Judgment Talukdar, J. 1. COMPUTING the income of the deceased on notional basis and upon applying the multiplier of 17, the Fast Track First Court, Tamluk functioning as the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in connection with M.A.C.C. Case No. 127 of 2004 by her Judgment and Order under appeal of 09.08.2007 passed award in favour of the appellants for Rs.1,79,500/- with application of a default clause that interest would be paid @ 6% per annum in the event the same is not paid, within two months. 2. IN this appeal, which has been argued by Shri Subir Banerjee assisted by Shri Jayanta Banerjee three main points have been taken. According to Shri Banerjee it is the case of the appellants in the Claim Petition that the deceased was a tailor and he was 35 years at the time of her death. She earned Rs.110/- per day from tailoring and the appellants were dependant on her income having no other source to maintain themselves. 3. IN his evidence, P.W.1, Husband of the deceased also spoke likewise. He could not be discredited in his cross examination. 4. THE Tribunal held : "......no cogent document has forthcoming before the learned Court showing income of V.G. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case I think that the income of the V.G. would be calculated by fixing notional income of Rs.15,000/- p.a.........." She also directed payment of interest @6% per annum on the amount in the event it remained unpaid beyond the period of two months. 5. ACCORDING to Shri Banerjee, in view of the fact that both the statements in the Claim Petition as well as the evidence of the Husband of the deceased has established the case of the claimant with regard to the income of the deceased being Rs.110/- per day, which she earned as a tailor. 6. SHRI Banerjee has further submitted that it was also borne out from the evidence that it was the said income upon which the entire family depended as they did not have any other source of income. Shri Banerjee had pointed out that at the time of her death, the deceased was 35 years, which has remained unchallenged. 7. SHRI Banerjee assailed the finding of the learned Tribunal which had held the income of the deceased to be notional, although there was regular income - however, nominal the same may be. 8. Shri Banerjee had pointed out that at the time of her death, the deceased was 35 years, which has remained unchallenged. 7. SHRI Banerjee assailed the finding of the learned Tribunal which had held the income of the deceased to be notional, although there was regular income - however, nominal the same may be. 8. SHRI Banerjee submitted no contradiction with regard to the income deposed by the appellants have been taken by the Insurance Company. He was of the view that in the interest of Justice, there should be an award of just and a fair compensation. Shri Banerjee has referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Smt. Bilasini Mondal v. National Insurance Company Limited and Anr., reported in (2003)2 T.A.C. 435 (Cal) in support of his contention that where a person is engaged in a small profession, documentary evidence is not always available and assessment of notional income in respect of the deceased is not warranted as oral evidence can be accepted. 9. HE thereafter referred to the decision of another Division Bench of this Court in Khairunnesa Bibi and Ors. v. The National Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. reported in (2010)3 WBLR (Cal) 523 in support of his contention that when the appellant has made out a case that his deceased wife used to earn Rs.110/- per day by working as a tailor; it was open to disprove I ho same by the insurance company. But the same having not been done, it was not proper to disbelieve the claim. 10. SHRI Banerjee also referred to the Division Bench decision in Smt. Mira Debi Chowdhury (Yadav) and, Ors. v. Chhatelal Chowdhury and Anr., (2007)1 WBLR (Cal) 596 on the question of application of the principle of Notional income and the decision of Supreme Court in Ashwani Kr. Mishra v. P. Muniam Babu and Ors., 1999 WBLR (SC) 316 to show that in a case for enhancement of the compensation, certain amount of guesswork, some hypothetical consideration and some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused, is required to be viewed with objective standards. Lastly Shri Banerjee relied on the decision of Supreme Court in Dr. Lastly Shri Banerjee relied on the decision of Supreme Court in Dr. K.G. Poovalah v. General Manager/Managing Director Karnataka State Road Transport Coprotation, (2001)9 SCC 167 in support of his case that where no salary certificate is produced nor the employer is examined- claim may be accepted if the same is found to be reasonable and not exaggerated. 11. SHRI Bhowmick for the insurance company was of the view that as there was no proof of income, very rightly the Tribunal assessed the income on notional basis. He referred to Page 6 of the Paper Book to show that in the claim, petition deceased was shown to be employed. But no document in support of the employment was produced. He has referred to the decision of Supreme Court in Gottumukkala Appala Narasimha Raju and Ors. v National Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr., (2007)3 WBLR(SC) 17. Presumably, he wanted to show from paragraph 24 therein that in the absence if any documentary proof to establish the contract of employment and non-examination of independent witness, the claim petition would not be maintainable. 12. SHRI Bhowmick has referred to the decision of Apex Court, in Syed Basheer Ahamed and Ors. v. Mohd. Jameel and Anr. reported in (2009)1 Supreme 266 to buttress his point that onus lies on the claimant to prove the income of the deceased. But in the instant case the same not having been done, rightly the learned Tribunal has assessed the income on notional basis. He also referred to the decision of Supreme Court in Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. Sarojamma and Anr., (2008)5 SCC 142 and submitted that for the purpose of arriving at a just compensation, several criteria are required to be fulfilled. Unless the same is established the Court cannot award the same. 13. HE referred to the decision of Supreme Court in Managing Director TNSTC v. Sripriaya and Ors. reported in (2007)5 Supreme 301 on the proposition that for the purpose of arriving at the correct compensation, the appropriate multiplier is required to be applied and no decision without any proof of income can be taken. 14. HE has also referred to the decisions of Apex Court in The Managing Director, TNSTC Ltd. v. K.I. Bindu and Ors., (2005)7 Supreme 171 and The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Smt. Kalpana and Ors., (2007)1 Supreme 514 on the self-same proposition. 14. HE has also referred to the decisions of Apex Court in The Managing Director, TNSTC Ltd. v. K.I. Bindu and Ors., (2005)7 Supreme 171 and The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Smt. Kalpana and Ors., (2007)1 Supreme 514 on the self-same proposition. We are unable to appreciate the reason behind his reference to the decision of Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Meena Variyal and Ors., (2007)3 Supreme 136 as we could not make out for what purpose the said decision has been relied upon which had no nexus with the fact in issue before us. 15. SHRI Bhowmick has referred to the decision of this Court in Sukdeb Mondal and Ors. v. New India Assurance Company Limited and Anr., reported in (2008) 3 WBLR (Cal) 225 and submitted that as there was no income of the deceased in the strict sense of the term - rightly the compensation was passed on the basis of notional income. 16. LASTLY, Shri Bhowmick has referred to the decision of Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Goraknath Sitaram Kamble and Ors., reported in 2011 AIR SCW 206 to show that the Court cannot go beyond the statute. We have very carefully considered the submission of Shri Banerjee and Shri Bhowmick for the respective parties. We have also read the decisions cited by Shri Bhowmick. While it is correct that unless the income of the deceased is clearly established, the Tribunal has no other option than to proceed on notional basis. The submissions made by Shri Bhowmick cannot be disputed on the aforesaid lines. But in the instant case we find there is practically unchallenged testimony of P.W.1, Shankar Chandra Bera, Husband of the deceased with regard to the daily income of the deceased as Rs.110/-per day. It may be that there was a mention in the claim petition "...........The victim, Sandhya Rani Bera was of age 35 years having sound health. The victim was a female Tailor and used to earn Rs.110 /- per day from her said employer. The claimants depended for their living upon the victim when she was alive. The claimants have no source of income to maintain themselves." 17. WE have very carefully gone through the original claim petition. The victim was a female Tailor and used to earn Rs.110 /- per day from her said employer. The claimants depended for their living upon the victim when she was alive. The claimants have no source of income to maintain themselves." 17. WE have very carefully gone through the original claim petition. WE do not find that there are any materials to show with regard to the existence of any tangible evidence of the employment of deceased barring the said averment, which we would take it as it is. From the Lower Court Records we find that in the written statement the insurance company in paragraph 7 had disputed the age and the profession of the deceased or that she worked under Milon Chakraborty and had an income @ Rs.110/- per day. The mention of Milon Chakraborty could find place in the claim petition in Column No. 5 against the name and address of the deceased. For whatever purpose the same is, we take it as it is. It cannot take us anywhere. WE have to restrict ourselves to the unimpeachable evidence of P.W.1, Husband of the deceased, who, on oath before the Tribunal had deposed that his deceased wife had an Income of Rs.110/- per day. 18. IN his cross examination he could not be discredited. It has also been established from the evidence that the family was dependant on the income of the deceased. The decisions cited at the Bar have been carefully perused by us. We have considered the same and find on the basis of our appreciation of the evidence that the deceased had however, small, an income. As such, she could not be classified under the notional income scheme. 19. AFTER keeping in mind the submissions of Shri Banerjee in the light of the objection of Shri Bhowmick and the ratio of the various decisions referred to by them, we accept the income of the deceased at Rs.110/- per day, if we take 30 days an average of a month, it would bring us to Rs.3,300/- per month, which if multiplied by 12 would bring the amount to Rs.39,600/-. If we deduct 1/3rd amount, this would work out to Rs.26,400/-. Since the age of the deceased has been established as 35 years-we would apply the multiplier of 17. The same comes to Rs.4,48,800/-. 20. If we deduct 1/3rd amount, this would work out to Rs.26,400/-. Since the age of the deceased has been established as 35 years-we would apply the multiplier of 17. The same comes to Rs.4,48,800/-. 20. ACCORDINGLY after having concluded on the aforesaid lines, we direct that the award would be modified from Rs.1,79,500/- to Rs.4,48,800/-. The claim was filed on 12.08.2002. It appears that except awarding interest, in default of payment of compensation within a period of two months @ 6% per annum, no order in respect of the same has been passed. 21. QUESTION of grant of interest is now well-settled and whenever the Tribunal passed an order of compensation-it is required under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act to award an order of interest. As such, the modified claim would be added with interest @8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till such time the claim amount is disbursed. 22. WITH the aforesaid modification in the award and grant of interest, we would dispose of the appeal without any order as to costs. The insurance company will now deposit the modified amount along with the interest by an Account Payee cheque or a Bank Draft/Demand Draft before the Tribunal whereupon the appellants would be at liberty to withdraw the same without furnishing any surety. 23. APPEAL allowed.