JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 and Mr. R.G. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 2. This is an appeal by the claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act from the judgment and award dated 01.07.2014 delivered in T.S. (MAC) No. 247 of 2013. The claimant-appellants has urged the grounds of objection primarily for enhancing the award as made by the tribunal. 3. There is no dispute that on 07.04.2013 one Umesh Chandra Debbarma when returning to his home from Champaknagar Bazar by riding a bicycle at about 630 p.m. while he reached near Champaknagar Lamps on 44 National High way [Assam Agartala Road] at that time one vehicle bearing No.TR01S1540(Canter truck) coming from the same direction, dashed him as the vehicle at the relevant point of time was being driven in rash and negligent manner. Umesh Debbarma sustained serious injuries. He was immediately shifted to Jirania Hospital by the local people, but the attending doctor immediately declared him dead. 4. At the time of accident the deceased was, according to the claimants, of 45 years of age and he was earning a sum of Rs.12,000/per month as a driver of heavy vehicle. It appears that after recording the evidence, the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,90,400/inclusive of the loss of consortium to the claimant appellant No.1. 5. Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the finding of tribunal on the age of the deceased is entirely erroneous and emanates from the misreading of the documents such as the transfer certificate where the date of birth of the deceased has been recorded as 03.01.1970 and the postmortem examination report where the doctor has recorded the age of the deceased as 45 years. 6. For complete non-appreciation of those documents the tribunal has returned the finding that the age of the victim would be in the range of 51 to 55 years and accordingly, the compensation has been assessed. Mr. Nath, learned counsel has further submitted that PW4, Rati Ranjan Debbarma is the employer of the deceased and he came to the inquiry and stated that the income of the deceased was Rs.12,000 per month, despite that the tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4000/per month. Mr. Nath, learned counsel has further submitted that PW4, Rati Ranjan Debbarma is the employer of the deceased and he came to the inquiry and stated that the income of the deceased was Rs.12,000 per month, despite that the tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4000/per month. 7. Mr. Nath, learned counsel has emphatically submitted that if the age of the victim be determined on the basis of those two documents as 45 years, the multiplier would be 14, instead of 11 as applied by the tribunal. Mr. Nath, learned counsel has further asserted that the amount given as consortium is very meagre on deviating from the rate of consortium given by the apex Court in various cases. He has urged for reassessing the compensation and for increasing the loss of future prospect in terms of Rajesh versus Rajbir Singh & Others reported in 2013 ACJ 1403. 8. From the other side Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 while repelling the submission made by Mr. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that there is no evidence that PW4 was the owner of any vehicle or that the deceased was his driver of such vehicle. On such premises, the tribunal has correctly assessed his income at Rs.4000/. There may not be any interference on such determination. He has further submitted that there is no cogent evidence of income of the deceased particularly in terms of the claim as raised by the appellants in the claim petition. He has strongly defended the award as just and reasonable in terms of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act and according to him, there is no space for interference in the said award. 9. Mr. R. G. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 has adopted the submission made by Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. 10. Having scrutinized the records as placed before this court as well as appreciating the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this court finds that the adequate documentary evidence in respect of age of the deceased has been submitted by the claimant-appellants in the tribunal and as such, the finding of the tribunal, deviating from the content of those documents and without any tenable basis as regards the age, cannot be sustained. When there is reliable documents, meaning the transfer certificate issued by the Government School there cannot be any difficulty in adopting the said age. For purpose of calculating the said compensation, this court is of the view that at the time of accident, the age of the deceased be accepted as 45 years. Accordingly, the multiplier would be 14. In view of the said age, the loss of future prospect would be at 30% in terms of Santosh Devi versus National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others reported in (2012) 6 SCC 421 . 11. So far the dispute over the income of the deceased at the time of accident is concerned, the submission as made by Mr. Gautam, learned counsel cannot be brushed aside. Unless the basic documents viz. the driving license of the deceased is placed in the evidence, it would be very difficult to hold that the deceased was a driver and earning a sum of Rs. 12,000/per month, being the driver of the vehicle of PW4. Now by aid of the other parameters, the monthly income of the deceased has to be assessed. Considering the number of dependents and the size of the family, this court is of the view that Rs. 6000/per month as the income of the deceased would be reasonable in absence of any documentary evidence. 12. That apart, this court is of the view that the loss of consortium as granted to the appellant No.1 is inadequate, it should be enhanced to Rs.50,000/and that would be exclusively paid to the claimant appellant No. 1 at the time of disbursement of the awarded sum. Thus the compensation is reassessed in the following manner : Monthly income of the deceased : Rs. 6000/ Added thereto, 30% as loss of future prospects viz. Rs.1,800/in addition, thus the total monthly income index would be available. Thus it comes to Rs. 7,800/. The annual monthly index will be Rs. 93,600/. From that annual income 1/4th shall be deducted as the personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, the loss of dependency per annum would come to (Rs.93,600/Rs. 23,400/) =Rs.70,200/. With this, the multiplier ‘14’ would be applied for getting the loss of dependency which is Rs. 9,82,000/. With that, a sum of Rs.50,000/as consortium and Rs. 10,000/would be added as the funeral expenses. The total compensation thus would come to Rs. 10,42,800/. Thus, the loss of dependency per annum would come to (Rs.93,600/Rs. 23,400/) =Rs.70,200/. With this, the multiplier ‘14’ would be applied for getting the loss of dependency which is Rs. 9,82,000/. With that, a sum of Rs.50,000/as consortium and Rs. 10,000/would be added as the funeral expenses. The total compensation thus would come to Rs. 10,42,800/. The said amount shall carry interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 10.06.2013 till the date of payment. It is reiterated that out of the said sum, Rs. 50,000/with interest shall be paid as consortium to the claimant appellant No.1 only. 13. Mr. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 has submitted that in terms of the impugned judgment and award, the respondent No. 2 has already deposited the entire sum. As such, the respondent No. 2 shall deposit the remainder of the award in terms of this judgment and order within a period of 2 (two) months from today in the tribunal. In terms of the direction given in the Para 12 of the impugned judgment and order, the disbursement shall be made to the claimant-appellants. For purpose of reference, the said para is extracted hereunder : “12. In view of the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice, High Court of Tripura in (MAC) Appeal 36 of 2006, considering the future necessity of the livelihood of the claimant-petitioners, the entire awarded amount of compensation with interest of the petitioner No. 1 & 2 Smt. Manju Debbarma and Smt. Puspa Laxmi Debbarma being the widow and widow mother of the deceased shall be kept in a Fixed Deposit Scheme in United Commercial Bank, District Court Branch, Agartala for 5(five) years. 50% of the awarded amount of compensation with interest of the petitioners No. 3, 4 & 5 i.e. , Dipak Debbarma, Sanu Debbarma and Tanujit Debbarma shall be kept in a Fixed Deposit Scheme in United Commercial Bank, District Court Branch, Agartala for 5 (five) years, and the rest amount be released to the claimant petitioners No. 3, 4 & 5 by transmitting it directly from the court to the individual Bank Account of the petitioners No. 3, 4 & 5. It shall not be transmitted to a Joint Bank Account held by the petitioners No. 3, 4 & 5 with any other members of their family or any other persons. It shall not be transmitted to a Joint Bank Account held by the petitioners No. 3, 4 & 5 with any other members of their family or any other persons. However, all the claimants are entitled to withdraw monthly interest therefrom to meet their expenses. No loan or withdrawal shall be permitted without prior permission of this Tribunal. The claimants are directed to furnish two sets of photocopy of the Pass Book duly certified by the Bank having IFSC Code & MICR Code with one pass port size coloured photograph.” 14. Having held thus, the appeal stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. Send down the LCRs forthwith.