JUDGMENT 1. THIS appeal is at the instance of a claimant in a proceeding under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and is directed against an award dated 29th June, 2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nadia in MAC Case No. 266 of 2000 thereby disposing of the said proceeding by awarding a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimant with a direction upon the Insurance Company to pay the said amount within a month from the date of the award with further condition that in default, the amount should carry interest at the rate of 11% per annum till the date of realization. 2. BEING dissatisfied the claimant, the father of the bachelor victim, has come up with the present appeal. There is no dispute as regards the death of the victim in the accident, where the offending vehicle was insured by the United India Insurance Company Limited. 3. ACCORDING to the claimant, the victim used to work in a jewellery shop and used to earn Rs. 3,000/- a month and was aged 25 years. 4. THE learned Tribunal below accepted ail the assertions of the claimant except the one that the victim used to earn Rs. 3,000/- a month. In this case, the owner of the Jewellery Shop appeared as PW 3 to support the claimant. He also proved the certificate given by him certifying he used to pay Rs.3,000/- a month to the victim. 5. THE learned Tribunal below has disbelieved such certificate and the version of PW 3 on the ground that the said PW 3 did not produce any account book or register to show that he used to pay the victim a sum of Rs. 3,000/- and in such circumstances, deckled to rely upon the notional income provided in the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act and on that basis, arrived at the figure of compensation. 6. AFTER hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and after going through the materials on record, we find that PW 3 has specifically stated that he has a jewellery shop at D. N. Roy Road, Krishnagar under the name and style of "Shree Ma Jewellery" and Sukumar Modok, the victim, used to work as an employee and earned Rs.3,000/-a month as an worker. In cross examination by the Insurance Company, the said PW 3 asserted that he is all income tax assessee and from his return to the Income Tax Department, the wages of payment of the employee are reflected and that the payment to Sukumar, the victim, can also be found from this papers. In spite of such statement made by PW 3 in cross examination, the Insurance Company did not dare to summon the income tax return submitted, by PW 3, nor did the Insurance Company give even any suggestion to the said PW 3 that his assertion that the payment to Sukumar would be reflected from the income tax return was not correct. 7. IN view of the aforesaid evidence given by PW 3, the owner of the jewellery shop, we find no reason to discard the said evidence, when the Insurance Company in spite of taking leave under section 170 of the Act has not given any evidence of rebuttal to falsify those assertions. 8. WE, therefore, propose to reassess the amount, of compensation by treating the income of the victim as Rs. 3,000/- with the application of the multiplier of 11, as the father of the victim was aged 53 years at the time of accident. On that basis, with the application of the Second Schedule of the Act, the amount will come to Rs. 2,68,500/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the application (19th December, 2000) till actual deposit of the amount. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance amount within one month from today in the learned Tribunal below. It is needless to mention that running of interest on the amount already deposited by the Insurance Company will stop from the date of deposit of such amount. 9. THE appeal is, thus, disposed of to the extent indicated above. 10. IN view of disposal of the appeal itself, the connected application, if any, has become infructuous and the same is, thus, disposed of.