JUDGMENT : Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J. Although the matter is appearing under the heading ‘for orders’, by consent of Mr. Santosh Kumar Das, learned advocate appearing for appellant/claimant and Mr. Kamal Krishna Das, learned advocate appearing for the insurance company/respondent no.1, the appeal is taken up for hearing after dispensation of all formalities. 2. It is pertinent to mention here that the owner of the offending vehicle/respondent no.2 did not contest the claim case in the trial court. 3. Therefore, on the joint prayers of the learned advocates appearing for the contesting parties, formal service of notice of the appeal and the application on the owner of the offending vehicle/respondent no.2 is dispensed with. 4. This appeal is against the judgment and order dated May 20, 2006 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Contai, District – Purba Medinipur, in Motor Accident Claims Case no.1 of 2006. 5. The victim, namely, Santosh Parida, met with an accident on August 1, 2002 and succumbed to his injuries. It is alleged that the offending vehicle bearing registration no. W.B. 33-4165 knocked down the victim and he died instantaneously on the spot. 6. The mother of the victim is the claimant. She filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying for compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- (Rupees five lakh fifty thousand) only from the insurance company. 7. The learned judge in the trial court held that the claimant shall be entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.2,32,400/- (Rupees two lakh thirty two thousand four hundred) only and the insurance company was directed to pay such compensation by an account payee cheque to the claimant within two months from the date of the order failing which the claimant would be entitled to get simple interest at the rate of 7.50% per centum per annum on the said amount till realisation. 8. Mr. Santosh Kumar Das, learned advocate appearing for the claimant/appellant, submits that although the application was filed under Section 166 of the said Act, but, it was, in fact, an application under Section 163A of the said Act as the income of the victim was within Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) only. 9. 8. Mr. Santosh Kumar Das, learned advocate appearing for the claimant/appellant, submits that although the application was filed under Section 166 of the said Act, but, it was, in fact, an application under Section 163A of the said Act as the income of the victim was within Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) only. 9. We are fortified by a decision of this Court in Shrimati Upasi Singha and others versus The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others reported in (2010) 4 West Bengal Law Reporter (Calcutta), where a division bench of this Court held that mere caption of an application could not decide the real nature of the same and if it appeared to the Court dealing with such prayer for compensation, the Court has jurisdiction to grant appropriate relief under a different provisions of the Statute. Such wrong caption could not be a ground for rejection of the proceeding. 10. We, therefore, hold that the original application, although captioned under Section 166 of the said Act, was, in fact, an application under Section 163A of the said Act. We, thus, propose to decide the matter on the basis of the principles governed for awarding compensation in a case initiated under Section 163A of the said Act. 11. The claimant deposed herself and she produced two other witnesses. The insurance company produced no witness. 12. The learned trial judge, in our view, rightly found that it was adequately proved that the offending vehicle was involved in the said motor accident on the date, place and at the time as contended by the claimant. 13. The offending vehicle was involved in the accident has been proved beyond doubt. It is, also, proved that the victim succumbed to his injuries. The victim was admittedly 21 years old at the time of his death. He was a bachelor and his mother is the only heir and legal representative to claim the compensation. 14. The learned trial judge, in our view, rightly held that the age of the claimant would be the yardstick to assess the compensation. The claimant was less than 40 years old at the time of accident and the learned trial judge, in our view, rightly applied multiplier 16 in this case. 15. Mr. 14. The learned trial judge, in our view, rightly held that the age of the claimant would be the yardstick to assess the compensation. The claimant was less than 40 years old at the time of accident and the learned trial judge, in our view, rightly applied multiplier 16 in this case. 15. Mr. Santosh Kumar Das, learned advocate appearing for the appellant, strenuously, argues that the claimant has produced the employer of the victim to prove that the victim used to earn R.4,250/- (Rupees four thousand two hundred fifty) only per month while working under the claimant’s witness no.2, Radhesham Pradhan. 16. The learned trial judge rightly commented that the evidence of the alleged employer did not inspire confidence. He could not produce any register showing the pay roll of his employees nor he could produce any receipt showing payment of salary to the victim. 17. Moreover, the claimant’s witness no.2 claimed that he was the owner of Laxmi Narayan Fish Centre. But, nothing was produced to establish such claim. 18. Therefore, the learned trial judge came to the conclusion that the income of the victim was Rs.60/- (Rupees sixty) only per day. Thus, he assessed the monthly income of Rs.1,800/- (Rupees one thousand eight hundred) only. 19. We are of the opinion, assuming for the sake of argument, that the victim was unemployed, but, we can safely treat the income of the victim as Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand) only per month when Supreme Court of India in the case of Shrimati Laxmi Devi and others versus Mohammad Tabbar and another reported in (2008) 12 Supreme Court Cases 165 held that now-a-days even an unskilled labourer could earn Rs.100/- (one hundred) only per day. 20. Thus, we set aside the finding of the learned trial judge as to the income of the victim and hold that the victim used to earn Rs.36,000/- (Rupees thirty six thousand) per annum. 21. The learned trial judge, however, deducted one-third amount for his personal living expenses. 22. Mr. Kamal Krishna Das, learned advocate appearing for the insurance company, strenuously, argues that as the victim was a bachelor, 50% should be treated as his personal living expenses when the mother is the only claimant. 23. Mr. Das submits that in assessing just compensation we should, therefore, deduct 50% percent of the income of the victim as he was a bachelor. 24. 23. Mr. Das submits that in assessing just compensation we should, therefore, deduct 50% percent of the income of the victim as he was a bachelor. 24. The insurance company has not preferred any appeal challenging the decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 25. We hold that in a case claiming compensation under Section 163A of the said Act by the mother of the victim the general principle of maximum deduction of 50% per centum in a fault liability claim case cannot be applied. In our view, in such case deduction cannot exceed as the statute fixed one-third limit. 26. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention of Mr. Das that the claims tribunal ought to have deducted 50% per centum as the victim was a bachelor even in a proceeding under Section 163A of the said Act. 27. We, therefore, modify the award as under: That the claimant shall be entitled to Rs.3,84,000/- (Rupees three lakh eighty four thousand) only, Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only for funeral expenses, and Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred) only towards loss of estate. The total comes to Rs.3,88,500/- (Rupees three lakh eighth eight thousand five hundred) only. 28. The claims tribunal did not award interest from the date of filing of claim application. On the contrary, the learned trial judge directed the compensation would carry interest at the rate of 7.50% per centum, in the event, the insurance company failed to pay the compensation within two months from the date of the order. 29. Under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claims tribunals are authorised to allow simple interest, in addition to the amount of compensation, at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making of the claim. 30. We feel that the tribunal ought to have exercised its discretion, considering the fact that this is a beneficial piece of legislation, to award interest from the date of filing of the application. 31. We, therefore, direct the awarded compensation will carry interest at the rate of 8% per centum per annum from the date of filing of claim application. 32. The appeal is, thus, allowed-in-part 33. The award stands modified as above. 34. In view of disposal of appeal, the application filed under C.A.N.5932 of 2014, becomes infructuous and the same is, also, disposed of. 35. 32. The appeal is, thus, allowed-in-part 33. The award stands modified as above. 34. In view of disposal of appeal, the application filed under C.A.N.5932 of 2014, becomes infructuous and the same is, also, disposed of. 35. We make no order as to costs. 36. After the judgment is pronounced, Mr. Santosh Kumar Das, learned advocate appearing for the appellant, in his usual fairness, submits, that already the claimant received Rs.2,32,400/- (Rupees two lakh thirty two thousand four hundred) only. 37. The insurance company shall pay the balance compensation and calculate the interest component and shall directly deposit the same in the bank account of the claimant. 38. The claimant is, however, directed to disclose her bank account particulars to the insurance company, through its learned advocate in this Court and the insurance company shall make the deposit within two months from the date of receipt of such bank particulars from the claimant. Subrata Talukdar, J. I agree.