Judgment Re: CAN 7474 of 2014 (condonation of delay) Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. This first miscellaneous appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. There was 279 days delay in filing this appeal. Reason for the delay has been sufficiently explained by the appellants/applicants in this application for condonation of delay. It is stated therein that due to misplacement of the brief in the lawyer’s chamber, such delay was caused. In view of such uncontroverted statement made by the appellants/applicants in this application for condonation of delay, we hold that the reason for the delay in filing this appeal has been sufficiently explained by the applicants in this application. Accordingly, delay in filing this appeal is condoned. Let the appeal now be registered. The application for condonation of delay being CAN 7474 of 2014 is thus disposed of. Re: FMAT 1093 of 2013 Immediately after the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is regularized, we are requested by the learned counsel appearing for the parties to consider the appeal on merit by dispensing with the requirement of filing paper book as according to them, the appeal can be decided even in the absence of the lower court records. Accordingly, we have taken up this appeal for hearing by dispensing with the requirement of filing paper book in this appeal. This first miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgment and/or award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Purba Medinipur on 1st August, 2012 in M.A.C. Case No. 211/2011 at the instance of the claimants. The claimants are the widow, minor daughter and mother of the deceased. They filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation on account of the accidental death of the victim due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing No. WB-29A/0535. The victim sustained injury in the accident occurred on 3rd July, 2011. He was admitted in a Nursing Home and ultimately he died on 13th July, 2011. The Learned Tribunal while disposing of the said claim petition held that the income of the deceased at the time of his death was Rs.4000/- per month. By referring to the post mortem report, Learned Tribunal held that the age of the victim at the time of his death was 32 years. The Learned Tribunal while disposing of the said claim petition held that the income of the deceased at the time of his death was Rs.4000/- per month. By referring to the post mortem report, Learned Tribunal held that the age of the victim at the time of his death was 32 years. Thus 17 was selected as multiplier as per the second schedule prescribed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Tribunal also allowed a sum of Rs.15,000/- on account of medical expenses. Learned Tribunal also held that the claimants are also entitled to get a sum of Rs.9,500/- as loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate. Thus a sum of Rs.5,68,500/- was allowed on account of compensation in the impugned award. The legality and/or propriety of the said order is under challenge in this appeal at the instance of the appellants. Let us now consider the merit of the appeal in the facts of the instant case. Here is the case where we find that the claimants claimed that the victim was a skilled labour and he was employed in a factory of steel furniture. The claimants claimed that the victim used to earn a sum of Rs.4,800/- per month from his employer. The employer adduced evidence in the said proceeding as P.W.-3. He stated in his evidence that the deceased was his employee and he used to pay a sum of Rs.4,800/- per month. Salary Certificate was also produced and was admitted into evidence. Learned Tribunal without disbelieving the evidence of the appellants and/or the employer of the deceased, abruptly assessed the income of the deceased at the time of his death as Rs.4,000/- per month. When sufficient evidence is forthcoming in this proceeding regarding the actual income of the deceased, we do not find any justification in assessing the compensation by arbitrarily reducing the income of the deceased to Rs.4,000/- per month we thus hold that the compensation should have been assessed by accepting the actual income of the deceased as Rs.4,800/- per month. Having regard to the fact that the age of the victim was recorded as 32 years in the post mortem report, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Learned Tribunal for selecting the multiplier of 17 in the present case. Having regard to the fact that the age of the victim was recorded as 32 years in the post mortem report, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Learned Tribunal for selecting the multiplier of 17 in the present case. Having regard to the fact that the claimants failed to prove the medical bills by evidence, we hold that the Learned Tribunal was justified in not allowing the appellants’ claim for the medical expenses towards the treatment of the deceased to the extent of Rs.1,35,000/-. Learned Tribunal, in our view, was justified in allowing a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the appellants on account of medical expenses of the victim. Taking the aforesaid data, let us now assess the actual loss of estate of the victim’s family. Accepting the income of the deceased as Rs.4,800/- per month, we hold that the monthly loss of estate of the victim’s family will be Rs.3,200/- (Rs.4,800/- - Rs.1,600/- = Rs.3,200/-). Thus the annual loss of income of the victim’s family will be Rs.38,400/- (Rs.3,200/- X 12 = Rs.38,400/-). If we multiply the said sum of Rs.38,400/- by 17, then the actual loss of dependency will be Rs.6,52,800/-. In addition thereto, the claimants/appellants are also entitled to a further sum of Rs.15,000/- on account of medical expenses of the victim and a further sum of Rs.9,500/- on account of statutory compensation. Thus we hold that the claimants/appellants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.6,77,300/- (Rs.6,52,800/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.9,500/- = Rs.6,77,300/-) on account of compensation together with interest @6% per annum on such compensation amount from the date of presentation of the claim-petition i.e. 3rd August, 2011 till realisation thereof. We are informed by Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the claimants/appellants that his clients have already received the compensation which was awarded by the Learned Tribunal. Thus the Insurance Company is now liable to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,08,800/- (rupees one lac eight thousand eight hundred only) together with interest on the entire awarded amount to the claimants/appellants. Such payment will be made by the Insurance Company to the claimants/appellants by following the mode as prescribed by the Learned Tribunal in the impugned award within eight weeks from date. The appeal is thus disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the applicant as early as possible.