JUDGMENT : Raghubir Dash, J. 1. Both the appeals arise out of the award dated 2.11.2012 made in MACT Case No. 345 of 2005 by the Member, 3rd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar determining the just compensation at Rs. 13,70,000/-. Appellants in MACA No. 97 of 2013 are the petitioners/claimants and the appellant in MACA No. 82 of 2013 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. D. Laxman Raju and M/s. Tata Motors Limited, Jamshedpur who are arrayed as respondents in both the appeals as opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 before the learned Tribunal are the owner and manufacturer, respectively, of the offending vehicle. 2. The claim for compensation was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act) claiming a sum of Rs. 40 lakhs as compensation on account of death of the deceased, namely, Premananda Bebarta in a vehicular accident taking place on 27.1.2005 at about 6.30 P.M. at Gandhi Chowk, Balugaon Bazar. The offending vehicle is a Truck bearing Registration No. JH-05-A/6529/P/05. 3. It is not understood as to why the manufacturer of the offending vehicle has been arrayed as a party in the claim case. He did not appear before the Tribunal and was set ex parte. The owner of the vehicle filed a rejoinder but did not participate in the proceeding. The Insurance Company challenged the petitioners' claim denying the validity of driving licence and insurance of the offending Truck. Before the Tribunal the claimants claimed that the deceased was having income from his business in garments and one Poultry Farm. His total income was more than Rs. 15,000/- per month. It was further contended that at the time of his death he was 37 year of old. He left behind the petitioners as his dependants. Petitioner No. 1 is his widow, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are minor daughters and petitioner No. 4 is his old mother. 4. The learned Tribunal having considered the evidence adduced before it came to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and/or negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Petitioner No. 1 is his widow, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are minor daughters and petitioner No. 4 is his old mother. 4. The learned Tribunal having considered the evidence adduced before it came to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and/or negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Though the impugned award reveals that the Insurance Company denied the insurance of the offending vehicle, no issue has been framed on that count and there is no observation anywhere in the impugned award as to whether the offending vehicle was under the coverage of insurance issued by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the appellant in MACA No. 82 of 2013. However, the appeal memo is silent on the insurance matter and it is simply states that the Insurance Company had taken a specific stand that the driver of the Truck had no valid driving licence. The award has been challenged by the Insurance Company on several grounds but none of the ground is with regard to the absence of insurance coverage. Therefore, this Court presumes that there is no dispute about the offending vehicle being covered under insurance policy as on the date of accident. Determining the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 10,000/- and applying the multiplier of 12, the learned Tribunal calculated the total loss of income and after deducting 1/4th of the total income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, the loss of dependency was worked out at Rs. 13,50,000/-. Besides this amount, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 5,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. It also awarded cost of Rs. 1,000/- and allowed interest at the rate of 7% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment. The claim petition was, accordingly, allowed ex parte against opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, the manufacturer and the owner of the Truck, and on contest against opposite party No. 3, the Insurance Company and directed the awarded amount to be paid by the Insurance Company. 5. The claim petition was, accordingly, allowed ex parte against opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, the manufacturer and the owner of the Truck, and on contest against opposite party No. 3, the Insurance Company and directed the awarded amount to be paid by the Insurance Company. 5. The Insurance Company challenges the impugned award on the grounds that the monthly income of the deceased fixed notionally by the Tribunal is not only arbitrary but also highly excessive having no basis and that the rate of interest awarded is also on the higher side. The claimants in their appeal have challenged the award contending that the learned Tribunal has arbitrarily ignored the deceased's poultry business and the income derived therefrom while determining the monthly income of the deceased and that the loss of future prospect was not taken into account while determining the amount of compensation. It is also claimed that the deceased being 37 years of age at the time of his death, the multiplier of 16 should have been adopted by the learned Tribunal. 6. Both the sides having challenged the correctness of the determination of the monthly income of the deceased from his business, the evidence on record requires careful scrutiny. P.W. 1 is the deceased's brother who claims that the deceased's monthly income was more than Rs. 15,000/- and he used to contribute Rs. 15,000/- every month for the maintenance of the family. With regard to the deceased's business he has further stated that he was having a Poultry Farm, besides his business in readymade garments. In connection with the Poultry Farm, he has produced a copy of a resolution (Ext. 11) of the District Level Committee, Khurda showing that the State Government had sanctioned subsidy for the poultry farm in favour of the deceased. In support of his claim that the deceased was having business in readymade garments, he has produced some statements issued by the State Bank of India, Forest Park Branch in respect of Cash Credit Loan the deceased had availed to run his garment business. In cross-examination he failed to answer as to whether the deceased's garments shop had any 'sales tax number'. However, he admits that his brother was not an income tax assessee. P.W. 2 is a retired District Agriculture Officer, Khurda district. In cross-examination he failed to answer as to whether the deceased's garments shop had any 'sales tax number'. However, he admits that his brother was not an income tax assessee. P.W. 2 is a retired District Agriculture Officer, Khurda district. He claims that during his incumbency the deceased's poultry farm was inspected from time to time while it was under construction and even after its completion. He claims to have seen the deceased running his Poultry Farm successfully wherein the investment was to the tune of Rs. 3.50 lakhs. He claims that the deceased was earning profit of Rs. 15,000/- approximately. But this statement is not supported by any document. He has exhibited a copy of the proceeding of the District Level Committee meeting of Krushi Sahayak Kendra, Khurda held on 4.3.2003 which is marked as Ext. 11. It reflects that the deceased had executed a project on 'Poultry' and subsidy to the tune of Rs. 69,772/- was sanctioned by the Committee towards the capital investment made in the project. 7. P.W. 3, the deceased's wife also has deposed that her husband was running a Poultry Farm and a readymade garment shop and used to contribute Rs. 15,000/- per month for the maintenance of the family. P.W. 4 claims that he has got one garment manufacturing unit in the name and style "Indigo Casuals" and that his wife has a garment show-room in the name and style "Indigo Fashions". He has further stated that the deceased had a garment shop in the name "Anuchinta Garments" which was being financed by the State Bank of India and that the deceased used to purchase garments from "Indigo Fashions" and "Indigo Casuals". He further claims to have got knowledge that the deceased used to purchase garments from Cuttack and Calcutta market and supply the same to the retailers at Chandpur, Tangi and Balugaon. He claims to have heard from the deceased that the latter was earning more than Rs. 15,000/- per month out of his garment business and Poultry Farm. He has exhibited five bills marked Ext. 12 series claiming that he had granted the bills to the deceased towards purchase of garments from "Indigo Fashions". In cross-examination, he has stated that he was supplying garments to the deceased from 2002 to 2005. 15,000/- per month out of his garment business and Poultry Farm. He has exhibited five bills marked Ext. 12 series claiming that he had granted the bills to the deceased towards purchase of garments from "Indigo Fashions". In cross-examination, he has stated that he was supplying garments to the deceased from 2002 to 2005. He further states that carbon copy of all the bills are no more available with him and that he does not have any sales tax license. 8. Learned Tribunal has observed that the income from the deceased's garment business was not fixed and that mere submission of a project report does not mean that he had income out of the Poultry Farm. With this observation, the learned Tribunal made a notional assessment of deceased's monthly income at Rs. 10,000/-. Though some receipts have been exhibited, those are related to deceased's garment business. Those are not sufficient to make assessment of the deceased's income from that business. The oral evidence is also not clear and cogent in order to assist the Court to give a positive finding on the income from the garment business. The same thing can be said about the Poultry Farm. The evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants show that the deceased was running a Poultry Farm but the oral evidence on the income from the Poultry Farm is not convincing. Therefore, the deceased's monthly income has to be made on some guess work. Since the applicants expect to get more compensation, chance of exaggerated statements with regard to deceased's income is always there. The oral evidence is to the effect that the deceased was having income of more than Rs. 15,000/- per month from his business. Learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income at Rs. 10,000/-. In the absence of clear and cogent evidence, this Court does not find any reason to disagree with the finding of the learned Tribunal. 9. In case of death of a person whose source of income is his business, or who derives income from agriculture, the normal rule about deprivation of income is not strictly applicable. The loss of income has to be determined keeping in mind the fact that the assets would still continue with the family of the deceased and fetch income. In New India Assurance Co. The loss of income has to be determined keeping in mind the fact that the assets would still continue with the family of the deceased and fetch income. In New India Assurance Co. V. Yogesh Devi; (2012) 51 OCR (SC) 759, the deceased was owner of three buses and he was the driver of one of the buses. He died in a motorcycle accident. In that case the apex Court observed that the assets, i.e., the three buses would still continue with the family of the deceased and fetch income. The only difference would be that his heirs may have to engage a manager to manage the assets for which they would pay some amount to the manager and that they would have to engage a driver for the bus which the deceased was driving. So, the amounts required to be paid to the manager and the driver would be the loss to the claimants. In a case involving the death of an agriculturist, the apex Court has observed that the land possessed by the deceased still remains with the claimants. However, there is a possibility that the claimants may be required to engage persons to look after agriculture. Therefore, the normal rule about the deprivation of income is not strictly applicable to cases where agricultural income is the source ( AIR 2003 SC 3696 ; State of Haryana V. Jasbir Kaur). In this case also the deceased left behind him the assets, i.e., the Poultry Farm and the garment shop. The deceased's only source of income is business. The quantum of deprivation of income is to be determined in accordance with the principle laid down in New India Assurance Co. V. Yogesh Devi and State of Haryana V. Jasbir Kaur (supra). 10. After the death of the deceased, the claimants might have engaged one person to look after deceased's business in garment so also the Poultry Farm which were being single-handedly managed by the deceased. The death occurred in the year 2005. For the engagement of a manager/supervisor to look after the deceased's business, the deceased's dependants would require to pay remuneration at least at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month. The death occurred in the year 2005. For the engagement of a manager/supervisor to look after the deceased's business, the deceased's dependants would require to pay remuneration at least at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month. Thus, this is a departure from the normal rule on ascertainment of loss of dependency, this amount should be taken as the actual loss of income and there should not be any deduction towards personal and living expenses nor should there be any addition towards future prospect. Taking the sum of Rs. 6,000/- as loss of dependency per month, the total loss of dependency adopting the multiplier of 15 (the multiplier is selected in accordance with the decision in Smt. Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation; AIR 2009 SC 3104 ) comes to Rs. 10,80,000/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of estate. In Rajesh V. Rajbir Singh; (2013) 9 SCC 54 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that compensation for loss of consortium should at least be Rs. 1,00,000/- and compensation for funeral expenses should at least be Rs. 25,000/-. Therefore, the amount awarded towards loss of consortium as well as funeral expenses is liable to be enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- respectively. The learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7% per annum. Though the Insurance Company claims it to be on the higher side, this Court is of the considered view that the rate of interest allowed by the Tribunal is quite justified and need not be interfered with. 11. Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly. The award under challenge is modified to the extent that the total compensation amount awardable in this case is Rs. 12,10,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs ten thousand) which shall carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum payable from the date of the claim petition, i.e., 2.7.2005 till the date of payment. The amount under the award shall be payable by the Insurance Company and the same be deposited with the learned Tribunal within two months and on furnishing the receipt showing such deposit, the statutory deposit with accrued interest be refunded to the Insurance Company.