JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. 1. This is an appeal at the instance of the Oriental Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award of compensation dated 2.3.2013 passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge-cum-M.A.C.T. Cuttack in Misc. Case No. 84 of 2008 granting a sum of Rs.6,34,000/- with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum with effect from 14.2.2008 with further direction to disburse all the compensation in favour of different claimants looking to their position as on the date of filing of the claim application after observing that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. On their appearance, the claimants-respondents also filed a cross appeal making a claim for enhancement of compensation. Facts and question for determination being common, both the appeal and cross appeal are taken up together and decided by this common judgment. 2. Short background of the case is that the claimants i.e. respondent nos.1 to 4 filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal disclosing therein that while the deceased Dibakar Mishra was standing on the left side of the road at about 5 P.M. on 13.12.2007 near Gopalpur Tole Gate on N.H.5, a Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.OR-13-D-2092 coming from a cutting dashed the deceased violently causing severe bodily injuries on his person. The deceased was immediately shifted to S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital Cuttack where he succumbed to the injuries. Claiming the deceased was working as a painter and was earning a monthly salary of Rs.4,500/- made claim of Rs.7,92,000/- from the Insurance Company. Considering the pleadings of the parties, materials as well as the evidence available on record, the Claim Tribunal after coming to hold that the deceased died on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle having a valid driving licence and insurance, awarded the compensation amount, as indicated hereinabove and to be paid by the Insurance Company, the present appellant. 3. Assailing the impugned judgment and the award of compensation, the Insurance Company pleaded that the claimants failed to file any documentary evidence like educational or technical qualification of the deceased on his qualification on painting nor any document such as acquaintance establishing the deceased to be an employee or any document relating to salary of the deceased to prove their such claim. In absence of any such documentary materials, treating the deceased in the category of skilled labour and entitled to daily wage of Rs.90/- per day as per the Minimum Wage Guideline of the Government of Orissa in the year 2007 and accordingly, assessment of income of the deceased at Rs.4000/- per month by the tribunal is bad. It also further claimed that addition of 30% of income of the deceased towards loss of future prospect is also bad. It is on these premises, the Insurance Company submitted that the quantum of compensation is in higher side and the same should accordingly be reduced. 4. In opposition, the claimants contended that in view of the specific materials available on record, the fixation of earning of the deceased at Rs.4000/- per month by the Tribunal is at a lower side. In filing a cross objection, the contesting respondents-claimants contended that the monthly income of the deceased ought to have been taken as Rs.5,500/- per month. Consequently, the salary component of the deceased should be enhanced to Rs.5,500/-. Further, looking to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the contesting respondents i.e. the cross appellants further claimed that the Tribunal is also not justified in granting funeral expenses at the rate of Rs.10,000/- and loss of consortium at the rate of Rs.10,000/- Similarly, following another decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, respondents claimed that the Tribunal should have granted interest at the rate of 9% per annum and it is under these premises, the contesting respondents i.e. the cross appellants prayed for enhancement of the awarded amount. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Considering the averments made in the claim application as well as the materials available from the evidence, this Court finds the claimants have made their entire endeavour in establishing the claim and the salary of the deceased by not only bringing oral evidence but also material evidence. To establish the income of the deceased, the claimants have filed the salary certificate issued by P.W.3 entertained as Ext.8 disclosing the monthly income of the deceased-painter at the time of death to be Rs.4,500/-. The Insurance Company, on the other hand, have not brought any evidence on the aspect of income of the deceased nor even demolished the evidence of the claimants in this regard. The Insurance Company, on the other hand, have not brought any evidence on the aspect of income of the deceased nor even demolished the evidence of the claimants in this regard. There is strong material to establish that the deceased was a painter and was drawing Rs.4,500/- as salary per month. In absence of any materials to dislodge the claim of the claimants on the income of the deceased, this Court finds that the finding of the Tribunal holding deceased’s income at Rs.4,000/- is improper and instead, it should be treated as Rs.4,500/-. This Court also observes that the claim of the Insurance Company on the income of the deceased has no substance. 6. Now coming to grant of 30% towards future loss. Following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others, 2012 (3) T.A.C. 1 (S.C.), this Court finds that there is no illegality in the grant of 30% towards future loss on account of death of the deceased. So far as claim of interest at the rate of 9% per annum, following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kalpana Raj and Others v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpn., 2014 (2) T.A.C. 744 (S.C.), this Court considering the accident to have been taken place on 13.12.2007, finds the grant of interest by the Tribunal at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim on 14.2.2008 till its release is proper. However, considering that in view of the challenge of the award by the Insurance Company causing a great loss to the claimants all through, this Court following the decision reported in 2014 (2) T.A.C. 744 (Supra) grants interest from the next date of judgment passed by the tribunal i.e. 3.3.2013 till date of release at the rate of 9% per annum. Similarly, looking to the claim with regard to funeral expenses and loss of consortium at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/-, as claimed by the cross appellants/contesting respondents, this Court following the grant of 30% additional compensation by the tribunal following the decision 2012 (3) T.A.C. in the matter of Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others, this claim of the claimants is declined. 7. 7. Under the circumstances, while dismissing M.A.C.A. No. 627 of 2013 at the instance of the Insurance Company, allows the cross objection at the instance of the contesting respondents-claimant, thereby modifying the judgment passed by the Tribunal in Misc. Case No. 84 of 2008 with the directions as follows: The claimants-contesting respondent nos.1 to 4 shall be entitled compensation at the rate of Rs.4,500 x 12 x 15 = Rs.8.10.000/- 20% personal expenses comes to Rs.6,48,000/- + Rs.1,91,400/- (30% additional compensation) = Rs.8,39,400 + Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenditure, loss of consortium and estate i.e. in Total Rs.8,49,400/- (Rupees eight lakhs forty nine thousand four hundred). This amount will bear interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition i.e. from 14.2.2008 till the date of judgment i.e. 2.3.2013 and from 3.3.2013 till the date of release will bear interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The interest of the aforesaid amount be calculated within a period of two weeks hence and the whole amount be deposited in the trial court within a period of four weeks thereafter and be released in favour of the claimants on proper application and identification. It is further made clear that if the aforesaid amount is not released within a period of six weeks from the date of this judgment, the claimants shall be entitled to additional interest at the rate of 10% per annum for the further delay. 8. The M.A.C.A. stands dismissed and the cross objection stands allowed as indicated hereinabove. However, there is no order as to cost.