Judgment and Order : By means of this appeal filed by the insurer under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act challenging the judgment and award dated 26.04.2013 delivered in T.S (MAC) 1 of 2012 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Tripura, Kamalpur [as it then was] on the grounds that (i) For ascertaining the income of the deceased, cogent evidence was not laid by the claimants and (ii) 30% has been added to the loss of dependency on account of loss of future prospects, though admittedly the deceased was more than 50 years and below 60 years [there is no dispute about the age of the victim as 53 years on the day of the accident]. 2. Heard Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the claimant- respondents No. 1-6. Also heard Mr. H. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 9-10, [the owner and the driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No. TR-02-2236]. None appears for the other respondents despite due notice from this Court. 3. It appears that while one Sukumar Mali, a marginal agriculturist and businessman of grocery items, aged about 53 years, travelling from Kumarghat to Dharmanagar by an auto rickshaw bearing No. TR-02-2236 on 04.12.2010 along with other passengers, the auto rickshaw collided with a commander jeep bearing No. TR-02-3685 on Assam Agartala Road. 4. Both the vehicles were on high speed and due to rash and negligent driving, the said accident occurred. From the accident Sukumar Mali received fatal injuries and he was rushed to Panisagar P.H.C. and from there, he was referred to Dharmanagar Sub-Divisional Hospital but on the way he succumbed to his injuries. Post-postmortem examination on his dead body was carried out at Dharmannagar Sub-Divisional Hospital. 5. It has been claimed that he was earning a sum of Rs. 9,000/- per month. The said accident had been reported to Panisagar police station and on such report Panisagar P.S. Case No. 130 of 2010 under Sections 279/337/338/304-A/427 of IPC was registered. 6. For loss of dependency, the claimants in T.S. 1(MAC) 2010 have demanded the following pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. For loss of dependency Rs. 7,92,000/-, for loss of estate Rs. 2500/- and for funeral expenses Rs. 2000/-. Their claim was seriously resisted by the opposite parties including the present appellant. 7. 6. For loss of dependency, the claimants in T.S. 1(MAC) 2010 have demanded the following pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. For loss of dependency Rs. 7,92,000/-, for loss of estate Rs. 2500/- and for funeral expenses Rs. 2000/-. Their claim was seriously resisted by the opposite parties including the present appellant. 7. In support of the claim, the son of the deceased, namely, Sukdev Mali (PW-1) and two other witnesses, namely, Smt. Sima Rabidas (PW-2) and Sri Subhash Das (PW-3) were examined and some documents were also placed in the evidence, such as copies of FIR, seizure list, charge-sheet, postmortem report, relevant pages of the family register and the death certificate of mother of PW-1, namely, Parbati Mali etc. 8. The opposite parties in the said proceeding did not adduce any evidence but at their instance the photocopy of insurance policy of the vehicle bearing No. TR-02A-2236 and the driving license of Md. Sayed Ali were taken into evidence, marked as Ext. A series. Some other documents such as Registration Certificate, fitness certificate of the vehicle including the text token and the route permit of the vehicle No. TR-02A-2236 were admitted and marked as Ext.B series. That apart, on other set of evidences were also marked as Ext. C series. 9. In the present appeal since the facts are not generally in dispute, no thorough scrutiny of the records is called for. 10. Mr. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that there is no cogent evidence to hold that the deceased was earning Rs. 9,000/- per month. But this Court however finds from the deposition of PW-1 that he has stated categorically as under: “My father was a businessman and he used to run a grocery shop in his locality. He had also landed property and he also used to share cultivation in his landed property. He used to earn at least Rs. 300/- per day. We the claimants were solely dependents upon the income of our father. The net monthly income of our father was not less than Rs. 9,000/-. At the time of his death he was aged about 53 years.' No cross examination by the appellant or any other OPs was carried in respect of the said statement made by PW-1. 11. We the claimants were solely dependents upon the income of our father. The net monthly income of our father was not less than Rs. 9,000/-. At the time of his death he was aged about 53 years.' No cross examination by the appellant or any other OPs was carried in respect of the said statement made by PW-1. 11. Similarly, PW-2 has stated by corroborating the statement of PW-1 that the deceased was a businessman and he used to run a grocery shop in his locality. He had landed property and he used to engage in the share cultivation. The deceased used to earn at least Rs. 300/-per day. The deceased having been the only earning member of his family, the claimants were dependent on his income and the net monthly income of the deceased being would not less than be Rs. 9,000/-. No cross examination about the statement was carried out by the opposite parties. 12. Similarly, PW-3 has also corroborated that part in the same vein and there was no cross examination and as such the objection raised by Mr. Gautam is without any substance because there was the averred claim and the claims were proved by the evidence. 13. The tribunal without accepting the claim of the income at Rs. 9,000/- accepted the monthly income at Rs. 4500/- after due adjustment. Thereafter, however, the tribunal has added 30% on account of loss of future prospects in terms of Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, reported in 2012 AIR SCW 2892. In this process by adding multiplier 11 the total loss of dependency was determined at Rs. 7,72,200/-. Therefrom, 1/4th from the said income matrix was deducted. The loss of dependency thus came to Rs. 5,79,000/-. Rs. 6,000/- has been awarded as the loss of estate and Rs. 5,000/- as funeral expenses including cost of transportation of the dead body etc. Thus, the total compensation was awarded at Rs. 5,90,000/-. 14. Mr. Gautam, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Santosh Devi (supra) has not made provision for giving the loss of future prospect after 50 years. Santosh Devi's (supra) proposition was restricted for the self-employed persons within the age of 50 years and not beyond who suffered damages. However, Mr. 5,90,000/-. 14. Mr. Gautam, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Santosh Devi (supra) has not made provision for giving the loss of future prospect after 50 years. Santosh Devi's (supra) proposition was restricted for the self-employed persons within the age of 50 years and not beyond who suffered damages. However, Mr. Gautam has fairly submitted having referred to a decision of the Apex Court in Rajesh and Others v. Rajbir Singh and Others, reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 the Apex Court in that case has enunciated as under: “8. Since, the Court in Santosh Devi case actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as laid down in Sarla Verma case and to make it applicable also to the self employed and persons on fixed wages, it is clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not 30%always; it will also have a reference to the age. In other words, in the case of self-employed or persons with fixed wages, in case, the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. Needless to say that the actual income should be income after paying the tax, if any. Addition should be 30% in case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years. 9. In Sarla Verma case, it has been stated that in the case of those above 50 years, there shall be no addition. Having regard to the fact that in the case of those self-employed or on fixed wages, where there is normally no age of superannuation, we are of the view that it will only 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. There shall normally be no addition thereafter”. [Emphasis added] 15. It appears clearly from the said report that the Apex Court was of the view that it would be only just and equitable to provide 15% of the assessed income as the loss of future prospects in the case where the victim is in the age group of 50-60 years. There shall normally be no addition thereafter. 16. Mr. It appears clearly from the said report that the Apex Court was of the view that it would be only just and equitable to provide 15% of the assessed income as the loss of future prospects in the case where the victim is in the age group of 50-60 years. There shall normally be no addition thereafter. 16. Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondents has also fairly conceded to such proposition of law. In view of that, it is incumbent that the loss of dependency is re-determined in view of Rajesh (supra) in the meaning as under: Monthly income = Rs. 4500/- 15% as the loss of future prospect on the basis of the said monthly income and thus the total monthly matrix become Rs. 5125/-. The annual income matrix therefore would be Rs. 62,100/-. On application of multiplier 11 the loss of dependency shall be Rs. 6,83,100/-. With the said amount, the loss of estate shall be Rs. 1,00000/- in favour of the claimants. There would be another sum of Rs. 5,000/- as funeral expenses. As such, the total compensation is assessed at Rs. 7,88,100/-. 17. The said amount shall be paid with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 06.01.2012 till the payment is made by the insurance company, the appellant, United India Insurance Corporation Ltd., shall pay the entire compensation within a period of 2 months from today. Mr. Gautam has submitted that the appellant has already paid the awarded amount in this High Court on 08.12.2014 and as such the said amount shall be deducted from the awarded sum and the deposited amount shall not carry any further interest from that date i.e. 08.12.2014 but the difference shall be paid within the stipulated period. 18. The claimant-respondents be allowed to withdraw the entire amount in equal proportion and for that purpose no separate application will be required to be filed by the claimant-respondents . The difference, if any between the deposited amount and the awarded amount shall be paid by the United India Insurance Corporation Ltd. to the tribunal and on such deposit the claimant-respondents shall be allowed to receive the said amount in equal proportion. With these observations and direction, this appeal is partly allowed. Send down the LCRs after preparing the award.