JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Unsatisfied with the award made by the MACT, Barpeta, in MAC Case No.764/2005, the claimant, wife of the deceased, has filed this appeal for enhancement of the award. 2. Undisputed facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that the husband of the claimant Raizuddin died in a motor vehicle accident involving vehicle No.AS 15/0438, owned by the respondent No.1 and insured with the respondent No.3, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. The tribunal made an award of Rs.2,25,500/- which included loss of dependency Rs.2,16,000, loss of estate Rs.2500, loss of consortium Rs.5,000/- and funeral expense Rs.2,000/-. The tribunal also awarded interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition. 3. I have heard Mr. BK Jain, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S Dutta, learned Sr. counsel for the Insurance Company. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal failed to make a just and reasonable award and urged for enhancement of award towards loss of dependency, consortium, funeral expense and loss of estate. Further contention of the learned counsel was that tribunal failed to award any amount towards love and affection of the children and urged to enhance the award to make it just and reasonable one. Mr. Dutta, learned senior counsel fairly contended, that on principle claimants deserve some enhancement as the tribunal did not follow the principle laid down by the Apex Court while granting award on certain heads. 5. Mr. BK Jain, submitted that claimant has adduced sufficient evidence to show that deceased was earning Rs.5000 per month from his fishery business, but learned tribunal took notional income of Rs.1500/- per month, ignoring the materials on record. Learned counsel further contended that tribunal ought to have taken a liberal view keeping in mind the beneficial object of the legislation while deciding the income of the deceased, who was working in an unorganized sector. The claimant examining herself as Pw-1 deposed that her husband, the deceased was earning Rs.60,000/- per year, from his business of fishery. The claimant also produced a certificate issued by the Circle Officer, in support of income of the deceased. However, Circle Officer was not examined and therefore, learned tribunal declined to rely on the income certificate issued by the Circle Officer. The claimant also produced a certificate issued by the Circle Officer, in support of income of the deceased. However, Circle Officer was not examined and therefore, learned tribunal declined to rely on the income certificate issued by the Circle Officer. Although the claimant deposed that source of income of the deceased was fishery business, it was mentioned in income certificate produced by the claimant, that the income was from agriculture. Perhaps, because of such discrepancy, learned tribunal disbelieved the income certificate and took a lumpsum notional income. What transpires from the materials on record is that, the tribunal while assuming notional income, failed to notice certain relevant factors, which could throw light on the income of the deceased. Because, a person working in an unorganized sector, may not be able to produce an income certificate. Evidently the deceased was a young man of 34 years of age and maintaining a family of 5 dependants, therefore obviously he had some earning from whatever sources it may be. In view of the above facts, assumption of notional income of Rs.18,000/- by the tribunal does not appears to be in conformity with the materials on record. Off course, from the certificate produced by the claimant, it appears that it was a ‘ready to use’ document and hardly worthy of placing reliance. Since it is difficult to have the accurate income of a person working in an unorganized sector, keeping in view the beneficial object of the legislation, it is permissible to have some guess work while considering the income of rural people working in an unorganized sector. Even if the income certificate is disbelieved, considering the fact that the deceased was a young man, and he was maintaining a family of 5-6 persons, his income at the relevant time could not be less than Rs.4,000/-. In that view of the matter, learned tribunal ought not to have taken the notional income of Rs.18,000/- in the present case, which is usually permissible in case of non earning member. Being of the above view, I am of the opinion that the income of the deceased could not be assumed less than Rs.4,000/- in the facts and circumstance of the present case. 6. So far the age of the deceased and multiplier applied by the tribunal, there is no dispute. Being of the above view, I am of the opinion that the income of the deceased could not be assumed less than Rs.4,000/- in the facts and circumstance of the present case. 6. So far the age of the deceased and multiplier applied by the tribunal, there is no dispute. The age of the deceased being 34 years following the decision of the Apex Court in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 421 , the claimants shall also be entitled to addition of 50% of the income as future prospect to the real income. Thus, taking the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- pm, adding 50% of the income as future prospect, monthly income with future prospect would come to Rs.6,000/-. Considering the number of dependants, learned tribunal rightly deducted 1/4th of the income for personal expense of the deceased. If 1/4th of the income is deducted, the monthly loss of dependency comes to Rs.4,000/- + Rs.2,000/-¼ = Rs.4500/-. Therefore, total loss of dependency in the present case will be Rs. 4500 × 12 × 16 = Rs. 8,64,000/- 7. Learned counsel relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh contended that tribunal ought to have granted at least Rs.1,00,000 for consortium. Since the tribunal has awarded only a meager amount of Rs.5,000/-, I am of the view, that the claimant deserves an enhancement towards consortium and accordingly, following the principle of Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 , consortium is required to be enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-. Since no specific evidence has been adduced with regard to funeral expense, claimants would certainly be entitled to at least the minimum amount of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expense as per the principle laid down in Rajesh Vs. Rajbir (supra). 8. The learned counsel for the appellant relying on the decision of High Court in Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjujamma Mohan reported in (2013) 9 SCC 166 , Vimal Kanwar Vs. Kishore Dhan & others reported in (2013) 7 SCC 476 , Vanalapekhulai & Ors Vs. Shivnath Singh & others reported in 2015 2 GLJ 459 contended that adequate compensation should be granted on account of love and affection of the minor children. Kishore Dhan & others reported in (2013) 7 SCC 476 , Vanalapekhulai & Ors Vs. Shivnath Singh & others reported in 2015 2 GLJ 459 contended that adequate compensation should be granted on account of love and affection of the minor children. In the present case, the deceased has left minor children and therefore, I am of the view, that the claimant is certainly entitled to some amount for love, affection and care of the minor children. All those decisions cited by the learned counsel shows that various amount have been granted on the basis of peculiar facts of each case. However, following the latest decision of the Apex Court in Bhogi Redsdy Varalakshmi and Ors Vs. Mani Muthupandi & Anr, reported in (2017) 2 TAC 3 SCC, I am of the view, that the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in the facts and circumstance of the present case would be just and reasonable compensation towards love, affection and care of the children altogether. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the deceased survived for 20 months after the accident and he was under continuous treatment, for which the claimant incurred a huge amount, but the tribunal did not grant any amount for treatment of the deceased. The medical evidence adduced by the claimant shows, that the deceased survived for 20 months after the accident. The documentary evidence Exhibit-1 to Exhibit-23 and Exhibit-26 demonstrate, that the deceased was hospitalized twice, once in GMCH and once in Dispur Poly Clinic. The medical documents also show that the deceased had undergone treatment at Christian Medical College. From the medical documents as well as oral evidence of the doctor, CW-3, it appears that the deceased sustained multiple fracture involving Rt 10th to 12th Ribs, left transverse process of L1 to L4 vertebra and Rt. Ala of sacrum and Bileteral plural effusion. The deceased has also developed quadriplegia due to injuries of spinal cord. He also suffered from bed sore due to paralysis. No doubt, the claimant being a rural uneducated lady, could not preserve the documents relating to expense incurred for treatment of the deceased for 20 months. That does not mean, that claimant did not incur any expense for treatment. The deceased has also developed quadriplegia due to injuries of spinal cord. He also suffered from bed sore due to paralysis. No doubt, the claimant being a rural uneducated lady, could not preserve the documents relating to expense incurred for treatment of the deceased for 20 months. That does not mean, that claimant did not incur any expense for treatment. While dealing with the question of determining just compensation, tribunal is not supposed to act as a referee and must be alive to the attending facts and circumstance having bearing on determination of just compensation. Considering the gravity of the injuries and length of treatment, it may not be difficult to understand for any prudent person, that claimant incurred a considerable amount for treatment of the deceased. But the tribunal is found to have totally ignored this aspect of the matter. 10. Notwithstanding failure of the claimant to produce document to show the actual expenditure for medical treatment of the deceased, the evidence adduced by the claimant showing gravity of the injury and length of treatment was sufficient for awarding some amount towards medical expenses and therefore, I am of the view that at least an amount of Rs.25,000/- should be awarded for medical expense of the deceased. 11. Placing reliance on the decision of Vimal Konwar Vs. Kishore Dhan (supra), Syed Sadique Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd reported in (2014) 2 SCC, V Maleka Vs. M Malathi & Anr reported in (2014) 11 SCC 178 Mr. Jain submitted that at least an amount of Rs.25,000/- should have been awarded for cost of litigation. Following the mandate of the Apex Court in the decisions cited by the learned counsel and the facts and circumstance of the present case, I am of the view that the claimant shall be entitled to some amount towards cost of litigation. 12. Learned counsel for the claimant has prayed for enhancement of the rate of interest placing reliance on various decisions of the Apex Court including Narendra Singh Vs. Nishant Sharma & Others reported in (2015) 14 SCC 353. Without burdening the judgment by quoting all the decisions, I feel that reproducing the observation of the Apex Court in Narendra Singh (supra) would suffice. The Apex Court held as under: 15. Nishant Sharma & Others reported in (2015) 14 SCC 353. Without burdening the judgment by quoting all the decisions, I feel that reproducing the observation of the Apex Court in Narendra Singh (supra) would suffice. The Apex Court held as under: 15. Further, an interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the compensation was awarded by the Tribunal which was enhanced to 7.5% by the High Court. The interest rates determined by both the Courts below are bad in law as per the legal principles laid down in MCD V. Upahaar Tragedy Victims Assn, wherein this Court has awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation awarded in favour of the appellants. Applying the same legal principles, we grant at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation awarded by this Court. Following the said principle interest is enhanced to 9%. 13. In view of the above decision of the Apex Court, I am of the view that the interest granted by the learned tribunal @ 6% appears to be on lower side and the claimant deserves little enhancement. Thus, following the decision of the Apex Court in Narendra Singh (supra), the interest is enhanced to 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. 14. Thus, taking into account the foregoing discussions, the enhanced compensation to which the claimant will be entitled to is assessed as under: Loss of dependency: = 8,64,000 Loss of consortium = 1,00,000 Funeral Expense = 25,000 Loss of love and affection = 1,00,000 Loss of estate = 25,000 Cost of litigation = 10,000 Medical Expense = 25,000 = 11,49,000 15. The respondent, Oriental Insurance Co. shall satisfy the award with 9% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition, within two months from the date of this judgment. 16. The appeal is allowed with the enhancement of award as indicated above. 17. Send back the LCR.