JUDGMENT AND ORDER : By means of this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the legality of the judgment and award dated 22.04.2013 [however in the judgment, it has been incorrectly recorded by the tribunal as 22.04.2003] delivered in T.S. (MAC) No. 399 of 2010 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala has been called in question. 2. Heard P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the insurer-appellant as well Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel appearing for the claimant-respondents No. 1, 2 and 3. Mr. H.K Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4. 3. There is no dispute that on 31.07.2010 one Narayan Ch. Saha while proceeding towards Barjala by riding a bi-cycle keeping his track of journey in the extreme left side of the road, the vehicle bearing registration No. TR-01-D-0529 dashed him from behind the back of the cyclist and as a result, he received several bleeding injuries. Immediately he was rushed to the AGMC & GBP hospital by the local residents but he succumbed to the injuries on the very same day i.e. on 31.07.2010. 4. It has been asserted that the deceased was working in a Grill Factory and he had been also pursuing a business of supplying Iron grills to the Government offices etc. In the claim petition, his income has been shown to be Rs. 7,000/- per month. There is no dispute that at the time of death, the victim was 49 years of age. He was the sole bread-earner in the family and the claimants were fully dependent on his income. 5. The owner of the vehicle or the appellant did not dispute the basic facts as stated above. However, the insurer by filing the written objection did not concede to the claim of income or that the vehicle was under coverage of the insurance policy. It is apparent from the records that the claimant-respondent No. 3 deposed in the inquiry as PW-1. He has admitted in his statement that an income certificate was issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, West Tripura, under No. 732 F.5(21)SDM/SDR/GL/11 dated 16.03.2012 (part of the Exhibit 1 series). 6. On the basis of the said income certificate dated 16.03.2012, PW-1 has assessed the claim of the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 8,000/- and the tribunal has accepted Rs. 8,000/- as the monthly income of the deceased. 6. On the basis of the said income certificate dated 16.03.2012, PW-1 has assessed the claim of the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 8,000/- and the tribunal has accepted Rs. 8,000/- as the monthly income of the deceased. After adding 30% as the loss of future prospect the loss of dependency was determined at Rs. 10,81,600/- in the following manner: Monthly income of the deceased 8,000/- Loss of future prospect at 30% 2400/- total monthly income 10,400/- Yearly income Rs. 10,400 X 12 = 1,24,800/- 7. The loss of dependency has been assessed having due regard to the age [49 years] and its corresponding multiplier, which is as under: Rs.1,24,800/- X 13 (the multiplier) = 16,22,400/-. The Tribunal has deducted one third from the said income and thus, the loss of dependency has been calculated at Rs. 10,81,600. For purpose of deducing compensation, the tribunal has added with the said sum of Rs. 5,000/- as the funeral expenses and another sum of Rs. 5,000/- as consortium. 8. Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the tribunal was entirely wrong by accepting the income certificate issued by the SDM (part of Exhibit-1 series) inasmuch as, this Court in Tarun Kumar Reang v. Sri Rakesh Debnath and Others (judgment and order dated 17.06.2015 in MAC. App. No. 02 of 2010 has observed as under: “8. I have gone through the record produced by Sri Majumder and I find that an application was made by the applicant on 20th July, 2009 in which he prayed that an income certificate be granted to him and that his monthly income was Rs. 20,000/- per month. On 5th August, 2009 without there being a scrap of evidence on record, without any inquiry being conducted, without any evidence being recorded, without finding out whether the claimant has any business or not, the Tehsilder put up a note with reads as follows: “Applicant is a businessman. His monthly family income is Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen thousand) from all source. Salary-Nil, Agriculture-5,000/-, Business-10,000/-, Others-Nil. So may be issue an income certificate in favour of applicant”. What is nature of the business is not reflected. What is the source of agriculture income is not reflected. His monthly family income is Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen thousand) from all source. Salary-Nil, Agriculture-5,000/-, Business-10,000/-, Others-Nil. So may be issue an income certificate in favour of applicant”. What is nature of the business is not reflected. What is the source of agriculture income is not reflected. The documents attached with the application are Ration Card, Voter Identity Card, certificate showing that the claimant belongs to the Scheduled Tribe, a certificate showing that the claimant has a license to deal in food grains and sugar etc., a certificate issued by the Legal Metrology Department of the State of Tripura and a certificate of Sri S. Majumder, Block Development Officer that the claimant is a beneficiary of a rubber project scheme. On the basis of this material obviously the certificate has been issued. This material could at best show that the claimant had a business dealing in food grains, sugar etc. But this would not show what is the income from such shop. The documents attached may also show that the petitioner is also a beneficiary of a body which has a rubber plantation. There are some details with regard to the rubber plantation also. But nobody has assessed what is the age of the rubber plantation. Whether the rubber plantation is at the stage of producing rubber or it is still at the plantation stage. According to the certificate relied upon by the claimant he was became a beneficiary from the year 2007-08. The accident took place in 2008. Therefore, it means that the rubber plantation is only one-year old and at this stage there would only be investment in the rubber plantation and no income therefrom. 9. Even more shocking is the fact that though the Tehsilder as mentioned herein above recommended that the certificate be issued for Rs. 15,000/-, i.e. Rs. 10,000/- from business and Rs. 5,000/- from agriculture, the collector has issue a certificate showing the income of Rs. 16,000/- per month. On what basis this has been done is not apparent from the record. 10. I have highlighted all these points to emphasize the fact that in a Court of law, even before a Tribunal no reliance can be place on such a certificate because such certificate has no statutory backing to it. 16,000/- per month. On what basis this has been done is not apparent from the record. 10. I have highlighted all these points to emphasize the fact that in a Court of law, even before a Tribunal no reliance can be place on such a certificate because such certificate has no statutory backing to it. Such a certificate is not issued to under any authority of law and as such no Court should blindly follow the certificate and the income must be assessed on the basis of the evidence led by the parties and not on the basis of such certificates”. 9. Thus, Mr. Gautam learned counsel has submitted that by assessing the income on the basis of the certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Agartala, the tribunal has committed a serious illegality which warrants interference of this Court for substantial justice. Further, Mr. Gautam has submitted that the claimants have failed to adduce cogent evidence in terms of Sayed Basheer Ahamed and Others v. Mohammed Jameel and Another, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 225 where the Apex Court has submitted that wherever is possible the best evidence in support of the pleading has to be submitted before the tribunal. The guess work is not a rule, but an exception. There cannot be any difference of opinion with such proposition of law as advanced by Mr. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Mr. Gautam has further raised another objection in the appeal that the tribunal has awarded penal interest @ 12% per annum if the compensation with interest @ 9% is not paid within a period of 2 months from the date of the judgment and award. According to Mr. Gautam, the tribunal does not have any authority under the provision of Section 171 of the Motor Vehicle Act to award any penal interest. 10. Mr. S. Deb learned senior counsel appearing for the claimant respondents has fairly conceded that in view of the Apex Court judgment, Section 171 does not authorize the tribunal to award penal interest. As such the penal interest awarded by the tribunal is interfered with and set aside. 11. Mr. Deb, however, in reply to the submission made by Mr. Mr. S. Deb learned senior counsel appearing for the claimant respondents has fairly conceded that in view of the Apex Court judgment, Section 171 does not authorize the tribunal to award penal interest. As such the penal interest awarded by the tribunal is interfered with and set aside. 11. Mr. Deb, however, in reply to the submission made by Mr. Gautam, on the method of assessing the income has fairly submitted that in the examination in chief PW-1 has categorically stated that his father was working in a grill factory and also supplying the grills to the Government offices etc. and as such he has explained the nature of job the deceased was engaged on. As such the decision of this Court in Tarun Kumar Reang (supra) is not applicable for the reason that in that case, this Court has observed that no such material particulars regarding how the deceased used to earn were placed. A certificate issued by the Tahelsilder was relied for that purpose and this Court has observed that the Tahelsilder or the Deputy Collector does not have any statutory sanction to issue any income certificate and as such their certificate cannot be relied treating the same as a public document, unless the proper evidence is placed for appreciation. 12. This Court finds in this case that PW-1 has stated that his father used to earn from working in the Grill Factory and dealing in on supplying of the grills. He has in his cross examination stated that the monthly income of his father was Rs. 8,000/- and he has admitted the certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar [part of Exhibit-1 series]. However, in the claim petition it has been averred that their father's income was Rs. 7,000/- per month. 13. According to Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel, from the cross examination it appears that the appellant-insurer did not have any objection to such income i.e. Rs. 7,000/-. This Court on scrutiny of the evidence finds that there is no cross examination on the amount of Rs. 7,000/- as the income of deceased by the insurer. Having taking a realistic approach, this Court finds that Rs. 7,000/- if accepted would be reasonable one and based on the evidence. 14. Mr. 7,000/-. This Court on scrutiny of the evidence finds that there is no cross examination on the amount of Rs. 7,000/- as the income of deceased by the insurer. Having taking a realistic approach, this Court finds that Rs. 7,000/- if accepted would be reasonable one and based on the evidence. 14. Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel has further pointed out that in terms of Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi v. Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma and Another, reported in 2014 AJC 2648 (SC) the loss of consortium ought to have been given @ Rs. 1,00000/- to the widow of the deceased. To that aspect however Mr. Gautam has not raised any objection as obviously for the principle restated in Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi (supra). 15. Mr. Gautam, however has further pointed out that in terms of the order dated 21.03.2014 delivered in C.M Appeal No. 39 of 2014 [from this appeal] the insurer has deposited the entire awarded sum with interest on 02.06.2014. The purpose is obvious. The said sum shall not carry any interest after 02.06.2014. Since this Court has accepted Rs. 7,000/- as the income of the deceased, the pecuniary damages are required to be re-assessed and this has been so done in the following manner: Monthly income Rs. 7,000/- Loss of future prospect at 30% 2100/- Thus, the income for purpose of calculating the damage comes to 9100/- per month and the yearly income comes to 1,09,200/-. The total loss of dependency by using the multiplier 13 comes to Rs. 14,19,600/-. One third of the said income has to be deducted in the circumstances. The amount of deduction is Rs. 4,73,200/-. So the loss of dependency be comes Rs. 9,46,400/-. 16. With the said amount, a sum of Rs. 5000/- would be added as the funeral expenses and Rs. 1,00000/- as the consortium to the claimant-respondent No. 1 which shall be paid exclusively to the claimant-respondent No. 1. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs. 10,51,400/-. To be noted here that the claimant respondent No. 1 will individually be entitled to Rs. 1,00000/- on account of loss of consortium, out of the said award at the time of disbursement. 17. The said amount of compensation will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 20.11.2010 till the entire amount is deposited. As Mr. 1,00000/- on account of loss of consortium, out of the said award at the time of disbursement. 17. The said amount of compensation will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 20.11.2010 till the entire amount is deposited. As Mr. Gautam learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that on 21.06.2014 the insurer-appellant has deposited the awarded sum with interest in terms of the award determined by the impugned judgment, the remainder if any, shall be paid within 2 months from today. 18. It is further made clear that the sum whatever has been deposited on 02.06.2014, for obvious reason shall not carry interest after the day of deposit. Only the remainder of the amount after deducting the said amount deposited on 02.06.2014 shall be paid in the tribunal within the stipulated date. 19. It is made clear that the tribunal shall allow these claimants to received that amount with proper identification. The claimant-respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 shall also be paid from the amount that has been deposited in the Registry on proper identification and according to their share meaning. However, a sum of Rs. 1,00000/- shall separately be accounted for the claimant-respondent No. 1 and thereafter, the rest of the amount shall be divided in equal shares for purpose of disbursement. It has been made further clear that the total compensation shall carry interest @ 9% till 02.06.2014. Bun in the case of any amount remained payable after that day i.e. 02.06.2014, the appellant shall pay the said amount with interest in the said rate till the date of payment. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. Send down the LCRs after drawing the award.