ALOK KUMAR BASU, J. ( 1 ) ONE Renu Rampuria forself and on behalf of her son and daughter filed claim application being registered as M. A. C. C. No. 50 of 2003 over death of her husband in an accident taken place on 27th September, 2002 at 12. 45 p. m. involving a mini bus bearing registration No. W. B. 11-3481. In her claim petition Renu Rampuria alleged that her husband was knocked down by the offending vehicle driven in a rash and negligent manner in front of premises no. 210 Mahatma Gandhi Road. The claimant lodged a claim for Rs. 27,05,000/- to compensate the pecuniary loss caused by the sudden death of the victim who was aged 42 years at the time of accident and who was earning Rs. 14,000/- Rs. 15,000/- per month from his business. ( 2 ) THE claim application finally came up for consideration before the learned Jud ge of 9th Bench of the City Civil Court where the oriental Insurance Company contested the claim application. ( 3 ) THE learned Judge, on examination of the claim application along with written objection filed against it by the contesting insurance company and after considering both oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, finally directed the insurance company to pay a total amount of rs. 13,05,759/- after deducting the amount of Rs. 50,000/- already paid by the insurance company under Section 140 of the M. V. Act to Renu Rampuria and her three children in equal share. ( 4 ) THE Oriental Insurance Company being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the learned Judge preferred this miscellaneous appeal being 614 of 2006 and, at the same time, Renu Rampuria along with her children preferred a cross objection against the order of the learned Judge being c. O. T. No. 2726 of 2006 challenging the award being insufficient and not commensurate with the loss suffered by them due to accidental death of the victim. ( 5 ) BY an order of this Court both the miscellaneous appeals and the cross-objection have been taken up together for disposal after hearing the learned Advocate of the respective parties. It is pertinent to mention here that mother of the victim smt. Kesari Devi Rampuria has been subsequently added as a claimant by an order of this High Court without any objection from either side. It is pertinent to mention here that mother of the victim smt. Kesari Devi Rampuria has been subsequently added as a claimant by an order of this High Court without any objection from either side. ( 6 ) AT the time of hearing of both the appeal and the cross-objection, the learned advocate appearing or the insurance company and in support of the appeal being f. M. A. 614 of 2006 submits before us that from the statement of facts as incorporated in the claim application filed under section 166 of the M. V. Act it was very much clear that two vehicles were involved and it has also come out from the cross-examination of P. W. 2, but, the learned Judge did not discuss anything in the judgment impugned in this appeal regarding involvement of the other vehicle and only the vehicle covered under an insurance policy issued from the present appellant was held liable for rash and negligent driving. ( 7 ) THE learned Advocate for the appellant insurance company submits that P. W. 1 claimant herself could not state anything about rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle since she was not present at the place of accident and P. W. 2 only witness examined by the claimant did not utter anything regarding the rash and negligent driving and that being the position of fact and evidence on record, the learned judge was not justified in coming to the conclusion that driver of the mini bus was rash and negligent and was responsible for the accident and for that reason, the insurance company cannot be called upon to pay any compensation. ( 8 ) THE learned Advocate for the appellant insurance company has thereafter challenged the quantum of compensation fixed by the learned Judge. The learned Advocate submits that it has come from the evidence of P. W. 1 herself and also from the evidence of O. P. 2 that after death of her husband claimant became partner of the firm and she has been receiving Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 12,000/- per month as remuneration and the learned Judge of the Claim Tribunal while calculating the compensation amount did not take into consideration this income of the claimant. 10,000/- Rs. 12,000/- per month as remuneration and the learned Judge of the Claim Tribunal while calculating the compensation amount did not take into consideration this income of the claimant. The learned Advocate submits with reference to the ratio of decision rendered in the case of Global Motor Service Ltd and another v. R. M. K. Velluswami by the Hon'ble Apex Court and also in the case of Managing Director, t. N. S. T. C. Ltd. v. K. L. Bindu and others respectively that in calculating pecuniary loss to the defendants in a claim case a balance is to be made between the loss to the claimants of the future pecuniary benefit on the one hand and on the other any pecuniary advantage which comes to them by a reason of the death of the victim and naturally, in this case when from evidence on record it was satisfactorily proved that claimant after death of her husband became a partner in his place and received a considerable amount of monthly income, that income must be taken into consideration while calculating the compensation amount and it would appear after considering the pecuniary advantage accrued to the claimant since the death of her husband, nothing is payable to her and her children on account of accidental death of her husband. ( 9 ) LEARNED Advocate for the appellant-insurance company, therefore, submits that when there was no evidence to support the allegation that the offending vehicle was rash and negligent and when the Tribunal erred in law in not taking into consideration the pecuniary gain accrued to the claimant after death of the victim, the judgment and order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained either in fact or in law. ( 10 ) THE learned Advocate representing the claimant respondents while refuting the submissions of the learned Advocate for the appellant insurance company submits before us that P. W. 2 in his cross-examination has clearly stated that the offending vehicle at a high speed and in a dangerous manner while trying to overtake another mini bus knocked down the victim and this was sufficient to support the allegation that the offending vehicle was driven in a most rash and negligent manner and it was solely responsible for the accidental death of the victim. The learned Advocate for the respondents submits that this statement of p. W. 2 was not challenged in any manner by the insurance company during trial before the learned Tribunal and naturally, after considering the evidence on record along with F. I. R. and post mortem report of the victim, the Tribunal rightly concluded that the offending vehicle was rash and negligent and that was the cause of the accident and death of the victim. ( 11 ) THE learned Advocate for the respondents submits that in the case of Helen @ Rebelo (Mrs.) and others v. Maharashtra State road Transport Corporation and another and also in the case of Smt. Mausumi Hasda and others v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others the point raised by the appellant insurance company was sufficiently answered and in view of the ratio of decision rendered in those two cases, the calculation of the learned tribunal cannot be called in question either in fact or in law. ( 12 ) THE learned Advocate for the respondents insupport of the cross-objection contends that the claimants deposed before the Tribunal that monthly income of the victim was amount Rs. 14,000/- to 15,000/-and on that calculation the annual income of the victim would be Rs. 1,68,000/- per year and the Tribunal without any valid reason did not accept this calculation and relying on the income tax return of the victim, the Tribunal wrongly calculated the compensation amount payable by the insurance company and, that apart, the tribunal also did not consider the statutory provisions regarding payment of interest as contained in Section 171 of the M. V. Act and hence, the compensation awarded by the tribunal must be enhanced. ( 13 ) WE have considered all the decisions referred to by the learned Advocate of both the sides in connection with the appeal as well as the cross-objection. From the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal and also after hearing submissions of the learned Advocate of both the sides we find that P. W. 2 in a most assertive manner deposed regarding rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and over this point there was practically no challenge from the insurance company during trial and, that apart, insurance company did not produce any evidence to prove otherwise. Naturally, having regard to the fact and evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the offending vehicle was responsible for the accidental death of the victim and we do not find any material on record to differ from this finding. ( 14 ) AFTER considering the grounds of the appeal as well as the grounds taken in cross-objection, we find that quantum of compensation is the main dispute and in this regard after hearing submissions of both the sides we find that there is practically no dispute regarding 15 as the multiplier in the case of calculation of the compensation amount when undisputedly the victim was in the age group of 40 to 50 a t the time of the accident. ( 15 ) THE real controversy centers round the quantum of income against which the multiplier 15 is to be applied. The Tribunal relying on the income tax return of the victim at the relevant period considered rs. 1,34,630/- as the income of the victim per annum and applying the multiplier 15 and after deducting 1/3 of the total income as the personal expenses of the victim the Tribunal determined the compensation amount payable by the insurance company. ( 16 ) THE learned advocate for the appellant both during his submissions as well as taking inspiration from the ground of appeal confines his argument on the point that the income of wife of the victim being partner of the firm after the death of the victim should have been taken into consideration and should have been deducted from the total income of the victim taken as the basis of calculating compensation amount and, that apart the Tribunal was not justified accepting rs. 1,34,630/- as the total income, because, the income shown in the income tax return under the head income from other sources should have been deducted from the total income. 1,34,630/- as the total income, because, the income shown in the income tax return under the head income from other sources should have been deducted from the total income. The learned Advocate for the claimants, on the other hand, relying on the ratio of decisions of both the Hon'ble Supreme court as well as of this High Court tried to convince us that in a claim case arising out the motor accident where the only earning member of the family lost his life and when he was only at the age of 42, taking into account the future prospect of the victim of the accident and its probable consequences upon the members of his family, even if any pecuniary gain accrues to the family members that cannot be taken into consideration while calculating the pecuniary lose suffered by the family due to sudden death of the earning member who had a bright prospect both for himself and for the family. ( 17 ) AFTER taking into consideration the decisions relevant on the issue and cited by the Bar, we are of the clear opinion that when the victim was undisputedly 42 years old and when he had further prospect of earning for his family, in the fact and circumstances of the present case, the learned Tribunal did not commit any error in not taking into consideration the income earned by his wife being partner of the firm. Now, regarding computation of the annual income of the victim we find on careful consideration of the income tax return that the total income of the victim should be Rs. 1,17,545/- and not rs. 1,34,630/-, because, income from other sources which was to the tune of Rs. 48,562/-must be deducted from the total income of the victim, because, that income continued to exist even after death of the victim. We have carefully considered submissions of the learned Advocate for the respondents and we do not accept his contention that income of the victim should have been accepted as Rs. 48,562/-must be deducted from the total income of the victim, because, that income continued to exist even after death of the victim. We have carefully considered submissions of the learned Advocate for the respondents and we do not accept his contention that income of the victim should have been accepted as Rs. 1,68,000/- relying on the oral deposition of the wife of the victim, because, when documentary evidence in the form of income tax return was produced before the learned Tribunal, real testimony of wife of the victim cannot have any importance, ( 18 ) WE have already stated that there is no doubt regarding application of 15 as the multiplier in calculating the compensation amount and when we find from record that rs. 1,17,545/- (i. e. Rs. 89,064/- income from business plus Rs. 28,481 /- income exempted from tax) should be the annual income of the victim, after deducting 1/3 of the amount as provided in the statute we find that total compensation payable by the insurance company would be Rs. 11,75,460/- plus rs. 9,500/- minus Rs. 50,000/- which has already been paid by the insurance company under Section 140 of the M. V. Act. ( 19 ) WE find from the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal that learned Tribunal did not consider at all the question of payment of interest as provided in Section 171 of the m. V. Act and, therefore, we direct the O. P. insurance company to pay interest @ 8% (simple) on the total compensation amount from the date of filing of the application under Section 166 of the M. V. Act till the compensation amount is deposited either before the learned Tribunal or with the learned Registrar General of this High Court. ( 20 ) THUS, after hearing submissions of both the sides we hold that O. P. insurance company shall pay a total sum of rs. 11,34,960/- along with6% simple interest from the date of filing of the application upto the date of this order amounting to rs. 3,00,722/- to five claimants in all including mother of the victim who was added during pendency of the appeal and the cross-objection. ( 21 ) IN the light of our above discussion, we allow F. M. A. 614 of 2006 and C. O. T. 2706 of 2006 in part without any order as to costs to either side. 3,00,722/- to five claimants in all including mother of the victim who was added during pendency of the appeal and the cross-objection. ( 21 ) IN the light of our above discussion, we allow F. M. A. 614 of 2006 and C. O. T. 2706 of 2006 in part without any order as to costs to either side. The impugned order, thus, stands modified to the above extent. ( 22 ) WE find from record that insurance company already deposited the entire amount as determined by the Tribunal with the learned Registrar General of this Court and now in view of our present order, the claimants shall be entitled to withdraw the amount now fixed by us out of the said deposit in equal share for each for the claimants including mother of the victim from the office of the learned Registrar general and the insurance company shall be at liberty to withdraw the balance amount already deposited in excess of the claim amount now determined by us. ( 23 ) IN the event, the deposited amount together with the accumulated interest thereon, is found to be insufficient to satisfy the claim of the claimants, as per our order as above, then the insurance company shall pay the balance interest amount through account payee cheque in the name of smt. Renu Rampuria before the learned tribunal within two months from this order and the learned Tribunal on proper identification of Smt. Renu Rampuria by her learned Advocate shall disburse the amount to her. Smt. Renu Rampuria shall distribute the interest amount equally among all the claimants including herself and mother of the victim. Let the L. C. R. be forwarded forthwith to the learned Tribunal for information and necessary compliance. Prayer of stay of this order is considered and rejected. - .