JUDGMENT : SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA, J. 1. Heard Mr. H Das learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. RC Paul, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, Insurance Company. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment & order dated 24.09.2013 in MAC Case No. 73/2007 passed by the learned Member Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Goalpara awarding the compensation to your appellants Rs. 3,80,000/- (Rupees three lakhs eighty thousand) only with 50% interest. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants, as claimants, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Goalpara claiming compensation of Rs. 6 (six) lakhs only along with her 2 (two) sons and 4 (four) daughters on account of the accidental death of her husband/father Late Dinesh Ch. Barman on 12.02.2016 at village Kumurigaon on N.H. 31 caused by a vehicle bearing No. AS-17/7196 (Bus). The said claim petition was registered and numbered as MAC Case No. 73/2007. 4. The claim petition reveals that on 12/02/2006 near Kumurigaon on N.H- 31 the husband/father of the claimants namely Dinesh Ch. Barman (since deceasd) was knocked by a bus bearing registration No. AS-17/1796 (Bus) due to rash and negligent driving, by the driver of the said offending vehicle. The alleged bus was coming from Chapar and going towards Bilashipara. As a result of this accident, the deceased Dinesh Ch. Barman died on the spot. In this regard, Chapar Police Station registered its P.S Case No. 28/2006, u/s 279/304(A) IPC as per FIR (Ect.2), Charge Sheet (EXT.3) and claim petition. 5. The offending vehicle bearing registration No. AS-17/1796 (Bus) was insured with Opp. Party No. 1 i.e. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Bongaigaon Division, Chakpaguri Road, Bongaigaon, vide policy Cover Note No. 123414, valid up to 08/08/06. The Opp. Party No. 2 Sri. Heemanshu Sarkar, S/o Late Hemanta Kr. Sarkar, Vill. North Raypur, P.S Golakganj, Dist. Dhubri (Assam) was owner of the offending vehicle No. AS-17/1796 (Bus) at the time of accident. While the Opp. Party No. 3 Sri. Paresh Das, S/o Lt. Radha Kanta Das, Vill. North Raypur, P.S Golakganj, Dist. Dhubri (Assam) was driver of the said offending vehicle No. AS-17/1796 (Bus) at the time of accident, having D/L being No.4011/Kjr/96, valid up to 04/03/2007. 6. While the Opp. Party No. 3 Sri. Paresh Das, S/o Lt. Radha Kanta Das, Vill. North Raypur, P.S Golakganj, Dist. Dhubri (Assam) was driver of the said offending vehicle No. AS-17/1796 (Bus) at the time of accident, having D/L being No.4011/Kjr/96, valid up to 04/03/2007. 6. On receipt of notice of the aforesaid claim petition , out of the 3 opposite parties only O.P. No. 1 filed their W.S. and contested the proceedings. However, O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 did not participate in the said proceedings in spite of receiving their notices. 7. The learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Goalpara, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed three issues. On behalf of the appellants/claimants, they examined witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. However, no rebuttal evidence was led from the side of the opposite parties. 8. The learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Goalpara, after hearing the parties, delivered the judgment and award on 24.09.2013 in MAC Case No. 73/2007 awarding compensation of Rs. 3,80,000/- only to the claimants/appellants with 5% interest. 9. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order dated 24.09.2013, the appellant also filed a petition on 10.10.2013 under Section 151 and under Order 47 of the C.P.C. for review of the said judgment and order. However, the same was withdrawn vide order dated 24.06.2015 in Misc. (R) Case No. 26/2013 arising out of MAC Case No. 73/2007 passed by the learned Member, MACT, Goalpara. 10. Hence, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 11. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the learned tribunal wrongly held the multiplier as 9 instead of 11, as the deceased was 55 years old at the relevant point of time and also ignored the settled principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. AIR 2009 SC 3104 , in respect of deduction of one third of the monthly income on account of personal expenditure, instead of one fifth of the same, as the deceased had 6 dependents and hence, being more than five dependents, as per the guidelines of Sarla Verma (supra) , the deduction should have been one fifth. 12. AIR 2009 SC 3104 , in respect of deduction of one third of the monthly income on account of personal expenditure, instead of one fifth of the same, as the deceased had 6 dependents and hence, being more than five dependents, as per the guidelines of Sarla Verma (supra) , the deduction should have been one fifth. 12. It is further urged that there were no pleadings or objection from the opposite party before the learned tribunal in respect of the monthly income of the deceased which was Rs. 9,948/-, which was shown through his income certificate and therefore, the learned tribunal ought not to have presumed the monthly income to be Rs. 5,000/- and to make the award on the aforesaid basis. It is further submitted that the final award of Rs. 3,80,000/- is very low and contrary to law and also against the weight of the evidence and probabilities of the case. 13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order, inasmuch as the income certificate claimed to be issued by the Zilla Parishad cannot be regarded as the Gospel truth in the absence of proof. 14. In Sarla Verma (supra), the Apex Court has held that while calculating the compensation, the multiplier to be used should start with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age group of 50 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, i.e. 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, i.e., M-11 for 51-55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66-70 years. 15. In the instant case, the age of the deceased was stated to be about 55 years and the learned tribunal apparently did not dispute and apparently accepted the same and therefore, the proper multiplier that ought to have been applied is 11 as per the decision in Sarla Verma (supra). 16. 15. In the instant case, the age of the deceased was stated to be about 55 years and the learned tribunal apparently did not dispute and apparently accepted the same and therefore, the proper multiplier that ought to have been applied is 11 as per the decision in Sarla Verma (supra). 16. Now, coming to the question of monthly deduction , the proper and appropriate deduction on account of personal expenses, in Sarla Verma (supra) it was held 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. 17. In the instant case, the number of dependents is 7 which has been accepted by the tribunal as is apparent from paragraph 36 of the order of the learned tribunal, wherein the compensation amount of Rs. 3,80,000/- was directed to be apportioned between 7 dependents , who are the wife and children of the deceased. Hence, it is apparent that the deduction should have been taken as one-fifth (1/5th) instead of one-third (1/3rd). 18. This brings us to the question of the income of the deceased. As per the claimant, both in the claim petition as well as in her evidence, she has stated that the deceased used to earn Rs. 9,948/- per month and had submitted and exhibited a salary certificate being Exhibit-5, which shows that the deceased was serving as Tax Collector-cum-Road Moharar of Pukhuripara G,P under the Dhubri Zila Parishad. However, the learned tribunal held that the claimant had failed to prove the salary certificate (Exhibit-5) by calling any competent witness from the office of the Zila Parishad, Dhubri. 19. It was further noticed that the said Exhibit-5 did not bear any official seal nor was it issued on an official pad and it also does not contain the name of the father of the deceased. The learned tribunal also held that the claimant failed to submit any document/material to show that the deceased was working as Tax Collector-cum-Road Moharar of Pukhuripara G.P. under the Dhubri Zila Parishad as claimed and therefore, it would be unsafe to rely upon the purported income of the deceased as shown by the said certificate (Exhibit-5). The learned tribunal also held that the claimant failed to submit any document/material to show that the deceased was working as Tax Collector-cum-Road Moharar of Pukhuripara G.P. under the Dhubri Zila Parishad as claimed and therefore, it would be unsafe to rely upon the purported income of the deceased as shown by the said certificate (Exhibit-5). 20. I have perused the said Exhibit-5 which is on a printed pad of the office of the Zila Parishad, Dhubri and is purportedly signed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Zila Parishad. The Insurance Company in its written statement or during cross-examination of PW-1 who exhibited Ext-5 did not dispute the authenticity of Ext-5 or that the deceased was working as Tax Collector-cum- Road Moharar of Pukhuripara G.P. Therefore, Ext-5 can be treated as an admitted document which can be acted upon. 21. Therefore, the income of the deceased must be taken to be Rs. 9,948/- per month. 22. It is also noticed that the learned tribunal failed to award any sum towards future prospects. In National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 , it was held that the age of the deceased is the basis for applying a suitable multiplier and the compensation is to be determined keeping in view the future prospects and the future prospects were held to be 15% in respect of a deceased between the age of 50 to 60 years. 23. Hence, the claimant would be entitled to be compensated on account of future prospects as well. Notwithstanding presence or absence of any specific prayer or cross-objection by the respondent No. 1 herein, the Tribunal/Court can award compensation, which according to it is just compensation. 24. From various decisions of Honble Supreme Court, it is now well established that the Court has to assess the just compensation, which the claimants are entitled to in Motor Accident Claims cases. Reference in this context can be made to decision of a three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh , (2003) 2 SCC 274 , wherein it has been held that under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as “the MV Act”) there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case, where from the evidence brought on record if the Tribunal/Court considers that the claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. The only embargo is — it should be “just” compensation, that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence. This would be clear by reference to the relevant provisions of the MV Act. 25. Besides, under the conventional heads, a sum of Rs. 40,000/ each with 10% increase in every three years has to be awarded under the head - 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, and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- under head - loss of estate, and the aforesaid amounts should be enhanced by 10% in every 3 years in view of the decision of Honble Supreme Court (Para 59.8) in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). In a recent Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130 and more particularly to paragraph No. 21 and its sub-paragraphs, the Supreme Court had made it clear that the loss of consortium cannot but has also to be extended towards parental consortium and filial consortium. It is to be noted here that after the accident almost 19 years elapsed. That being so, the aforesaid amounts have to be enhanced by six times. 26. In view of the above the calculation after application of the principles laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) and also in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) would be as under:- 27. In the result the appeal stands allowed by modifying the impugned judgment and award dated 24.09.2013 as far as the findings with regard to the calculation under the aforesaid heads is concerned, without disturbing the findings with regard to the issues No. 1 & 3. 28. The appellant herein, i.e. the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, is directed to pay the sum of Rs. 21,93,372/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakh Ninety Three Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Two) only, being the compensation, which according to this Court is just compensation, here in this case. Any amount, if already paid to the claimant has to be deducted from the aforesaid amount. 21,93,372/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakh Ninety Three Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Two) only, being the compensation, which according to this Court is just compensation, here in this case. Any amount, if already paid to the claimant has to be deducted from the aforesaid amount. 29. It is further provided that the entire amount, including the future prospect, shall carry interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing the claim petition, i.e. 15.11.2010, till realization of the amount, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association and Others , (2011) 14 SCC 481 . In the said case, it has been 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 , (2014) C.R. 693 (SC). 30. The interest would also accrue on future prospect in view of the decision of the Honorable Supreme Court in The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Niru @ Niharika & Ors. Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11340/2020 dated July, 14 2025. 31. The appellant shall deposit the aforesaid amount before the learned Tribunal within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment and award. The appellants herein shall obtain a certified copy of this judgment and order and place the same before the respondent/Insurance Company within a period of one week from today. 32. In terms of above, this MAC Appeal stands disposed of. 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.