JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. J. John, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.T. Sarkar, learned counsel for the respondents No.1, 2 and 3. 2. By filing this application under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the insurance company has challenged the judgment and award dated 15.11.2014 passed by the learned Member, MACT, Kamrup, Guwahati in MAC Case No.1691 of 2013 whereby the insurance company has been directed to make payment of Rs.16,20,410/- along with interest @ 6% per annum to the claimants from the date of institution of claim till realization. The appeal has been preferred on a limited ground that the learned Tribunal has committed error in adding 15%on total dependency as future prospect. 3. Respondents No.1, 2 and 3 as claimants instituted Case No.1691 of 2013 before the learned Member, MACT at Guwahati stating that their predecessor Late Piren Chandra Ray died in a motor accident when a truck bearing registration No. NL-02-K-3412 hit him from backside on 6.7.2013 at Hapachara under Bongaigon Police station. The deceased was going on his bicycle from his residence towards Garogaon when the offending vehicle came in rash and negligent manner and knocked him down from behind. At that time he was employed as a Muster Roll labour under the Executive Engineer, PWD N.H Construction Division at Abhayapuri at monthly salary of Rs.16,940/- and he was 58 years of age. As he died on the spot Bongaigaon PS Case No.342 of 2013 under Section 279/304(A)427 of the IPC was registered against the owner and the driver. Claimants further disclosed that the offending vehicle was covered by insurance of the present appellant vide policy No. 1506722334001653. 4. On being notified, opposite parties to the proceeding appeared including the present appellant and filed respective written statements. The learned tribunal upon perusal of the pleadings framed following three issues and asked the parties to lead their respecitve evidence: (I) Whether the deceased Piren Ch.Ray died due to injury sustained on the relevant day of accident on 06.07.2013 due to hitting by the vehicle bearing Regd. No.NL-02-K-3412 (Truck)? (II) Whether the driver drove the vehicle bearing Regd. No.NL-02-K-3412 (Truck) in rash and negligent manner ? (III) Whether the insurance policy was valid on the day of accident to cover up the accident? (IV) Whether the claimants are entitled to get any compensation? 5. No.NL-02-K-3412 (Truck)? (II) Whether the driver drove the vehicle bearing Regd. No.NL-02-K-3412 (Truck) in rash and negligent manner ? (III) Whether the insurance policy was valid on the day of accident to cover up the accident? (IV) Whether the claimants are entitled to get any compensation? 5. Claimants examined Kelengi Ray as PW-1 who is the widow of the deceased. She proved Exhibit-1, accident information report, Exhibit-2, post mortem report, Exhibit-3 death certificate, Exhibit-4, FIR, Exhibit-5 salary certificate, Ehxibit-6, identity card of the deceased, Exhbit-7 certificate issued by competent authority and Exhibit-8 service book of the deceased. Two more witnesses, namely PW-2 and PW-3 were also examined to prove that the accident had taken place and that in the said accident, deceased lost his life. 6. The appellant on the other side examined two witnesses, Kamal Kumar Narzary as DW-1 and Bitopan Gogoi as DW-2 who were cross examined by the claimants upon consideration of the materials available on record. The learned Tribunal arrived at the finding that the victim was knocked down from behind by the offending vehicle on the fateful day as a result of which the victim died on the spot. The salary and age of the victim was available from the service records documents relied on by the claimants and accordingly it was held that the claimants were entitled to compensation. The total monthly salary of the deceased was found to be Rs.16,940/- out of which professional tax of Rs.208/- was deducted and thereupon monthly salary was Rs.16,732/-. But while deciding the annual dependency, the learned tribunal added 15% of the total annual salary as future prospect although it was pointed out by the insurance company that the deceased being 58 years of age no such addition of future prospect was permissible in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh & Ors. -Vs- Rajbir & Ors. reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 . -Vs- Rajbir & Ors. reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 . In para-12 of this judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the earlier judgment of Sarla Verma (SMT) -vs- DTC reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and held that in case of self employed or on fixed wages where there is normally no age of superannuation, it would be just and equitable to provide an addition of 15% in the case where the victim is between the age group of 50 to 60 years so as to make the compensation just, equitable, fair and reasonable. 7. Here in this case, the victim was neither self employed nor was he engaged on fixed wages. He was a government employee and under such circumstances, addition of 15% does not appear to be correct. 8. Mr. A.T. Sarkar, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents submits that he had no objection if this addition of 15% is deducted and the award is modified to that effect. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and more so in view of the fact that the learned counsel for the claimants does not have any objection, the appeal stands allowed in part by modifying the gross annual dependency to Rs.2,00,784/-. Therefore, the calculation of the compensation will be as follows: Total annual Dependencay = Rs.2,00,784/- less 1/3rd = Rs.66,928/- Rs.2,00,784 - Rs.66,928 = Rs.1,33,856/-. This is multiplied by multiplier 9 = Rs.12,04,704/- ( Rupees Twelve Lakhs Four Thousand Seven Hundred and Four) only. 10. The claimant shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.12,04,704/- as loss of dependency in addition to funeral expense of Rs.25,000/, loss of care and guidance for minor Rs.1,00,000/-, loss of estate Rs. 5000/-, transportation of body of the deceased Rs.5000/- and consortium Rs.1,00,000/- shall be added. Accordingly, total of compensation shall be Rs.14, 039,704/-. The claimant shall be entitled to Rs.14, 039,704/-. The order given by the learned MAC Tribunal at interest @ 6% of the same amount is not interfered with. 11. Appeal stands disposed. 12. The amount shall be deposited with the Registry of this court within 2(two) months from today and upon such deposit being made, the claimant shall be entitled to withdraw the same on being duly identified. 13. The appellant is permitted to withdraw the statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/-.