Before Pratap Kumar Ray And Arunabha Basu, JJ. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. ( 2 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the dependents of the victim who has died in a motor accident assailing the judgment and order dated 28th august, 2002 passed in M. A. C. Case No. 33 of 2001 by the learned Judge, m. A. C. Tribunal, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur. ( 3 ) IN the appeal a very short point has been raised about the justification of the finding of the learned Tribunal below so far as the fixation of the notional income when admittedly in evidence there is an oral deposition by the mother of the victim about the income and admittedly a document was produced but not exhibited being the income certificate issued by the Upo-Pradhan of the concerned area and furthermore when there was no challenge by the Insurance company about the avocation of the deceased. The Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal below also did not pray leave to urge all points as available to the owner of the vehicle in terms of section 170 of the said Act and as such, the right of Insurance Company to defend got a contour of statutory limitation in terms of Section 149 (2) of the said Act which does not extend to the issue of monthly income, age factor etc. The appellants have also taken a point to assail this judgment under appeal that interest from the date of filing of the claim application also was not allowed and no interest was allowed save and except an interest under default clause of payment of the awarded money. It has been accordingly urged even the statutory provision of Section 171 was not at all considered by the learned Tribunal below which provides a duty upon the Tribunal to consider the matter for the ends of justice regarding awarding of interest where the claim application was allowed. The learned Advocate appearing for the Insurance Company however alike the defence as taken before the learned Tribunal below has taken a defence herein also to assail the income matter. The learned Advocate appearing for the Insurance Company however alike the defence as taken before the learned Tribunal below has taken a defence herein also to assail the income matter. We cannot accept the opposition as made by the learned Advocate for the Insurance Company for two reasons namely, (1) A statutory embargo to take such defence in terms of Section 170 read with Section 149 (2) of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in absence of any leave granted by the learned Tribunal below. (2) Even on merit of the matter which is now discussed below. ( 4 ) IN the oral evidence the mother of the victim deposed that the income of the son who breathed last due to accident was Rs. 3,000/- per month being a Goldsmith. The avocation of the victim was not challenged by the Insurance company. Hence, it was proved that the victim was Goldsmith. Even if there is no corroboration of oral evidence but to reach a just compensation under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act,, it is required to assess the income on the basis of avocation of the victim. A Goldsmith surely would earn Rs. 1oo/- per day and the figure accordingly reached to Rs. 3000/- per month. Furthermore, the oral deposition of the mother so far as the income of the deceased concerned faced the cross-examination. She stood firmly with reference to her statement. From the lower Court record it appears that a certificate of Upo-Pradhan of the concerned area was filed certifying the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/-per month. In the oral deposition the mother had referred this certificate in the cross-examination when asked for, but unfortunately it was not exhibited. Even if it is not exhibited, following the strict law of evidence on examining the author of the document who issued it, still doctrine of preponderance of probability have full applicability so far as the motor accident claim cases are concerned where strict proof is not the demand of legislature, but only a probability will suffice to identify the issue to reach the just compensation under Section 168 of the said Act being tuned with social welfare object to render social justice following the paramount consideration of the Constitution of India. Hence, this court is of the view that the finding of the learned Tribunal below that in absence of any documentary evidence about the income, notional income basis to be followed is absolutely a perverse finding as there is enough materials on record namely, the oral evidence being unchallenged that the income of the victim was Rs. 3000/ -. Furthermore, from the avocation of the victim who was a goldsmith which was also not challenged, this Court has no difficulty to consider the income as Rs. 100/- per day which is tallying with the oral evidence. Even exhibited document of income supports the said figure. ( 5 ) HAVING regard to such, we conclude that income of the victim was rs. 3,000/- per month at the material time. So far as the rash and negligent driving of vehicle is concerned it has been proved and there is a finding to that effect. Furthermore, the age of the victim having been considered on the basis of the documentary evidence namely, post mortem report, no dispute could be raised about such finding. The learned tribunal below further committed a gross mistake by not adheringto the statutory provision of Section 171 which mandates the Court and/or learned Tribunal below to decide the issue of interest in the event any compensation is awarded. When under a statutory provision the consideration of the interest on compensation amount has been provided, the true meaning of statutory provision should be implemented by the Court, It is a settled law now by the several judgments of the Apex Court that the interest is payable in the event any claim application is allowed with effect from the date of filing such claim application. Reliance may be placed to the judgments in the cases Abati Bezbaruah v. Deputy Director general, reported in (2003)12 WBLR (SC) 331, United India Insurance-Co. Ld. v. Patrica Jean Mahajan, reported in (2002)2 WBLR (SC) 335 and Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , reported in (2001)2 SCC 9 : 2001 WBLR (SC) 207 and it is also a settled law that the interest amount to be considered having regard to the norms of the reserve Bank of India at the relevant time that is the date wherefrom the interest amount to be calculated. Ltd. , reported in (2001)2 SCC 9 : 2001 WBLR (SC) 207 and it is also a settled law that the interest amount to be considered having regard to the norms of the reserve Bank of India at the relevant time that is the date wherefrom the interest amount to be calculated. ( 6 ) HERE in the instant case, the accident occurred on 4th January, 2001 and the claim application was filed on 22nd February, 2001. Hence, this court is of the positive conclusion that interest in terms of Section 171 of the said Act is payable from the date of filing application at the prevalent rate of interest approved by the Reserve Bank of India which to be incicated hereinbelow later on. Now only work left out before this Court is to fix the quantum of the compensation. The age has been accepted as of 16 years to 17 years by the learned Tribunal below and as per the mother's deposition the age was 19 years. Even if the age was within the range of 16 to 19 years, then as per structured formula which is a safer formula to be considered by the Court as stipulated under Section 163a of the said Act even in the cases under Section 166 of the said Act in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case Abati bezbarua (supra) and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), the multiplicand would be 16. The monthly income having been determined by this Court as Rs. 3,000/- per month hence yearly income should be considered as 36,000/ -. A deduction of 1/3rd is permissible on account of expected expenditure of the deceased in terms of Second Schedule of Section 163a. Hence, total quantum to be identified by multiplying Rs. 24,000/- by the multiplicand 16 which reaches to the figure of Rs. 3,84,000/ -. Along with that as per Section 163a the general damage for funeral expenses and loss of estate being total Rs. 4,500/- would be available to the claimants. Hence, it is ordered by modifying the award that the claimants became entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,84,000/- +rs. 4,500/- = Rs. 3,84,000/ -. Along with that as per Section 163a the general damage for funeral expenses and loss of estate being total Rs. 4,500/- would be available to the claimants. Hence, it is ordered by modifying the award that the claimants became entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,84,000/- +rs. 4,500/- = Rs. 3,88,500/- along with the interest @ 10% per annum which was the Bank interest on fixed deposit at the relevant time with effect from the date of filing of such application on the said amount of compansation namely, with effect from 22nd February, 2001. In terms of the impugned judgment and order under appeal awarded the amount has already been paid, hence the said amount to be deduced from the total amount as already quantified by us from the total compensation amount as to be reached by adding aompensation as already allowed with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of application till this date. Such amount to be deposited to the learned Tribunal below by three weeks from this date positively, failing which interest @ 15% (per annum would be payable by the Insurance Company without prejudice to the other legal actions as are available to the claimants. ( 7 ) THE appeal accordingly succeeds in the aforesaid manner. ( 8 ) LET Xerox certificate of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates appearing for the parties expeditiously.