JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. A. Gon Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondents. None appears for the remaining respondent despite due notice from this Court. 2. By means of this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, legality of the judgment and award dated 22.07.2014 delivered in T.S. (MAC) No. 187 of 2012 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Tripura, Udaipur, as then it was, has been called in question. 3. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has urged two pertinent grounds viz. (i) income of the deceased as assessed at Rs. 10,000/- per month is not supported by any cogent evidence and (ii) the multiplier 17 as applied is not in terms of Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . According to Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel, the multiplier should be 16 in terms of Sarla Verma (supra). The other aspects of the impugned judgment and award are not called in question by the appellant and as such, this Court does not find any difficulty in treating the incidence of the road traffic accident occurred on 04.10.2011, involvement of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. TR-03-A-2117 which dashed a motorbike bearing registration No. TR-03-A-7650 on the backside causing the said accident, on receiving the fatal injuries from the said injuries, death of one Mantaj Gazi, age of the victim at the relevant point of time at 31 year as unchallenged. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel has further questioned the determination of the monthly income of the deceased, Mantaj Gazi at Rs. 10,000/- per month. According to him, there is no cogent evidence in support of such income. From the impugned judgment and award, it appears that the claimant-respondents claimed that the deceased, Mantaz Gazi, used to earn Rs. 20,000/- per month working as the agent of the LIC, Rose Valley and from other business and some certificates have also been produced before the tribunal. On taking an overall assessment of the income of the deceased and after perusing the documents as produced before the tribunal as regards the income of the deceased, the tribunal inferred that the deceased used to earn about Rs. 10,000/- per month. Mr. On taking an overall assessment of the income of the deceased and after perusing the documents as produced before the tribunal as regards the income of the deceased, the tribunal inferred that the deceased used to earn about Rs. 10,000/- per month. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel has submitted that the said assessment is not based on no material and as such, it should be interfered with. 4. From the other side, Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the claimant- respondents has submitted that after perusing the materials those were placed in the evidence, the tribunal has decided the monthly income of the deceased and hence, it cannot be said that the said finding is not supported by cogent evidentiary materials. As such, the judgment and award as passed by the tribunal warrants no interference from this Court. However, Mr. Lodh, learned counsel in his usual fairness has admitted that the multiplier as used by the tribunal as 17 should not have been used in view of Sarla Verma (supra). The multiplier should be 16 in this case. Thus, the award has to be quantified having regard to the provisions of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act based on the monthly income of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) per month. 5. Having taken into consideration, the evidentiary materials, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the finding on the income of the deceased. For personal expenses, ¼ is to be deducted. Thus, the monthly income index comes to Rs. 7,500/- (Rupees Seven thousand Five hundred) and accordingly, the annual income index comes to Rs. 90,000/- (Rupees Ninety thousand). Multiplier 16 on consideration of the age of the deceased being in the age group of 31-35 years is to be applied. Thus, it comes to Rs. 14,40,000/- (Rupees Fourteen lacs Forty thousand). With the said amount Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) as the cost of treatment, Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) as the funeral cost and Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) as the cost of loss of consortium are to be awarded. 6. This Court is of the view that the loss of estate has to be enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) to each of the claimant-respondents, except the claimant- respondent No. 1, wife of the deceased who would alone receive the amount for loss of consortium. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs. 6. This Court is of the view that the loss of estate has to be enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) to each of the claimant-respondents, except the claimant- respondent No. 1, wife of the deceased who would alone receive the amount for loss of consortium. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs. 15,95,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lacs Ninety Five thousand). The claimant-respondents shall be entitled to equal share from the compensation, save and except where the directions are made. It is made clear that the cost of loss of consortium should be paid to the wife of the deceased, the respondent No. 1 herein and Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) each as the loss of estate to be paid to the remaining claimant-respondents. The share of the respondents No. 4 and 5 are to be maintained in a fixed deposit till they attained the majority but the share of the respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 shall be paid to them on proper identification. This direction has been given on some modifications in the direction of the tribunal. It is further directed that the entire awarded amount shall carry interest @ 7% p.a. from 20.07.2012, the day of filing the claim petition, till the payment is made but the penal interest as imposed by the tribunal is without jurisdiction as Section 171 of the Motor Vehicle Act does not authorise the tribunal to impose any penal interest. 7. Having observed thus, this appeal stands partly allowed. 8. Mr. Gon Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has already deposited a sum of Rs. 19,10,249/- (Rupees Nineteen lacs Ten thousand Two hundred Forty Nine) in this Registry by a cheque dated 24.12.2014. Therefore, the Registry is directed to make the disbursement after releasing the amount from the existing fixed deposit in terms of this order. If it is found that the appellant is entitled to get any refund after adjusting the entire amount on account of the award, the Registry shall refund such amount following the procedure. Send down the LCRs forthwith.