JUDGMENT Talukdar, J. 1. IN Motor Accident Claim Case No. 118 of 2004, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, First Court, Jalpaiguri by its Judgment and Order under Appeal dated 20.11.2008 passed an award of Rs. 90,000/- and directed that in the event the said amount is not paid within a month, it would carry an interest @ 7% per annum with effect from 29.06.2004. 2. SHRI Banrjee, learned Counsel for the Appellants has assailed the said order firstly on the ground that the assessment of the income on notional basis was not proper as there was a scheduled income, which has transpired from the evidence of both P.W.1, Sudhir Ch. Roy, father of the deceased and P.W.2, Nirmal Ch. Bachhar, employer of the deceased. Thereafter, Shri Banerjee, learned Counsel took us through the order under Appeal and submitted that the question of interest was not considered by the learned Tribunal and simply an order in default was passed, which is not the correct state of affairs in view of the settled position of law. 3. SHRI Banerjee further submitted that the multiplier of 9 adopted by the learned Tribunal was also absolutely erroneous as the correct multiplier would be 11 as based on the age of the Mother. 4. ACCORDING to Shri Banerjee, P.W.1, Sudhir Ch. Roy, Father of the deceased was 60 years of age at the time of his deposition before the Tribunal while' his age was 56 and his wife was 51 at the time of the occurrence. As such, computing the age on average basis, it would come to 54. Shri Banerjee on the basis of the aforesaid points, has prayed for enhancement of the amount of compensation along with award of interest. 5. SHRI Moitra for the respondent No. 2 stated that as the amount has already been received by the claimants, it would now not be proper for them to either pray for enhancement or for interest on the said amount. He supported the order under appeal. 6. ACCORDING to Shri Moitra, the Ext.7 with regard to the salary certificate issued by P.W.2, Nirmal Ch. Bachhar being highly doubtful-the same was not accepted by the learned Tribunal. Shri Moitra further submitted that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal in assessing the age of P.W.1, Sudhir Ch. Roy, Father of the deceased also cannot be disputed. 7. 6. ACCORDING to Shri Moitra, the Ext.7 with regard to the salary certificate issued by P.W.2, Nirmal Ch. Bachhar being highly doubtful-the same was not accepted by the learned Tribunal. Shri Moitra further submitted that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal in assessing the age of P.W.1, Sudhir Ch. Roy, Father of the deceased also cannot be disputed. 7. SHRI Chakraborty for the respondent No. 1 submitted, it is not a case of contributory negligence. He has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya and Ors., (2005)2 WBLR (SC) 75 and submitted that the multiplier fixed by the learned Tribunal cannot be questioned as it was considered on the basis of the age of the Father of the deceased (P.W. 1, Sudhir Ch. Roy). 8. HE has prayed for dismissing the Appeal. After we have heard the submission of Shri Banerjee for the appellants, Shri Moitra for the respondent No. 2 and Shri Chakraborty for the respondent No. 1 and have perused the evidence and materials on record, we will now proceed to see as to how far the order under appeal can be sustained. 9. P.W.1, Sudhir Ch. Roy is the Father of the deceased who deposed that his ".....Son used to earn Rs. 3,000/- per month as machine Fitter" and he claimed Rs. 3,40,000/- as compensation. In his cross examination "by the respondent No. 2 he denied that his son was not an employee of P.W. 2 Nirmal Bachhar and worked under one Nirmal Bachhar. 10. HE further denied his son never earned Rs. 3,000/- as an employee of the latter and disagrees that he is not entitled to the claim of Rs. 3,40,000/-. His cross examination was adopted by the respondent No. 1. P.W. 2, Nirmal Ch. Bachhar, owner of the shop under the name and style "Prodip Agro Service Station" deposed that the deceased used to work as a mechanic under him. He proves the Certificate (Ext.7), which showed that the deceased used to receive a salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month. In his cross examination by the respondent No. 2 he denied that deceased was not an employee. 11. THE cross-examination of P.W. 2, Nirmal Ch. Bachhar disclosed that there was no other employee except the deceased. He denied that Ext. 7 is a false document. 12. 3,000/- per month. In his cross examination by the respondent No. 2 he denied that deceased was not an employee. 11. THE cross-examination of P.W. 2, Nirmal Ch. Bachhar disclosed that there was no other employee except the deceased. He denied that Ext. 7 is a false document. 12. THE learned Tribunal on the basis of such evidence, came to the conclusion : ".........P.W.2 except that certificate could not file papers to shown by documents month by month that he used to pay Rs. 3000/- per month as a mechanic to Jatin Ray (deceased) at his shop. THE single certificate issued by P. W. 2 dt. 22.03.03 did not satisfy this Tribunal while the accident practically took place of Jatin Ray (deceased) on 25.03.04. P. W. 2 could not produce any document before this Tribunal for his satisfaction that he paid Rs. 3000/- per month to Jatin Ray (deceased,) as a mechanic to his shop since April, 03 to Feb. 04. In that case this Tribunal finds that the notional income of Jatin Ray (deceased) was to be assessed at Rs. 10,000/- yearly due to his death." On the basis of such calculation the Tribunal a sum of Rs. 90,000/- (Rs. 10,000/- notional income X 9) by way of applying a multiplier of 9. 13. THE Tribunal noted; "...........that age of parents according to evidence of P. W. 1 became 115 (P.W.1 60 + his wife 55 years). So the average age of parents of the deceased was 57. Here multiplier will be 9 when average age of parents was within 53-57 years in view of ruling reported in AIR SC 2003 SC 2095." 14. BEFORE entering into the question of the applicability of correct multiplier, we find that the Tribunal was in an error while considering the income of the deceased. Both the evidence of P.W. 1, Sudhir Ch. Roy, Father of the deceased and P.W. 2, Nirmal Ch. Bachhar, employer of the deceased practically remains unchallenged with regard to the income of the deceased quantified at Rs. 3,000/- per month. Cross examination of either P.W. 1, Sudhir Ch. Roy and P.W. 2, Nirmal Ch. Bachhar could not discredit them from their version of the actual income of the deceased. In his oral evidence P.W.1, Sudhir Ch. Roy corroborated his claim set out in the Claim Petition to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- per month. Cross examination of either P.W. 1, Sudhir Ch. Roy and P.W. 2, Nirmal Ch. Bachhar could not discredit them from their version of the actual income of the deceased. In his oral evidence P.W.1, Sudhir Ch. Roy corroborated his claim set out in the Claim Petition to the tune of Rs. 3,40,000/- The Claim Petition was filed on 06.04.2004 whilst the date of occurrence was on 25.3.2004. 15. ONCE we have found that the conclusion of the Tribunal with regard to the actual amount of the income earned by the deceased was not properly considered; in stead, he was classified under the notional income basis, which could not have been done in view of the fact that the deceased was found to have an income of Rs. 3,000/- per month-we would see its finding with regard to the import of Ext.7 i.e. the Salary Certificate. 16. EVIDENCE of P.W. 2 Nirmal Ch. Bachhar, who was the owner of the shop "Prodip Agro Service Station" where the deceased was serving as a mechanic shows "...../ used to pay him Rs. 3000/-per month. I issued this certificate dt. 22.03.03 to said Jatin Ray stating his salary per month as Rs. 3000/-...." He further.proved Ext.7 ("......This is that certificate I issued to said Jatin Ray with my signature written by my son Pintu Bachhar in my presence") It must be noted as very rightly pointed out by Shri Banerjee for the appellants that this was proved without any objection. In his cross examination by the respondent No. 2, P.W. 2, Nirmal Ch. Bachhar denied the suggestion that the deceased was not an employee under him and he received Rs. 3,000/- per month. Objection of Shri Moitra for the respondent No. 2 that he cannot write down Bengali well, as such, the contents of the Salary Certificate (Ext.7), has no value and in our opinion, has to be understood from the portion of his deposition where he has clearly stated ".........I issued to said Jatin Ray with my signature written by my son Pintu Bachhar in my presence." 17. THIS explains to the situation. We see no reason as to why the Ext.7 should be disbelieved as vigorous cross examination of both respondent No. 1 and 2 attacking the genuineness of the same could not shake the basis of the evidence of P.W. 2, Nirmal Ch. Bachhar. THIS explains to the situation. We see no reason as to why the Ext.7 should be disbelieved as vigorous cross examination of both respondent No. 1 and 2 attacking the genuineness of the same could not shake the basis of the evidence of P.W. 2, Nirmal Ch. Bachhar. In fact, Tribunal did not read into the contents of Ext.7 (the Salary Certificate) issued by P.W. 2, Nirmal Ch. Bachhar on a wholesome fashion, which has resulted in the impugned finding. As such, we hold that the income of Rs.3,000/- per month as deposed by P.W 1. Sudhir Ch. Roy, Father of the deceased and his employer. P.W. 2, Nirmal Ch. Bachhar cannot be disbelieved. 18. NOW the question of application of the multiplier would arise. Tribunal held that the multiplier would be 9 as average age of parents was within 53 to 57 years. It had referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar and Ors. v. Rambhai and Ors. reported in AIR 2003 SC 2005 in this context. In paragraph 6 of the said Judgment, the question of application of the multiplier of 10 was discussed keeping in view the age of the deceased being 48 years. We cannot understand the application of the said decision in the fact situation of the present case. 19. SHRI Chakraborty for the respondent No. 1 has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya and Ors. (supra). The Supreme Court said in that case that the choice of multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimant, whichever is higher. In the present case we find that P.W. 1, Sudhir Ch. Roy, Father of the deceased was aged 60 years and the Mother was aged 55 years. The deposition was taken on 14.11.2008, The incident took place on 25.03.2004. In view of the said fact at the time of the incident, the age of the Father would be 56 and the Mother would be 51. While their son met with the accident, he was 34 years of age, which we find from the deposition of P.W.1, Sudhir Ch. Roy, Father of the deceased as well as in his Claim Petition. While their son met with the accident, he was 34 years of age, which we find from the deposition of P.W.1, Sudhir Ch. Roy, Father of the deceased as well as in his Claim Petition. As such, as rightly pointed out by SHRI Banerjee, the average age of the parents would be 54 and the correct multiplier would be 11 based on the age of the mother. 20. ACCORDINGLY, by setting aside the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal, which was arrived on the basis of calculation of notional income- we would accept the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month. The compensation thereafter would work out to Rs. 3000X12 = Rs.36,000/- less 1/3rd Rs. 24,000/- X 11 = Rs. 2,64,000. Added to this, is the loss of estate, consortium and funeral expenses etc. which would bring the total sum of compensation to Rs. 2,73,500/-. Now this brings us to the question of interest. Apart from applying the default clause, which we have seen earlier that in the event the award is not paid within a period of one month it will carry an interest @7% per annum from 26.09.2004, no specific order with regard to the interest was passed by the Tribunal. 21. QUESTION of grant of interest on awarded sum in view of Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is now no longer res Integra. The Division Bench of our Court in Kohinur Begum and Ors. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. reported in (2008)2 T.A.C. 711 (Cal) as well as the Supreme Court in Arun Kumar Agrawal and Anr v. N. I. Company Ltd., (2010) ACC 313 SC : (2010)3 WBLR (SC) 321 has settled the law. As such, the appellants, who are the parents of the deceased Jatin Roy, who had died due to the accident on 25.03.2004, would also be entitled to an interest @ 12% per annum on the modified amount of compensation. We conclude the rate of interest at 12% per annum on the basis of the fact that the incident took place on 25.03.2004 and the aged parents of the deceased have been pursuing their remedy before the Tribunal since 06.04.2004 (date of filing of the Claim Petition) till such time the award was passed (20.11.2008). Thereafter the time spent in appeal since 2009 has simply added to their agony and suffering. Thereafter the time spent in appeal since 2009 has simply added to their agony and suffering. It is in such situation, we are of the view that the parents of the deceased, who are the appellants before us, should receive a handsome amount of interest, which would at least help them to tide over the days ahead in the absence of the earning of their son. 22. THE award-stands modified to Rs. 2,73,500/- which will carry an interest @:12% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition (06.04.2004) till the date the sum is finally paid. The concerned Insurance Company will deposit the modified amount along with interest within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this Order where upon the appellants would be at liberty to withdraw the same without furnishing any surety. Appeal disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.