JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. By means of this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurer appellant has raised two pronged objections viz. (i) the income assessed by the tribunal at Rs. 7,000/- of the deceased is based on no cogent evidence and (ii) the penal rate of interest at 9% per annum as awarded by the tribunal is wholly unsustainable, inasmuch as under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicle Act, the tribunal is not authorized to give penal rate of interest in any manner and that issue is no more res-inetgra in view of the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Keshav Bahadur and Others, 2004 ACJ 648 where it has been held as under: “14. Though Section 110-C of the Act (corresponding to Section 171 of the New Act) confers a discretion on the Tribunal to award interest, the same is meant to be exercised in case where the claimant can claim the same as a matter of right. In the above background, it is to be judged whether a stipulation for higher rate of interest in case of default can be imposed by the Tribunal. Once the discretion has been exercised by the Tribunal to award simple interest on the amount of compensation to be awarded at a particular rate and from a particular date, there is no scope for retrospective enhancement for default in payment of compensation. No express or implied power in this regard can be culled out from Section 110-C of the Act or Section 171 of the New Act. Such a direction in the award for retrospective enhancement of interest of default in payment of the compensation together with interest payable thereon virtually amounts to imposition of penalty which is not statutorily envisaged and prescribed. It is, therefore directed that the rate of interest as awarded by the High Court shall alone be applicable till payment, without the stipulation of higher rate of interest being enforced, in the manner directed by the Tribunal.” 2. Heard P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the insurer-appellant as well Mr. S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1-6 and Ms. M. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 7. There is no representation for the respondent No. 8, despite due notice from this Court. 3. Heard P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the insurer-appellant as well Mr. S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1-6 and Ms. M. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 7. There is no representation for the respondent No. 8, despite due notice from this Court. 3. The accident that occurred on 13.09.2010 at Bishalgarh, near Kalimandir on Agartala-Bishalgarh road involving the vehicle bearing registration No. TR-01-C-3193 (Tata Magic), the death of one Anukul Biswas, the husband of the respondent No. 1 and the father of the respondents No. 2-6 in the said accident and the valid insurance coverage for the said vehicle are not in dispute by the parties. 4. Mr. Gautam learned counsel appearing for the insurer-appellant has quite assertively contended that in support of the claim only the respondent No. 1 testified in the inquiry and she has stated that her husband, Anukul Biswas, was a carpenter by occupation and he used to earn Rs. 8,000/- per month and all the claimant-respondents were dependent on his income and as such they have lost their dependency for death of said Anukul Biswas in the said motor accident. 5. Mr. Gautam, learned counsel has pointed out that the said statement as regards the income was confronted in the cross examination by the advancing a suggestion which was, however, denied by the respondent No. 1 (PW-1) stating that it is not a fact that he was not a carpenter and that his monthly income was not Rs. 8,000/-. 6. Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1-6 and Ms. M. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 7 have quite candidly admitted the position of law as regard the position of the penal rate of interest. However, Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel has further submitted that the statement of PW-1 cannot be brushed aside as that was a mere suggestion. That suggestion was quite vague. It was, however, not suggested that he was doing or any other occupation or the deceased was not doing any work at all. 7. The tribunal has determined the age of the deceased within 51-56 years and has further held that the deceased was a carpenter and a good number of family members were dependent on his income. It was, however, not suggested that he was doing or any other occupation or the deceased was not doing any work at all. 7. The tribunal has determined the age of the deceased within 51-56 years and has further held that the deceased was a carpenter and a good number of family members were dependent on his income. Considering all these aspects as well as the prevailing wage situation at the relevant time of accident, the tribunal felt that it would be appropriate to determine the monthly income at Rs. 7,000/-. 8. Thereafter, applying the principles as laid down Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Company Ltd and Others, 2012 AIR SCW 2892, 30% over the total income has been added as the loss of future prospect. Though Mr. Gautam, learned counsel has not challenged that part, but Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Company and Others does not lay down such principle. Santosh Devi lays down that the deceased up to 50 years and a self-employed person would be entitled to 30% as addition over the conventional income index the loss of future prospect. 9. But subsequently, in Rajesh and Others vs. Rajvir Singh and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 54 , the Apex Court has held that the loss of future prospect for the person between the age group of 50-60 years shall be at the rate of 15% over the conventional income and held thus: “8. Since the Court in Santosh Devi case actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as laid down in Salla Verma case and to make it applicable also to be 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. 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) 10. As it has been already observed that the penal interest at 9% as awarded by the tribunal cannot be sustained, the same is set aside and quashed. However, the ordinary rate @ 7% will stand and applied affirmed till the payment of the award. The foremost challenge as has been thrown in this appeal is regarding the determination of the monthly income of the deceased. 11. Mr. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the insurer-appellant, to some extent, is correct that there ought to have been the corroborating evidence and he has very fairly submitted that the persons who work in the unorganized sector may not have documentary evidence but they can adduce the coworkers to support their occupational status. But in this case that has not been done. 12. The tribunal has relied on the oral statement, which was confronted in the cross examination, to hold that the monthly income of the petitioner be accepted as Rs. 7,000/-. The tribunal has considered the other components dependency to come to the said conclusion. 13. The tribunal has considered the size of the family to find out the dependency on the income of the deceased workman. Such component is always reliable to determine the income notionally. Having regard to this, this Court is of the view that the income ought to have been deduced at Rs. 6000/- per month. Now this Court will proceed to decide the quantum of the compensation following the standard procedure as laid down in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . The base income Rs. Having regard to this, this Court is of the view that the income ought to have been deduced at Rs. 6000/- per month. Now this Court will proceed to decide the quantum of the compensation following the standard procedure as laid down in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . The base income Rs. 6,000/- Loss of future prospect at 15% on the base income Rs. 900/- 14. Thus, income index is Rs. 6,900/-. Annual income becomes Rs. 82,800/-. The multiplier as chosen by the tribunal has been so chosen correctly, thus the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 9,10,800/-. From that, the one fourth has to be deducted as the personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, it comes to Rs. 6,83,000/-. With that amount a sum of Rs. 10,000/- should be added as the funeral expenses. For loss of consortium the respondent No. 1 will be entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/- and that amount shall exclusively be paid to the respondent No. 1. This Court has considered the age of the other claimants and their own prospect of generating income. Thus, the insurance company shall pay a sum of Rs. 7,93,000/- with interest @ 7% from the date of filing of the claim-petition i.e. 01.07.2014. 15. Mr. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted on 13.11.2014 the appellant insurance company has deposited Rs. 11,74,337/- in the Registry of this Court. As all the claimants are major, the registry is directed to disburse the award on equal share after deducting Rs. 1,00,000/- and its interest on proper identification. 16. The said amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and its interest shall be paid to the respondent No. 1 along with her share at the time of disbursement. If after calculation, it is found that the appellant insurance company has deposited more amount than the amount that has been awarded by this Court, the differential shall be paid back to the appellant-insurance company following the procedure. 17. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed to the extent as indicated above. Send down the LCRs forthwith.