JUDGMENT Talukdar, J. 1. IN M.A.C. Case No. 33 of 2007, the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, First Court, Krishnagar by Judgment and Order under Appeal dated 26/11/2009 passed an award for Rs. 3,00,000/- in favour of the Appellants. 2. APPLYING the default Clause, interest (a) 7% per annum was directed to be paid on the amount in the event the award was not cleared within three years from the date of receipt of the Order of the Tribunal. The same has been brought in Appeal at the instance of the Appellants on two fold grounds. Firstly, the amount should have carried interest and secondly although the Tribunal had assessed the loss at Rs. 4,08,000/- but however, awarded simply the claim amount of Rs.3,00,000/- which was not just and reasonable amount. 3. SHRI Subir Banerjee with SHRI Jayanta Banerjee for the Appellants has took us through the materials. 4. ACCORDING to Shri Banerjee, the Appellants are the widow and the parents of the Deceased, who was the sole earning member of the family. Shri Banerjee submitted that at the time of his death, the Deceased was 23 years old and used to work as a Mason earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. 5. SHRI Banerjee further submitted that from the evidence of P.W.1, Shibani Bairagya, the wife of the Deceased and P.W. 2, Sushama Bairagya, Mother of the Deceased income of the Deceased have been proved and although the Tribunal assessed the loss at Rs. 4,08,000/- and directed only Rs. 3,00,000/- to be paid as amount of compensation. This, according to SHRI Banerjee, was absolutely wrong. 6. AS a part of his submission Shri Banerjee has referred to the decision of. Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mohd. Nasir and Anr., (2009) 3 WBLR (SC) 726. Referring to the aid decision Shri Banerjee submitted that as this is a piece of benevolent legislation-a liberal construction should be made in respect of the provisions and compensation in excess of the claim amount is always permissible. Shri Banerjee also relief upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Smt. Mira Debi Chowdhury (Yadav) and Ors. v. Chhatelal Chowdhury and Anr. reported in (2007)1 WBLR (Cal) 596. Shri Banerjee also relief upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Smt. Mira Debi Chowdhury (Yadav) and Ors. v. Chhatelal Chowdhury and Anr. reported in (2007)1 WBLR (Cal) 596. According to Shri Banerjee, applying the formula of just and reasonable sum, the said Division Bench relying on the Apex Court decision in Nagappa v. Gurdayal Singh and Qrs., (2003) 1 WBLR (SC) 77 had enhanced the amount on similar circumstances. 7. ACCORDINGLY, Shri Banerjee prayed for enhancement of the amount along with payment of interest. - 8. ON the contrary, Shri Moitra for the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (Respondent No. 1) submitted that there was no proof either in respect of the age of the Deceased nor his actual earning. Shri Moitra submitted that the award passed by the learned Tribunal to the tune of Rs, 3,00,000/- was just and proper and no interference is required. Shri Moitra further submitted that already the Appellants have received the award. As such, now they cannot pray for enhancement and claim interest. 9. SHRI Moitra has prayed for dismissing the Appeal. 10. WE have found the Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence and materials on Record passed the award in,favour of the Appellants for a sum of Rs, 3,00,000/-. It may be noted that the claim amount was also Rs. 3,00,000/-. The Tribunal took the income of Deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month and by applying the multiplier of 17, formed an opinion that the loss was to the effect of Rs. 4,08,000;- but however, considering the status and related factors-brought down the amount to Rs. 3,00,000/-. It is consistent evidence that the Deceased earned a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month. He was aged about 22 years. As such, the Tribunal correctly applied the multiplier of 17 and concluded Rs. 3000 X12-1-/3rd X 17 i.e. Rs. 4,08,000/- but concluded "..............In the written application the petitioners claimed Rs. 300000/- and considering the status and related factors, I think, Rs. 300000/- would be the just proper and fair compensation in this case........" 11. ONCE the Tribunal have concluded with regard to the capacity of income and after applying the multiplier concerned and arrived at a higher amount-simply on the basis of his conjecture and figment of imagination with regard to the status and related factors concluded that Rs. 3,00,000/- would be just and proper. ONCE the Tribunal have concluded with regard to the capacity of income and after applying the multiplier concerned and arrived at a higher amount-simply on the basis of his conjecture and figment of imagination with regard to the status and related factors concluded that Rs. 3,00,000/- would be just and proper. The Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mohd, Nasirlk Anr. (supra) and the Division Bench in Smt. Mira Dehi Chowdhury (Yadav) and Ors. v. Chhatelal Chowdhury and Anr. (supra) speak otherwise. 12. ACCORDINGLY, we allow this Appeal and by way of enhancing the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal from. Rs. 3,00,000/- to Rs. 4,08,000/-. This would now take us to the first of Shri Banerjee's submission with regard to the non payment of interest. 13. INTEREST, after all, is a earning capacity of a person. Even though Court has discretion, it is how such discretion is exercised, would be subject matter of consideration for the superior Court. Since the statute provides for payment of interest' (SEE: Section 171 of Motor Vehicles Act), it is more particularly to be seen about the reasons for refusal. 14. ALTHOUGH the provisions of Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads : "........the tribunal may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest........" in the plain reading of the same it would appear to be directory but if a purposive construction of the same is made in consonance with the beneficial piece of legislation in which it is embedded, the same should be given a mandatory status. Failure on the part of the Tribunal to award any interest and apart from applying the default clause, the Judgment and Order under Appeal obviously requires to be revisited. 15. THE incident relates to 2007 and for all these period the unfortunate widow of the Deceased and his helpless parents have pursued their remedy before the Tribunal and thereafter in Appeal. Certainly, their right to income from the earning of the award remains curtailed for which purpose directions for payment of interest is absolutely necessary. 16. AWARD of interest is now no longer res Integra in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Kohinur Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2008 Cal 84 . Certainly, their right to income from the earning of the award remains curtailed for which purpose directions for payment of interest is absolutely necessary. 16. AWARD of interest is now no longer res Integra in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Kohinur Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2008 Cal 84 . Accordingly, we allow this Appeal to the aforesaid extent and direct that the amount of claim would carry interest @ 8 % per annum which would be effective from the date Of filing of the Claim Petition. 17. WITH the aforesaid modification of the award, the appeal stand disposed. 18. PARTIES to bear their own costs. Dey, J.- I agree.