Judgment : BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. (1) THIS appeal is at the instance of the claimants and is directed against an award dated 8th June, 2005 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims tribunal, South 24-Parganas, in M. A. C. C. No. 145 of 2004, thereby disposing of the application under Section 163a of the Motor Vehicles Act by holding that the appellants are entitled to claim compensation to the extent of Rs. 1,31,900/ -. (2) BEING dissatisfied, the appellants have come up with the present appeal. (3) THERE is no dispute that the victim died of an accident and the vehicle involved was covered by the insurance. According to the appellants, the victim had been earning a sum of Rs. 2,800/- a month and she having died at the age of 31, the appropriate multiplier applicable under the Second Schedule of the Motor vehicles Act should be 17. (4) THE learned Tribunal accepted the case of the appellants that the victim was aged 31 but according to it, the appellants failed to prove that the income of the victim was Rs. 2,800/- a month. The Tribunal, on the basis of evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the victim used to earn Rs. 900/- a month and on that basis, by applying the multiplier of 17, he arrived at the figure of Rs. 1,31,900/-, payable as compensation. (5) BEING dissatisfied, the appellants have come up with the present appeal. (6) MR S. K. Das, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants tried to convince us that the Tribunal below ought to have accepted the case of the appellants that the victim had an income of Rs. 2,800/- a month. We, however, are not impressed by such submission. We find that sufficient materials were not placed before the Tribunal to justify the submission that the victim had such an amount of income. (7) WE, however, find substance in the alternative argument of Mr Das that even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that his clients failed to prove the income of the victim to be Rs. 2,800/- a month, the Tribunal below ought to have applied the notional income prescribed under the Act to the fact of the present case; but at any rate, it could not assess the amount by treating the income to be Rs. 900/- a month. 2,800/- a month, the Tribunal below ought to have applied the notional income prescribed under the Act to the fact of the present case; but at any rate, it could not assess the amount by treating the income to be Rs. 900/- a month. (8) THE application was filed under Section 163a of the Act and therefore, irrespective of the fact whether the victim was negligent or not, the appellants were entitled to get compensation in accordance with the Second Schedule of the act. According to the Second Schedule, even if the victim had no income, the amount should be treated to be Rs. 15,000/-per annum and therefore, there was no just reason for calculating the assessed amount by treating the income of the victim to be less than Rs. 15,000/-per annum. (9) WE, thus, set aside the award impugned and hold that on the basis of the notional annual income of Rs. 15,000/-, the appellants are entitled to get Rs. 1,70,000/- + Rs. 9,500/- (funeral expenses + loss of estate + loss of consortium) = Rs. 1,79,500/ -. The appellants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 8 percent per annum from the date of filing of the application till the actual deposit of the amount. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the balance amount within one month from today. The amount should be disbursed in the same way and in the same manner as indicated in the award impugned. (10) IT is needless to mention that running of interest will be stopped on the amount deposited by the Insurance Company in the Tribunal from the date of deposit. The appeal is, thus, allowed to the extent indicated above. (11) IN the facts and circumstances, there will be, however, no order as to costs.