Lanusungkum Jamir, J.—Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in MAC. App. No. 1 of 2014 and for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in MAC. App. No. 7 of 2014. Also heard Mr. Zochuana, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 in MAC. App. No. 1 of 2014 and for the appellant in MAC. App. No. 7 of 2014 as well as Mr. Rosangzuala Ralte, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 in MAC. App. No. 1 of 2014 and respondent No. 5 in MAC. Ap. No. 7 of 2014. MAC. App. No. 1 of 2014 has been filed for enhancement of the award passed in MACT Case No. 13 of 2012 by judgment and award dated 18th December, 2013. MAC. App. No. 7 of 2014 has been filed by the Insurance Company Ltd. i.e., M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Aizawl Branch, Aizawl praying for setting aside the judgment and award dated 18th December, 2013 passed by the learned MACT, Aizawl in MACT Case No. 13 of 2012. Accordingly, these two appeals are being disposed of by this common a judgment and order. MAC. App. No. 1 of 2014 2. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that a claim petition being MACT Case No. 13 of 2012 was filed by the appellants praying for compensation due to the death of the son of the appellant No. 1 in. connection with an accident which occurred on 26th May, 2010. On 26th May, 2010, the deceased i.e. Johny Vanlalhruaia who was a Grade-IV employee in the Police Training Centre under the Home Department of the Government of Mizoram was proceeding towards Aizawl from the Police Training Centre at Lungverh in his scooter. At about 5.30 p.m. at Phunchawng he was knocked down and run over by a truck bearing registration No. MZ01-C/4068 when he was trying to overtake the said offending truck. Due to the accident, the deceased/son of the appellant No. 1 suffered fracture of the left fibula with degloving of the leg. He was admitted at the Civil Hospital, Aizawl from the date of accident till 3rd June, 2010. Thereafter, he was shifted to the New Life Hospital and continued his treatment there when he developed complications and succumbed on 10th June, 2010. The deceased was the sole earner of the family with the monthly income of Rs. 9,420. Mr. He was admitted at the Civil Hospital, Aizawl from the date of accident till 3rd June, 2010. Thereafter, he was shifted to the New Life Hospital and continued his treatment there when he developed complications and succumbed on 10th June, 2010. The deceased was the sole earner of the family with the monthly income of Rs. 9,420. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that after hearing the parties and on examination of witness, the learned Tribunal had passed the impugned judgment and award dated 18th December, 2013 whereby an award of Rs. 12,02,088 (Rupees twelve lakh two thousand and eighty-eight) was passed as compensation with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition until realization of the whole amount. He submits that the present appeal has been filed by the claimants as the learned Tribunal had come to the conclusion that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and therefore, l/4th of the liability was cast upon the deceased. It is the case of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the evidence of the offending truck driver i.e. Lalzarmawia had clearly proved that the deceased had given a horn while he was trying to overtake the truck and there was only 3 feet of metalled road of his right when the scooterist/deceased was trying to overtake him. The same would show that the truck was completely on the wrong side and, therefore, the question of casting liability of contributory negligence on the deceased does not arise. He also submits that the learned Tribunal had failed to make any addition to the income of the deceased for his future prospects despite the conclusion of the learned Tribunal that the deceased was employed as a IV-Grade employee in the Police Training Centre and was earning a gross salary of Rs. 11,061 (Rupees eleven thousand and sixty-one) per month. It was incumbent upon the learned Tribunal to have added 50% of his gross income against future prospect which was not done and the same is perverse and not in accordance with the law laid down in this respect. The other contention of Mr. 11,061 (Rupees eleven thousand and sixty-one) per month. It was incumbent upon the learned Tribunal to have added 50% of his gross income against future prospect which was not done and the same is perverse and not in accordance with the law laid down in this respect. The other contention of Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned Counsel for the appellants, is that the learned Tribunal has awarded simple interest @ 6% per annum whereas the same should have been 9% per annum as per the prevailing bank rate and also as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He, therefore, submits that the award of compensation given by the learned Tribunal in the judgment and award dated 18th December, 2013 requires a interference and the same be enhanced as per law. In support of his case, Mr. A.R. Malhotra learned Counsel for the appellants has placed reliance in the case of Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, and in the case of Jiju Kuruvila and Others Vs. Kunjujamma Mohan and Others, . MAC. App. No. 7 of 2014 3. MAC. App. No. 7 of 2014 is a Cross Appeal against the same judgment and award dated 18th December, 2013 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl in MACT Case No. 13 of 2012. Mr. Zochhuana, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in the accident which occurred on 26th May, 2010, two vehicles were involved, namely, the truck and the scooter in which the deceased was riding. However, only the insurer of the truck was impleaded and the insurer of the scooter was not impleaded. The learned Tribunal should have, therefore, dismissed the claim petition for nonjoinder of the necessary parties. He also submits that the accident that occurred on 26th May, 2010 was purely the negligence of the deceased who was riding in the scooter. The deposition of the truck driver would clearly show that he was going a slight uphill climb and the truck was loaded with LPG Gas cylinders. Under such circumstances, the truck could not had been running at a high speed when the scooter was trying to overtake the truck. He also submits that it is in the evidence of the truck driver that he had not given any signal to the scooterist to overtake him but he still tried to overtake the truck. Under such circumstances, the truck could not had been running at a high speed when the scooter was trying to overtake the truck. He also submits that it is in the evidence of the truck driver that he had not given any signal to the scooterist to overtake him but he still tried to overtake the truck. From the evidence of the truck driver, he submits that the accident was purely due to the rash and negligence on the part of the deceased/scooterist and, therefore, awarding compensation and holding the appellants, i.e. the Insurance Company liable is perverse and bad in law. When the truck was plying fully loaded with gas cylinders there was no question of running at a high speed and, therefore, the question of rash and negligence driving on the part of the driver of the truck does not arise. He also submits that the Tribunal adopted the wrong multiplier and therefore, the award has been calculated wrongly and the same also deserves to be set aside and quashed. He has placed his reliance in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Swaranlata Das and others, . 4. Mr. Rosangzuala Ralte, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 in MAC. App. No. 1 of 2014 and respondent No. 5 in. MAC. App. No. 7 of 2014 submits that he is the owner of the truck which was validly insured during the time of the accident and, therefore, if there is any liability the same should be paid by the insurer and not by the owner of the truck. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties in both the appeal petitions. 6. From a perusal of the records of the learned Tribunal it is seen that the driver of the truck bearing registration No. MZ01-C/4068 was examined as a Tribunal witness. In his deposition, he has stated that he was carrying a full load of LPG cylinders in the truck and proceeding from Mualkhang towards the agency office at Model Veng. The truck was climbing a slight uphill and the road was curving gently when the scooterist tried to overtake him and had horned. In his deposition, he has stated that he was carrying a full load of LPG cylinders in the truck and proceeding from Mualkhang towards the agency office at Model Veng. The truck was climbing a slight uphill and the road was curving gently when the scooterist tried to overtake him and had horned. However, as there was pedestrians on the left side of the truck, he could not move towards the left to give space to the scooterist to overtake him and there was only 3 feet of metalled road to his right where the scooterist tried to overtake him. He had therefore veered to the right to make way for the pedestrians and he does not know how the scooterist lost control and fell under the truck. It is also in his evidence that the scooter driver was coherent and he did not know whether he had consumed liquor. 7. The statement of the police officer who had prepared the police report was also taken as the claimant wetness No. 2. He deposed that the scooter attempted to overtake the truck after receiving a light signal from the truck driver but while overtaking, the scooter was struck by the right rear wheel of the truck which caused the scooter to fall down and the deceased/scooterist was run over by the truck's right rear wheel. From a consideration of the evidence of the Tribunal witness i.e., the truck driver, it is clear that the truck was climbing a slight uphill being fully loaded and nearing a gentle curve when the scooter had tried to overtake. Under such contention, the truck was expected to take a big turn and, therefore, he was more towards the right of the road leaving about 3 feet on the right side. It was at this time that the deceased tried to overtake the truck. From the evidence of the truck driver it can be clearly concluded that there was only 3 feet on right side of the road when the deceased had tried to overtake the truck. It was, therefore, the duty of the deceased to have slowed down to allow the truck to take its normal turn and thereafter proceed with overtaking of the said truck. This was not done by the deceased and, in fact, he had tried to overtake when there was just 3 feet of the road on the right side. It was, therefore, the duty of the deceased to have slowed down to allow the truck to take its normal turn and thereafter proceed with overtaking of the said truck. This was not done by the deceased and, in fact, he had tried to overtake when there was just 3 feet of the road on the right side. Under such compelling circumstances, the whole liability cannot be cast on the driver of the truck and, therefore, this Court finds that the deceased/scooterist had also contributed to the accident. The learned Tribunal had, therefore, rightly come to the conclusion that 25% of the accident was due to the contribution of the deceased/scooterist. Therefore, the ground against casting of contributory negligence on the deceased/scooterist by the appellants in MAC. App. No. 1 of 2014 fails. 8. As regards the other contention of Mr. A.R. Malhotra regarding future prospects this Court is in agreement with the learned Counsel as well as the authority relied upon by him in the case of Rajesh and Others (supra). Therein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in the case of self-employed or persons with fixed wages, in case, the deceased victim was below 40 years there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. The learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the deceased was having gross income of Rs. 11,061 (Rupees eleven thousand and sixty-one). However, no future prospect was computed in spite of coming to the aforesaid finding. This Court, therefore, is of the opinion that the deceased was below 40 a years and his income was Rs. 11,061 (Rupees eleven thousand and sixty-one) and, therefore, the computation of 50% of the total income towards future prospect must be made. On this ground, the appellants in MAC. App. No. 1 of 2014 succeeds. 9. Coming to the last ground taken by Mr. A.R. Malhotra as regards the rate of interest, it has already been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., , that the rate of interest payable should be 9% per annum. Applying the ratio laid down in the case of Rubi (Chandra) (supra), this Court is also of the opinion that the 6% interest awarded by the Tribunal should be enhanced to 9% per annum. 10. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., , that the rate of interest payable should be 9% per annum. Applying the ratio laid down in the case of Rubi (Chandra) (supra), this Court is also of the opinion that the 6% interest awarded by the Tribunal should be enhanced to 9% per annum. 10. As regards the ground of non-joinder of parties taken by Mr. Zochhuana, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in MAC. App. No. 7 of 2014, the learned Tribunal has exhaustively dealt on the matter and has come to its conclusion at para 24 of the impugned judgment and award dated 18th December, 2013, this Court is in agreement with the findings of the learned Tribunal as regards non-joinder of the parties and, therefore, needs no further discussion and the same is rejected. 11. As regards the adoption of multiplier, the learned Counsel for the appellant in MAC. App. No. 7 of 2014 has placed his reliance in the case of M/s. Swaranlata Das (supra). This Court, however, with due respect, is of the opinion that the matter has already been settled in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , and therefore, does not want to interfere with the multiplier that has been adopted by the learned Tribunal. 12. While dealing with the case in hand, this Court has noticed that the learned Tribunal while giving the award has awarded Rs. 5,000 (Rupees five thousand) for loss of estate and Rs. 5,000 (Rupees five thousand) for Funeral expenses. In view of the ratio laid down in the case of Rajesh and Others (supra), this Court is also of the opinion that loss of consortium and funeral expenses should also be enhanced. 13. Accordingly, the judgment and award dated 18th December, 2013 passed in MACT Case No. 13 of 2012 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl is modified as under: 14. The respondent No. 2 i.e., United India Insurance Co. Ltd. in MAC. App. No. 1 of 2014 is, therefore, directed to pay a sum of Rs. 18,85,631.25 (Rupees eighteen lakh, eighty-five thousand, six hundred thirty-one and twenty-five paise) along with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e., 19th March, 2012 till realization in full. Ltd. in MAC. App. No. 1 of 2014 is, therefore, directed to pay a sum of Rs. 18,85,631.25 (Rupees eighteen lakh, eighty-five thousand, six hundred thirty-one and twenty-five paise) along with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e., 19th March, 2012 till realization in full. The same shall be deposited before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl within a period of 2 (two) months from today. Accordingly, MAC. App. No. 1 of 2014 is partially allowed and MAC. App. No. 7 of 2014 is dismissed.