JUDGMENT ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J. 1. The victim was crossing Manmatha Ganguly Street towards R.G. Kar Hospital when the offending vehicle dashed her and the victim was run over causing fatal injury over her person. She was removed to R.G. Kar Hospital where she succumbed to the injury. She was pregnant at the time of accident. She was a graduate. The appellant being the husband of the deceased claimed compensation to the extent of rupees five lakh sixty-three thousand and five hundred. The Tribunal considered the evidence. The Tribunal awarded rupees fifty thousand as compensation to the foetus apart from rupees nine thousand and five hundred on account of funeral expense, loss of consortium and loss of estate. The Tribunal awarded further compensation on account of loss of the victim's life considering her income at rupees three thousand per month after deducting fifty per cent of her income as her personal expense. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of sixteen considering her age as thirty-five years. 2. The Tribunal awarded an aggregate sum of rupees three lakh forty-seven thousand and five hundred and directed the Calcutta Tramways Company Limited to pay the compensation. The Tribunal, however, did not award any interest. Hence, this appeal and cross-appeal by both parties. The claimant was aggrieved as the Tribunal deducted fifty per cent of the income ignoring the mandate of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Calcutta Tramways preferred the appeal on the ground, inter alia, that no compensation could be awarded in respect of foetus and the multiplier was not properly applied. It was also contended that the husband was not entitled to compensation as he was not dependent upon the wife's income. We have heard Mr. Saibalendu Bhowmick, learned counsel appearing for the claimant/appellants and Mr. Hiranmoy Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/tramways. 3. Mr. Saibalendu Bhowmick appearing for the claimants contended that since the income of the victim was within rupees forty thousand the structured formula as per Section 163A would be squarely applicable. The said provision would permit the respondent to deduct 1/3rd of the income as personal expense. Hence, deduction of half of the income was erroneous. He contended that a statutory provision should be interpreted liberally to extend the accident benefit to the claimants as the purpose was not to restrict the benefit but to extend the same. 4. The said provision would permit the respondent to deduct 1/3rd of the income as personal expense. Hence, deduction of half of the income was erroneous. He contended that a statutory provision should be interpreted liberally to extend the accident benefit to the claimants as the purpose was not to restrict the benefit but to extend the same. 4. He relied on the following decisions:- i) Jnan Ranjan Sen Gupta and Ors. VS- Arun Kumar Bose (1975 Volume-II Supreme Court Cases Page- 526) ii) Union of India and Anr. VS- Deoki Nandan Aggarwal (All India Reporter 1992 Supreme Court Page-96) iii) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. VS- Hansrajbhai V. Kodala and Ors. (All India Reporter 2001 Supreme Court Page-1832) iv) Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Ors. VS- United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Baroda (2004 Supreme Appeals Reporter (Civil) Page-596) v) Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation -VS- Sarojamma and Anr. (2008 Volume-V Supreme Court Cases Page-142) vi) Reshma Kumari and Ors. VS- Madan Mohan and Anr. (2009 All India Reporter Supreme Court Weekly Page-6999) vii) Sarla Verma (Smt) and Ors. VS- Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009 Volume-VI Supreme Court Cases Page-121) viii) National Insurance Company Ltd. VSGurumallamma and Anr. (2009 Accident Claims Journal Page-2660) ix) National Insurance Company Ltd. VS- Chacko (2012 Volume-I Transport and Accidents Cases Page-464) 5. Mr. Hiranmoy Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing for the Tramways/appellant also relied upon the decision in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) and Reshma Kumari (Supra). He contended that in case of Reshma (Supra) the Apex Court referred the issue to a larger Bench for appropriate consideration. Hence, this Court should wait till the decision would come from the Apex Court settling the law on the subject. The decision in the instant appeal particularly on the issue of deduction would have wide effect on the other appeals of the like nature. We thus invited the learned counsel who usually appears in motor accident cases to come forward and make their submission on the law of the subject. Following such invitation Mr. Rajesh Singh who usually appears for the Insurance Company made his submissions. According to Mr. Singh, the ratio decided in the Apex Court decisions cited above should be followed as a whole. The claimants were not entitled to take the benefit of a part of the said decisions ignoring the other part. 6. Following such invitation Mr. Rajesh Singh who usually appears for the Insurance Company made his submissions. According to Mr. Singh, the ratio decided in the Apex Court decisions cited above should be followed as a whole. The claimants were not entitled to take the benefit of a part of the said decisions ignoring the other part. 6. If the second schedule was to be followed in a case it should be followed with its strict vigour and such provision could not be diluted taking recourse to the Apex Court decision in the case of Laxmi Devi and others vs. Mohammad Tabbar and another, reported in 2008 Accident Claims Journal Page-1488 (Supreme Court) or Sarla Verma (Supra). Giving example, Mr. Singh contended that under Section 163A notional income was to be taken into account at the rate of rupees fifteen thousand per annum. If such schedule was to be followed the decision in the case of Laxmi Devi (Supra) would have no application in a case filed under Section 163A. Similarly, on the issue of application of multiplier or future prospect or on the issue of deduction depending upon the number of dependents the decision in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) could not be applied. 7. To decide the issue let us first consider the law on the subject.— i) Jnan Ranjan Sen Gupta and Ors. (Supra) Three Bench decision of the Apex Court in paragraph 9 observed, in a beneficial legislation conferring certain rights upon the tenants should not be given any restrictive judicial interpretation denying the benefit to the tenants. ii) Deoki Nandan Aggarwal (Supra) In paragraph 14, the Apex Court observed, "It is not the duty of the Court either to enlarge the scope of the legislation or the intention of the legislature when the language of the provision is plain and unambiguous. The Court cannot rewrite, recast or reframe the legislation for the very good reason that it has no power to legislate. The power to legislate has not been conferred on the Courts. The Court cannot add words to a statute or read words into it which are not there." iii) Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.(Supra) In this decision the legislative history of Section 163A was considered by the Apex Court. The Apex Court observed, the said provision was enacted to obviate delay in finalising the claim. The Court cannot add words to a statute or read words into it which are not there." iii) Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.(Supra) In this decision the legislative history of Section 163A was considered by the Apex Court. The Apex Court observed, the said provision was enacted to obviate delay in finalising the claim. Under the scheme the affected party would have the option of accepting the lumpsum compensation as per the structured formula or to have determination of compensation under Section 168. iv) Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Ors. (Supra) Three Bench decision of the Apex Court was strenuously relied upon by Mr. Banik. He referred to various paragraphs. However, emphasis was put to paragraph 42 and 50. This decision also considered the structured formula and observed that deduction of 1/3rd in consideration of the expense which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself, was permissible. v) Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Supra) Mr. Bhowmick relied on paragraph 3, 7 and 8 to support his contention on 1/3rd deduction. Paragraph 8 being relevant herein is quoted below : "As schedule II provides for a structured formula, ordinarily, the same has to be adhered to. The structured formula itself stipulates reduction of income of the deceased by one-third in consideration of the expenses which he would have incurred towards maintaining himself, had he been alive." vi) Reshma Kumari and Ors. (Supra) In the case of Reshma Kumari (Supra), the Apex Court again considered Section 163A and the statements of objects and reasons for introducing the said provision. The Apex Court was of the view that such factor must be kept in mind while awarding compensation. However in Paragraph 59, the Apex Court referred the issue to a larger Bench on the applicability of the ratio decided in the case of U.P. SRTC VS- Trilok Chandra reported in 1996 Volume-IV Supreme Court Cases Page-362. vii) Sarla Verma (Smt) and Ors.(Supra) This decision of the Apex Court considered all precedents and framed a guideline to be followed in case of motor accident claims. In paragraph 24 and 26 it considered the earlier decisions and observed that it became necessary to standardise the deduction to be made under the head of personal and living expenses of the deceased. It was observed that in case of a bachelor, half of the income should be considered as his personal expense. In paragraph 24 and 26 it considered the earlier decisions and observed that it became necessary to standardise the deduction to be made under the head of personal and living expenses of the deceased. It was observed that in case of a bachelor, half of the income should be considered as his personal expense. The Apex Court categorically observed, "in fact one-third deduction got statutory recognition under the Second Schedule to the Act, in respect of claims under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. But, such percentage of deduction is not an inflexible rule and offers merely a guideline." viii) Gurumallamma and Anr.(Supra) Paragraph 7 and 8 were relied upon. The Apex Court herein applied the structured formula under Section 163A and awarded appropriate compensation. ix) Chacko (Supra) The Kerala High Court followed the earlier decisions of the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 163A and held that the said provision would help to have "rough and ready justice". 8. On a combined reading of the decisions discussed above, our understanding of the law on the subject is : i) The statutory provision should be interpreted in the context for which it was enacted. ii) The Court should not try to give a different interpretation than what was contemplated at the time of enactment. iii) The Court could not supply or delete any word to give a particular interpretation. iv) Section 163A was introduced as an additional mode of awarding just compensation to a particular group of people where the victim would fall within the income group below rupees forty-thousand per annum. In such case once the claim petition would come within the scope of the said income group and the claimants made application under the said provision, the Court of Law would have no option but to apply the said law on the structured formula. However, the decision in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra), interpreted the said provision including other available provisions on the subject and ultimately observed that the suggested deduction as per the structured formula was merely a guideline. v) The Apex Court in no uncertain terms determined the issue that in case of a bachelor, half of his income must be considered as his personal expense. 9. Such decision is binding upon us and we are unable to avoid the same. v) The Apex Court in no uncertain terms determined the issue that in case of a bachelor, half of his income must be considered as his personal expense. 9. Such decision is binding upon us and we are unable to avoid the same. In our view, the deduction of half of the amount was just and proper. This would take care of the point of law that was raised by Mr. Bhowmick on behalf of the claimants. Coming back to the factual matrix, we find that the Tribunal applied the structured formula, however deducted fifty percent of the income of the victim and calculated the compensation accordingly. It was sought to be argued that the victim, being a house wife, could not have any income and the assertion of income at the rate of three thousand per month should be discarded and notional income of rupees fifteen thousand should be allowed. This logic would cut both ways. The claimant, herein, would refer to the decision in the case of Arun Kumar Agrawal and Another VS- National Insurance Company and Others reported in 2010 Volume-IX Supreme Court Cases page-218 wherein the Apex Court observed that a house wife would also contribute towards the family that should be appropriately assessed taking the benefit of the said decision as well as the decision in the case of Laxmi Devi (Supra). 10. The claimants wanted to justify the assertion of rupees three thousand per month. Here, we find argument of Mr. Singh would sound logic. If we rigidly follow the structured formula, there would be no scope for deviation as to the notional income. The claimant could not blow hot and cold in the same breath. If they argue that structured formula should be followed they would not be entitled to take the benefit of decision in the case of Laxmi Devi (Supra) or Arun Kumar Agrawal (Supra). To accept their contentions on this score we would have to resort to Sarla Verma (Supra) where the Apex Court observed that a structured formula was a guideline and not a rigid structure. We follow the same and accept the contention of the claimants on that score and reject the submissions made by Calcutta Tramways. The Tribunal rightly assessed the compensation that was not liable to be upset on that score. We follow the same and accept the contention of the claimants on that score and reject the submissions made by Calcutta Tramways. The Tribunal rightly assessed the compensation that was not liable to be upset on that score. We only wish to add that the amount of compensation would carry interest at the rate of seven per cent per annum on and from the date of making of the claim application till the date of payment/deposit whichever is earlier. 11. The Calcutta Tramways is directed to pay the awarded sum along with interest at the rate of seven per cent per annum on and from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of actual payment/deposit, to the claimants to be sent through Account Payee Cheque at their recorded address by registered post with acknowledgement due within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. 12. Upon payment being made, Calcutta Tramways would be at liberty to withdraw the sum, if any, deposited in Court. Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly without any order as to costs. Lower Court Records be sent down at once, if arrived at. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, on priority basis.