray (supra) and has submitted that this Court has observed that with regard to future prospects, the Court was of the view that there cannot be any interest on future prospects as the same relates to an income to be given in the future. 43. I have carefully scrutinized the decision of the Tribunal. Indeed 15% has been added as compensation for loss of future prospects and after calculating the entire loss of dependency, after adding 15% as future prospects, interest has thus been added to the compensation awarded. 44. I have also relied on the decision of this Court in Champabati Ray (supra) and it is thereby held that the interest of 7% is to be added to the awarded compensation minus 15% of the income added as future prospects. 45. Appeal is partly allowed with a direction not to add interests on future prospects. 46. In terms of the above observation, appeal is partly allowed. 47. Send back the records of the Tribunal.