JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the MV Act is by the claimant for enhancement of award. 2. One Sanjoy Maheswari died in a motor vehicle accident involving vehicle bearing registration No.AS-03/B-7479, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.1. Wife and children of late Sanjoy Maheswari preferred a claim petition before MACT, Nagaon. 3. Learned tribunal made an award of Rs.24,47,527.00 which included Rs.22,66,464.00 towards loss of dependency, Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expense, Rs.1,57,063/- towards medical expense, Rs.5,000/- towards love and affection, Rs.5000/- towards consortium and Rs.4000/- towards conveyance. An amount of Rs.1,000/- was also awarded as cost of litigation. Tribunal awarded 7% interest on the awarded amount from the date of judgment. 4. Unsatisfied with the above award, the claimants have filed the instant appeal. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant in person and learned senior counsel Mr. SS Sarma for the respondents. 6. The appellant urged before this Court for enhancement of the quantum on all heads of award granted by the tribunal. It has also been submitted that the tribunal did not grant any amount for loss of estate and pain, shock and suffering and therefore, prayed for awarding appropriate amount on the above counts. 7. Appellant/claimant submitted that the deceased was a businessman, who was dealing with the sale of law books and was an income tax payee. The claimant proved income tax returns of 8 years for the period, from 2001-02 to 2007-08. However, learned tribunal while assessing the loss of dependency, took the income for the year 2005-06, ignoring the actual income of the deceased at the time of death. It has been contended, that all the income tax return proved by the claimant as exhibit-17 to exhibit-23 were not disputed by the Insurance Company. The claimant categorically stated that the source of income of her husband was business of selling of law books and no evidence was adduced to controvert such evidence of the claimant with regard to the occupation and source of income of the deceased. However, learned tribunal with the observation, that source of entire income might not be the business and took the income of the deceased for the year 2005-06, for assessing loss of dependency. It has been contended by the claimant, that the learned tribunal took the income of 2005-06 arbitrarily, ignoring the evidence on record. However, learned tribunal with the observation, that source of entire income might not be the business and took the income of the deceased for the year 2005-06, for assessing loss of dependency. It has been contended by the claimant, that the learned tribunal took the income of 2005-06 arbitrarily, ignoring the evidence on record. The evidence brought on record shows, that there was no other source of income except the business of selling law books as deposed by the claimant, Pw-1, and such evidence of the claimant remained unshaken. Therefore, I do not find any justification for not considering the income of the deceased for the year 2007-08, as the deceased died on 15.4.2008. Exhibit-23, income tax return with acknowledgement for the financial year 2007-08 clearly show, that income for the year 2007-2008 was Rs.2,49,603 and there was no reason for not accepting such income of the deceased on mere surmise and conjecture that some income might not be from the business. Since there was no evidence on record to hold that the entire income for the year 2007-2008 was not from the business, learned tribunal ought to have taken the income of the deceased as shown in exhibit-23 as it was not disputed. 8. Placing reliance on the various decisions of the Apex Court, including General Manager, Karnataka SRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas & Others reported in (1994) 2 SCC 176 , Smti Sarla Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd & Others reported in (2012) 6 SCC 421 , Vanlalpekhlui & Others Vs. Shivnath Singh & Others reported in (2013) 7 SCC 476 , the claimant contended that there was tremendous enhancement of income of the deceased because of progress in his business and therefore, tribunal ought to have awarded 100% future prospect, while assessing the loss of dependency. It would appear from the decisions of the Apex Court cited by the claimant that various amounts were added as future prospect before the decision of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra), considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. However, in the case of Sarala Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra), the Apex Court has laid down some principles, with regard to granting of future prospect in the following manner. “24. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra), considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. However, in the case of Sarala Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra), the Apex Court has laid down some principles, with regard to granting of future prospect in the following manner. “24. In Susamma Thomas this Court increased the income by nearly 100%, in Sarla Dixit the income was increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruah the income was increased by a mere 7%. In view of the imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary of the deceased towards future prospects, where he deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. (Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words “actual salary” should be read as “actual salary less tax”). The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition where the age f the deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculation being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments, etc) the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure there from should be made only rate and exceptional cases involving special circumstances.” 9. In Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company (supra), the Apex Court extended the benefit of future prospect also to the self employed person in the same manner. In Rajesh Vs. Rajbir, the Apex Court further held that in case of person with fixed wage having no age of superannuation, 15% enhancement should be given for the age ground of 50-60 years. However, the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Pushpa and others reported in SLP (C) CC No.8058/2014 taking note of conflicting position regarding addition of future prospect after the age of 50 years, in Reshma Kumari and Others Vs. Madan Mohan and Another and Rajesh Singh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, referred the matter to a larger bench. Pushpa and others reported in SLP (C) CC No.8058/2014 taking note of conflicting position regarding addition of future prospect after the age of 50 years, in Reshma Kumari and Others Vs. Madan Mohan and Another and Rajesh Singh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, referred the matter to a larger bench. Be that as it may, since with regard to grant of future prospect, for the age group, below 50 years, there was no divergence of view, tribunal ought to have added 50% of the income as future prospect, as undisputedly the age of the deceased was 39 years. However, the tribunal in the instant case, while granting future prospect appears to have not taken into consideration the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (supra) and Santosh Devi (supra) case and granted only 10% of the income as future prospect. Therefore, I am of the view, that following the principle of Santosh Devi (supra), claimant in the instant case is entitled to future prospect of 50% as the age of the deceased was 39 years. 10. Law is now well settled, that while assessing the loss of dependency, only the actual income is to be taken into consideration after deducting the income tax, professional tax etc. In the instant case, taking note of the rate of interest at the relevant time, learned tribunal deducted 10% of income tax from the amount above Rs.2,00,000, which has not been disputed. What therefore transpires is that income above Rs.2,00,000 was taxable at the relevant time. Evidently the income of the deceased was Rs.2,49,603 at the time of his death. If 10% is deducted for income tax, from the income exceeding Rs.2,00,000/-, then yearly net income would come to Rs.2,45,000. If future prospect of 50% is added, income would come to Rs.2,45,000 + ½ = Rs.3,67,500. On deduction of 1/3rd of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased, the annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.2,45,000. 11. The medical expense of Rs.1,57,063 was awarded by the learned tribunal. The claimant contended that learned tribunal arbitrarily granted Rs.1,57,063/- ignoring the evidence brought on record, showing the actual expense incurred for medical treatment. I have scrutinized the documentary evidence and found that claimant spent Rs.3,07,000 for medical expense and therefore, the claimant is certainly entitled to the said amount spent for medical treatment of the deceased. The claimant contended that learned tribunal arbitrarily granted Rs.1,57,063/- ignoring the evidence brought on record, showing the actual expense incurred for medical treatment. I have scrutinized the documentary evidence and found that claimant spent Rs.3,07,000 for medical expense and therefore, the claimant is certainly entitled to the said amount spent for medical treatment of the deceased. Accordingly the medical expense deserves to be enhanced to Rs.3,07,000. 12. Learned tribunal granted Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expense, which is apparently on the lower side, inasmuch as, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Rajesh Vs. Rajbir (supra), at least Rs.25,000 ought to have been awarded for funeral expense in absence of specific evidence showing the actual expense. In the instant case, although the claimant produced some documents showing the articles, that were purchased, but no specific evidence was adduced showing the actual expenditure for funeral expense. Therefore, I am of the view, that following the principle of Rajesh Vs. Rajbir (supra), funeral expense is required to be enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. 13. Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000 for love and affection. The claimant placing reliance on various decision of the Apex Court including Rajesh & others Vs. Rajbir Singh & others, (2013) 9 SCC 54 , Jiju Kurivila & Others Vs. Kunjujamma Mohan & Others, (2013) 9 SCC 166 , Vanlalpekhlui & Others Vs. Shivnath Singh & Others 2015 (2) GLJ 459, Kalpanaraj & Others Vs. Tamil Nadu ST Corporation, (2015) 2 SCC 764 , Vimal Kanwar Vs. Kishore Dan & Others (2013) 7 SCC 476 , prayed for enhancement of award on account of love and affection, to Rs.3,00,000. It would appear from the above decisions that various amounts have been granted by the Apex Court on the basis of the facts and circumstances of each case. While determining the amount of compensation, primary consideration, one has to keep in mind, is that compensation should be just and reasonable. The amount given in a particular case on the basis of the facts and circumstance of that case, cannot be a precedent. Therefore, considering the decision of the Apex Court in Rajesh Vs. Rajbir (supra) and the latest decisions of the Apex Court in Bhogireddi Varalakshmi and Others Vs. The amount given in a particular case on the basis of the facts and circumstance of that case, cannot be a precedent. Therefore, considering the decision of the Apex Court in Rajesh Vs. Rajbir (supra) and the latest decisions of the Apex Court in Bhogireddi Varalakshmi and Others Vs. Mani Muthupandi and Others reported in 2017 (2) T.A.C. 3 (S.C.), I am of the considered opinion, that an aggregate amount of Rs.1,00,000 for love, affection and care for the children would be just and reasonable in the instant case and accordingly, the amount is raised from Rs.5,000 to Rs.1,00,000. 14. The claimant submitted that the deceased survived for 10 days till his death after the accident and he was undergoing treatment, and therefore, placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Drupad Kumar Barua Vs. Assam State Transport Corporation & others, 1989 (1) GLJ 249, Rash Bihari Prasad & another Vs. Smti Parbati Devi Kedia & Othes, 1993 (1) GLJ 265 (DB), N Sivammal & others Vs. Managing Director, Pandian Roadways Corporation & another, (1985) 1 SCC 18 : AIR 1985 SC 106 , Sanobanu Nazirbhari Mirza & others Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service, (2013) 16 SCC 719 , claimant prayed for granting an amount of Rs.1,00,000 for pain, shock and suffering. Considering the fact that the deceased survived for 10 days and had undergone treatment, an amount of Rs.20,000 is awarded towards pain, shock and suffering. 15. The claimant submitted that tribunal did not grant any amount towards loss of estate and placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Yeramma & Others Vs. G Krishnamurthy & another reported in (2014) 15 SCC 65 , Kalpanaraj & others Vs. Tamil Nadu ST Corporation reported in (2015) 2 SCC 764 , as well as a decision of this High Court in Smti Golap Lata Goswami (Sharma) & Others Vs. Ajit Deka & Others reported in 2016 (4) GLJ 167, prayed for granting an amount of Rs.1,00,000 for loss of estate. In the case of Golaplata Goswami (supra) this Court enhanced the award towards loss of estate from Rs.2500 to Rs.1,00,000. In Yeramma & Others (supra), the Apex Court awarded Rs.1,00,000 for loss of estate. In Kalpanaraj & Others (supra) also the Apex Court awarded Rs.1,00,000 for loss of estate. In the case of Golaplata Goswami (supra) this Court enhanced the award towards loss of estate from Rs.2500 to Rs.1,00,000. In Yeramma & Others (supra), the Apex Court awarded Rs.1,00,000 for loss of estate. In Kalpanaraj & Others (supra) also the Apex Court awarded Rs.1,00,000 for loss of estate. Thus following the principle laid down in the above decisions, I am of the view that the claimant deserves an amount of Rs.1,00,000 towards loss of estate. 16. Tribunal awarded only Rs.5000/- towards loss of consortium which is apparently on lower side in view of various recent pronouncement of the Apex Court. Be that as it may, following the decision of Apex Court in Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh & Others, reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 , the consortium is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-. 17. The tribunal granted interest @ 7%. The claimant has also prayed for enhancement of interest placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Yeramma & Others Vs. Tamil Nadu ST Corporation, (2015) 2 SCC 764 , United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Abdul Matin & Others, 2015 (4) GLJ 52, Smti Paravabi Goswami (Sharma) & Others Vs. Nabiruddin Ahmed, 2015 (2) GLJ 289, Smti Golap Lata Goswami (Sharma) & Others Vs. Ajit Deka & Others, 2016 (4) GLJ 167. Following the principle laid down in the above decisions as well as the mandate of the Apex Court in Narendra Singh Vs. Nishant Sarma and Nishant Sharma & Others reported in (2015) 14 SCC 353, where Apex Court observed 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%.” I am of the view, that the claimant deserves enhancement of the rate of interest to 9%. 18. 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%.” I am of the view, that the claimant deserves enhancement of the rate of interest to 9%. 18. Thus with the enhancement of award on various count as indicated above, the enhanced compensation, which the claimant is entitled to, is assessed as under: Loss of dependency : 2,45,000 × 15 = 36,75,000 Medical Expense : = 3,07,000 Funeral expense : = 25,000 Loss of love & affection :  = 1,00,000 Pain, shock & suffering :  = 20,000 Loss of consortium :  = 1,00,000 Loss of estate :  = 1,00,000 Cost of litigation :  = 5,000 : = 43,32,000 19. Respondent No.1, United India Insurance Co. Limited shall satisfy the award within two months by depositing the awarded amount with interest @9% with effect from the date as fixed by the tribunal in the original award. Amount, if any already paid shall be adjusted. 20. Send back the LCR.