JUDGMENT JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA, J. This first miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgment and/or award passed by the learned Judge, 1st Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Howrah on 25th June, 2007 in M.A.C. Case No.277 of 2005 at the instance of the appellant/Insurance Company. Only contention of the Insurance Company in this appeal is that the contributory negligence of the driver of the vehicle in which the victim was travelling was not considered by the Learned Tribunal at the time of assessing the compensation payable to the claimants. A cross-objection has been filed by the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein in this appeal the said cross-objection was registered as COT 2365 of 2007. The claimants claimed that future prospect of the victim was not taken into consideration by the Learned Tribunal while assessing the compensation payable to the claimants. The claimants are parents of the victim who died in a motor accident on 25th March, 2005. The victim was the only son of the claimants. He was a qualified engineer. He had brilliant academic background. He got first class in all examinations. He was employed as Assistant System Engineer in Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. His yearly salary was Rs.3,00,000/- approximately. Considering the average age of the parents, the Learned Tribunal held that 11 will be the appropriate multiplier in the instant case. Mother of the victim was aged about 48 years. Father of the victim was aged about 60 years. Thus the average age of the parents comes to 54 years. We thus find that correct multiplier of 11 was chosen by the Learned Tribunal. We have considered the evidence on record to find out the correctness of the substance of the argument of Mr. Pahari, learned advocate appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company in support of his client’s claim that ‘Maruti’ vehicle in which the victim was travelling contributed negligence resulting in such accident. We find that the Insurance Company failed to adduce any evidence in this case to prove that the ‘Maruti’ vehicle in which the victim was travelling was driven by him negligently and due to the negligence of the driver of the said vehicle, the accident occurred. We find that the Insurance Company failed to adduce any evidence in this case to prove that the ‘Maruti’ vehicle in which the victim was travelling was driven by him negligently and due to the negligence of the driver of the said vehicle, the accident occurred. On the contrary, we find that the eye-witness stated in the evidence that the offending vehicle was rash and negligent and due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, the said accident occurred causing the death of the said victim. We thus hold that the Learned Tribunal did not commit any illegality in coming to the conclusion that the offending vehicle was solely responsible for such accident resulting in death of the victim. We, however, find that future prospect of the victim was not taken into consideration by the Learned Tribunal while assessing compensation payable to the claimants. The victim was a qualified engineer. He was employed in Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. as an Assistant System Engineer earning a sum of rupees three lac approximately per year. Considering the educational background of the victim and his service in such a reputed Company, we hold that future prospect of the victim should have been considered by the Learned Tribunal while assessing the compensation payable to the claimants. We thus dispose of this appeal by awarding a further sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lac only) on account of future prospect of the victim in addition to the compensation payable to the claimants as per the award passed by the Learned Tribunal. Thus we hold that a sum of Rs.23,65,959/- (i.e. Rs.21,65,959/- + Rs.2,00,000/- ) is payable by the Insurance Company to the claimants on account of compensation. We are informed that the Insurance Company has already deposited the entire awarded amount with the Learned Registrar General of this Court. We are also informed that the claimants/respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein have already withdrawn half of the deposited amount in terms of the earlier order passed by this Court. We thus permit the claimants/respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein to withdraw the remaining amount which still remains in deposit with the Learned Registrar General of this Court. Learned Registrar General of this Court is thus directed to release the balance amount which still remains in deposit with him together with interest accrued thereon to the claimants/respondent nos. We thus permit the claimants/respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein to withdraw the remaining amount which still remains in deposit with the Learned Registrar General of this Court. Learned Registrar General of this Court is thus directed to release the balance amount which still remains in deposit with him together with interest accrued thereon to the claimants/respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein upon compliance of necessary formalities by the claimants within four weeks from the date of filing of an application for withdrawal by the claimants/respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein. The claimant/respondent no.2 viz., Sri Tapan Majumder being the husband of the claimant/respondent no.1 viz., Reba Rani Majumder is permitted to receive the cheques from the Learned Registrar General of this Court. The Insurance Company is thus directed to pay the balance sum of Rs.2,00,000/- together with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment. The Insurance Company is further directed to pay interest @6% per annum on the awarded compensation of Rs.21,65,959/- from the date of filing of the claim petition till the deposit of the said amount by the Insurance Company in this Court. Such payment will be made by the Insurance Company to the claimants/respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein by two account payee cheques to be drawn in the names of the claimants in equal proportion and those cheques should be deposited to the respective bank accounts of the claimants/respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein within four weeks from the date of furnishing the particulars of the claimants’ respective bank accounts to the Insurance Company and/or its learned advocate-on-record. Both the appeal and the cross-objection are thus disposed of. Let the lower court record be sent down to the Learned Tribunal below immediately. Re: CAN 12128 of 2014 (withdrawal of money) In view of disposal of the appeal in the manner as aforesaid, no further order need be passed on the application for withdrawal of money by the claimants/respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein. The said application being CAN 12128 of 2014 is thus deemed to be disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the applicant as early as possible.