JUDGMENT : Heard Ms. P. Ghatak, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3. Despite due notice from this court, there is no representation from the respondents No. 1 and 2. 2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the claimant questioning the judgment and award dated 19.05.2014 delivered in T.S.(MAC) No.24 of 2013 [Shri Mridul Kanti Pal versus Shri Biswajit Saha & Others]. 3. The finding in respect of the accident, involvement of the vehicle No. TR014099 (Commander Jeep)owned by the respondent No. 1, the rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle resulting in the accident that occurred on 16.08.2012 and death of Sritama Pal, daughter of the appellant from the injuries sustained from the said accident are in dispute. The victim was a student of Class-X in the English Medium School, Udaipur. That apart, she was a young achiever in the field of science and culture. She had a bright future. 4. By filing the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant claimed for compensation to the extent of Rs.30,00,000/- for the death of her daughter. The tribunal after appreciating the evidence as laid, has awarded a sum of Rs.3,32,500/- as the compensation on the following heads : [a] For shock Rs. 1 lakh [b] For loss of income Rs. 2,25,000/- [c] For cost of treatment Rs. 5000/- and [d] For funeral expenses Rs. 2,500/-. 5. Ms. P. Ghatak, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has clearly submitted that at the time of accident the deceased was aged 16 years. In the claim petition, her age has been asserted as 16 years. In support of that, the claimant has submitted the postmortem examination report and also the postmortem certificate where the age of the deceased has been recorded on 16.08.2012 as 16 years by the Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, Government Medical College & G.B. Pant Hospital, Agartala (part of Exbt:1 Series). Even in the Form No.4A, Medical Certificate of cause of death, the said age has been recorded under the Column ‘Age in completed years’. But the tribunal, according to Ms. P. Ghatak, learned counsel, based on the Final Police Report has recorded the age of the deceased as 15 years by discarding the documentary evidence. Even in the Form No.4A, Medical Certificate of cause of death, the said age has been recorded under the Column ‘Age in completed years’. But the tribunal, according to Ms. P. Ghatak, learned counsel, based on the Final Police Report has recorded the age of the deceased as 15 years by discarding the documentary evidence. Moreover the claimant who is the father of the deceased deposed in the inquiry as PW1 and has stated clearly that at the time of accident her daughter was 16 years of age. In this regard, none of the respondents did not cross examine the claimant. Ms. P. Ghatak, learned counsel has thus emphatically stated that the determination of age of the deceased as 15 years of age is untenable, as the substantive evidence has been replaced by the evidence which cannot be the evidence for determining age. The police officer who filed the charge sheet cannot have any personal knowledge about the age of the deceased and he was not summoned to appear as the witness. If the victim’s age is determined at 16 years, in terms of Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the multiplier would be 18. But the multiplier applied by the tribunal is 15. 6. Ms. Ghatak, learned counsel has further submitted that there is no award for the loss of love and affection and the charge for the transportation. Finally she raised a very pertinent question. Even if the notional income is based for assessing the loss of income or dependency, since the victim has succumbed to the injuries, her notional income should carry the loss of future prospect. In support of that contention, Ms. Ghatak, learned counsel has relied on a decision of the apex court in V. Mekala Vs. M. Malathi and Others reported in (2014)11 SCC 178 , where the apex court has held as under :- “18. The fact that the appellant was a brilliant student at the time of the accident should also be taken into consideration while awarding compensation to her. Therefore, taking Rs. 6000 as monthly notional income by the Tribunal for the purpose of awarding compensation under this head is too meager an amount. The fact that the appellant was a brilliant student at the time of the accident should also be taken into consideration while awarding compensation to her. Therefore, taking Rs. 6000 as monthly notional income by the Tribunal for the purpose of awarding compensation under this head is too meager an amount. The learned counsel appearing for Respondent 2 contended that the appellant can still finish her education and find employment and therefore, there is no necessity to enhance the amount of compensation under the head of “loss of income” and “future prospects”. It is pertinent to reiterate here that the appellant claimant has undergone and is still undergoing substantial pain and suffering due to the accident which has rendered both her legs dysfunctional. This has reduced the scope of her future prospects including her marriage substantially. Moreover, a tortfeasor is not entitled to dictate the terms of the appellant claimant’s career as has been held by the Karnataka High Court in K. Narasimha Murthy v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.” 7. Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3, while repelling the submissions of Ms. P. Ghatak, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that there is no infirmity in determination of the age of the deceased. He has submitted that the Final Police Report is submitted after due investigation and as such the police report is comparatively a better evidence and the tribunal did not commit any serious error in relying on the age mentioned in the said report. Thus, the age of the victim should remain unaltered at 15 years. He has further submitted that V. Mekala (supra) has been decided in a completely different set of facts and circumstances. There was a bright student who had suffered serious disability in the accident and thus the apex court had determined his income at Rs.10,000 per month and added 50% as loss of future prospect thereon. Unless the victim was a very bright student, the loss of future prospect could not have been added. However, Mr. Gautam, learned counsel has submitted that the court may grant the loss of love and affection or the transportation charge in a just and reasonable basis. 8. Unless the victim was a very bright student, the loss of future prospect could not have been added. However, Mr. Gautam, learned counsel has submitted that the court may grant the loss of love and affection or the transportation charge in a just and reasonable basis. 8. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinized the records, this court finds that the determination of age of the victim at 15 years is not supported by any sustainable evidence. The Tribunal ought to have relied on the testimony of PW1, the postmortem certificate and the post mortem examination report, which record was created immediately on the very day of the death of the victim (part of Exbt.1 series). Thus this court is of the considered view that the tribunal ought to have determined the age of the victim at 16 years. Accordingly, the said determination is interfered with and set aside. The age of the victim is determined at 16 years. According to Sarla Verma (supra), the multiplier against the said age is 18. So far the addition of loss of future prospect is concerned, the V. Mekala (supra) has opened up a new vista. It has clearly laid down the principles that even with the notional income the loss of future prospect can be added. For that purpose, the principle as laid down in Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others reported in (2012) 6 SCC 421 has been restated. 9. The tribunal has given ‘for shock’ Rs. 1 lac. According to this court, the award for ‘shock’ is nothing short of loss of love and affection. There can be several derivatives for the same purpose. This court is of the considered view that the compensation on the non-pecuniary head cannot be added. So far the claim of the transportation is concerned this court is of the view that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- be awarded. However this court finds that the funeral expenses as awarded are in the lower side. It has to be enhanced to Rs. 10,000/from Rs. 2,500/-. The compensation, the petitioner is entitled to, can be had in the manner as under :- (i) The notional income of the deceased is Rs. 15,000/- per annum. (ii) Loss of future prospect at 50% comes to Rs. 7,500/-. Thus, the total annual income index shall be Rs.22,500/-. It has to be enhanced to Rs. 10,000/from Rs. 2,500/-. The compensation, the petitioner is entitled to, can be had in the manner as under :- (i) The notional income of the deceased is Rs. 15,000/- per annum. (ii) Loss of future prospect at 50% comes to Rs. 7,500/-. Thus, the total annual income index shall be Rs.22,500/-. To have the loss of earning/dependency, the said amount shall be multiplied by the multiplier18. It comes to Rs. 4,05,000/-. For loss of love and affection Rs. 1,00,000/-. For funeral cost – Rs.10,000/- For transportationRs.10,000/- Total compensation : Rs. 5,25,000/- The said amount shall carry interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 09.04.2013. It is to be observed that this court has enhanced the rate of interest from 6% to 9% for obvious reasons. However, it is noted that the tribunal cannot impose any penal interest for whatever purpose or any interest of higher rate with retrospective effect for nonpayment within the stipulated time inasmuch as, Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act does not authorize the tribunal in this regard. The entire award shall be deposited with interest by the respondent No. 3 within a period of 2 (two) months from today in the tribunal on deducting the amount, if any, paid already. The claimant-appellant shall be entitled to receive the said amount or any part thereof from the tribunal or the Registry of this court on proper identification. 10. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. Send down the LCRs forthwith.