JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. P. S. Roy, the learned counsel for the appellants. I have also heard Mr. S. Lodh, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. No representation from the respondent No. 1 despite proper service of notice upon him. 2. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.03.2014 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala awarding a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-in T.S. (MAC) No. 76 of 2011, to the four appellants, they are preferring this appeal for enhancement of the compensation so awarded. 3. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 15.01.2011 at about 6.15 AM, the deceased namely, Chanri Moni Tripura, boarded a vehicle bearing registration No. TR-01-A-3259 proceeded from Tirthamukh towards Gandachhara and turned turtle at a place called Bijoy Para along Raishyabari, Gandachhara road. The deceased consequently sustained severe injuries from the accident and subsequently succumbed to his injuries. The deceased is survived by the appellants who are all his sons and daughter. The deceased at the time of accident was 70(seventy) years old and was said to be running milk business and earning Rs.7,000/-per month. On the death of the deceased, the appellants filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.22,35,000/-. 4. Both the owner of the vehicle and the insurer contested the claim petition by filing their respective written statement. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties passed the impugned judgment. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that when there is no denial on the part of the insurer that the deceased was running a milk business, the assessment of his income at Rs.3000/-per month is perverse and very much on the lower side. The learned counsel for the appellant also attacks the impugned judgment by contending that no award was passed for the loss of love and affection, loss of estate and funeral expenses at the rate of Rs.15,000/-. He, therefore, submits that the award calls for the interference of this Court, and the compensation amount is liable to be enhanced accordingly. 5. Refuting the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. He, therefore, submits that the award calls for the interference of this Court, and the compensation amount is liable to be enhanced accordingly. 5. Refuting the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. S. Lodh, the learned counsel for the insurer submits that when the deceased was found to be 70 years old at the time of accident, it is not possible to imagine that the appellants, who are already grown up persons, were depending on him for their livelihood. According to the learned counsel for the insurer, the appellants in their cross-examination have admitted that the appellant No.1 and the appellant No.2 were married persons at the time of accident and, as such, they could not have been the dependents of the deceased. Moreover, submits the learned counsel for the insurer, there was also no evidence to show that the deceased was earning Rs.7,000/-per month and his income so assessed by the Tribunal is not, on the basis of scanty evidence produced by the appellants, wide of the mark and is not liable to be interfered with. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the insurer that the appellant No.1 and 2 are not entitled to any compensation as they are married persons cannot by, any stretch of imagination, be considered to be dependent on the deceased at the time of the accident. He, therefore, submits that the appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have carefully perused the impugned award as well as the other materials on record and have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The fact that the deceased was running a milk business is not in dispute. Once it is admitted that the deceased was running a milk business, keeping in mind ground realities, the deceased could not have been earned less than Rs.4,500/-per month. In other words, the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.3000/-appears to be far removed from realities inasmuch as there is no denial on the part of the respondents that the deceased was carrying on milk business. In other words, the assessment of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.3000/-appears to be far removed from realities inasmuch as there is no denial on the part of the respondents that the deceased was carrying on milk business. That apart, the learned Tribunal has completely overlooked the principles laid down by the Apex Court for awarding compensation for the loss of love and affection, loss of estate and the minimum amount awarded for the funeral expenses i.e. Rs.15,000/-. In this view of the matter, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are not in consonance with the various decisions of the Apex Court and, as such, the limited interference of this Court is called for in the impugned award. However, it must be recorded that the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 cannot be considered to be the dependents of the deceased as they were already married at the time of the death of the deceased. Therefore, the appellant Nos. 3 and 4 are the only dependents of the deceased. As the monthly income of the deceased is found to be Rs.4,500/-per month, the loss of dependency would be calculated thus: The yearly income of the deceased would be Rs.4500 x 12 = 54,000/-, to which shall be added 30% as the loss of future prospect, which will come to Rs. 54,000+Rs. 16,200 = Rs. 70,200/-, but from which 1/3rd should be deducted for his living and personal expenses thereby making it Rs. 46,800/-, which, when multiplied by a multiplier of 5, works out be a sum of Rs.2,34,000/-. Thus, the loss of dependency to the appellants will come to Rs. 2,34,000/-, to which shall be added Rs. 50,000/-by way of loss of love and affection, another sum of Rs. 50,000/-as loss of estate and yet another sum of Rs. 15,000/-as cost of funeral expenses should be added. Therefore, the total amount of compensation payable to the appellants is assessed at Rs. 3,49,000/-. 7. The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed. The enhanced amount of compensation, i.e. Rs. 2,24,000/-(Rupees two lakhs twenty four thousand) only shall be deposited by the respondent No.2 with this Registry within a period of 6(six) months from the date of receipt of this judgment. The respondent No.2 shall also pay interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of the claim petition. 2,24,000/-(Rupees two lakhs twenty four thousand) only shall be deposited by the respondent No.2 with this Registry within a period of 6(six) months from the date of receipt of this judgment. The respondent No.2 shall also pay interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of the claim petition. Any amount already paid or deposited by the respondent No.2 shall be adjusted accordingly. 8. It is made clear that as and when the amount is deposited, the same shall be released to the appellant Nos. 3 and 4 as per usual arrangements, without further reference from this Court. The impugned award stands modified in the manner and to the extent indicated above. Transmit the L.C. records to the Tribunal forthwith.