JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. P. K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellants as well as Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1. 2. The respondent No. 1 has filed one application under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the CPC seeking leave of this Court for adducing the additional evidence. By the order dated 30.03.2017 delivered in I.A. No. 316 of 2017, it was ordered that the documents as sought to be introduced as the additional evidence will be considered at the final hearing. Mr. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellants has not raised any objection and there is no representation from the respondent No. 2 despite due notice from this Court. 3. The documents are as follows: (i) receipt of fee for Smart Card against the vehicle under registration No. TR01-J-0207, (ii) receipt of payment for Route Permit at Rs. 2,750/-, (iii) receipt of Smart Card’s conversion fee, (iv) the certificate of registration dated 20.03.2004, (v) Screen Report dated 15.01.2014, (vi) Smart Card vide the certificate of registration and (vii) the original insurance policy issued by the Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd under cover Note No. 6796698 covering the period from 20.10.2012 to 21.10.2013. The electronic certificate of the said policy under No. 3362/00778957/000/00 covering the said period as noted. 4. It is apparent that the said insurance policy is covering the day of accident. As such, on admission, all these documents are marked as Exhibit-A in series. Registry is directed to take out these documents from the I.A. No. 316 of 2017 which are marked by this Court and keep photo copies thereof in the file of L.A. No. 316 of 2017. The segregated marks documents shall be placed in the tribunal records immediately after the other admitted documents. 5. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the claimants from the judgment and award dated 09.07.2015 delivered in T.S. (MAC) 167 of 2013 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala. 6. This appeal has been structured for enhancement of the compensation as awarded by the said judgment dated 09.07.2015. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the claimants from the judgment and award dated 09.07.2015 delivered in T.S. (MAC) 167 of 2013 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala. 6. This appeal has been structured for enhancement of the compensation as awarded by the said judgment dated 09.07.2015. There is no dispute that one Jamuna Roy, mother of the appellants No. 2, 3 and 4 and wife of the appellant No. 1 died in the road traffic accident that occurred on 22.12.2010. After getting down from an auto rickshaw at G.B. Bazar at Agartala she proceeded on foot towards 79 Tila along the G.B.-Nandannagar main road, then she was hit by the vehicle bearing registration No. TR01-J-0270 (Maruti Zen) in front of the Cancer Hospital and the offending vehicle sped away. The vehicle also hit other 2(two) persons. 7. On the way to the hospital Jamuna Roy breathed her last. At the time of death she was 46 years old. According to the claimant-appellants she used to earn Rs. 6000/- per month. For her engagement as the NREGA labourer and by selling puffed rice (Muri). 8. The claimant-appellants raised a claim for Rs. 9,97,200/- as the compensation. After recording the evidence, the tribunal awarded the compensation to the extent of Rs. 4,86,000/- inclusive of Rs. 50,000/- as consortium exclusively given to the appellant No.1. 9. In Para-11 of the impugned judgment and award the following has been observed: “11. Sri Goutam Debbarma, the O.P. owner of offending vehicle bearing No. TR-01-J-0270 is liable to pay the entire amount of compensation to the claimant petitioners along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case i.e. from 23.04.2013 within one month of this judgment, failing which the award shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of judgment till payment is made. In this case the survival certificate of the deceased has not been produced, so this Tribunal cannot ignore the probability of existence of any other survivor of the deceased. Thus, it is hereby ordered that in the event of the payment, by O.P No. 1 the award shall not be released without production of survival certificate showing that the claimant petitioners are the only the legal representatives of the deceased.” 10. Thus, it is hereby ordered that in the event of the payment, by O.P No. 1 the award shall not be released without production of survival certificate showing that the claimant petitioners are the only the legal representatives of the deceased.” 10. As the insurance policy has been admitted in the evidence byway of additional evidence, this Court is of the view that the entire amount whatever is decided in the appeal shall have to be paid by the respondent No. 2 within such time as would be provided hereinafter. 11. Mr. P.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellants has submitted that the income as assessed by the tribunal is in the lower side. Moreover, no amount has been awarded for loss of future prospect in terms of the Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2012) 6 SCC 421 . 12. That apart, Mr. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellants has submitted that even the consortium has been given in the lower side. The consortium warrants to be enhanced to Rs. 1,00000/-. 13. Having regard to the economical status of the deceased, this Court does not find any infirmity in determination of income of the deceased. Similarly, the amount of the consortium as has been determined by the impugned judgment and award is reasonable and hence, this Court will not interfere with that determination. 14. However, it is apparent on the face of the records that in terms of Santosh Devi (supra), the claimant-appellants were entitled to get 30% increase for loss of future prospect. But that factor has not been considered by the tribunal while determining the compensation. Thus, there will be enhancement of 30% on Rs. 4,000/- which amount has been determined as the monthly income. Thus, the monthly income index would be Rs. 5,200/-. Accordingly, the annual income index would come to Rs. 62,400/-. Thereon, the multiplier 13 would be applied for having loss of income i.e. Rs. 8,11,200/-. Towards the personal expenses, from the said amount 1/4th will be deducted as the deceased left 4(four) dependents on her income. After deduction, the loss of dependency can be had at (Rs. 8,11,200 – 2,02,800/-) = Rs. 6,08,400/-. However, with the amount, a sum Rs. 10,000/- for funeral expenses and another sum of Rs. 10,000/- for loss of estate shall be added. Moreover, a sum of Rs. After deduction, the loss of dependency can be had at (Rs. 8,11,200 – 2,02,800/-) = Rs. 6,08,400/-. However, with the amount, a sum Rs. 10,000/- for funeral expenses and another sum of Rs. 10,000/- for loss of estate shall be added. Moreover, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- be added as the consortium for the claimant-appellant No. 1. 15. Thus, the total compensation is arrived at Rs. 6,78,400/-. The said amount shall carry interest @ 7% from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 23.04.2013. The respondent No. 2 is directed to pay the entire award in terms of this judgment and order within a period of 2 (two) months from today. 16. This Court is inclined to interfere with the penal interest @ 9% per annum in default of payment of the award within 1 (one) month. The respondent No. 2 shall deposit the awarded sum in the tribunal below on deducting the sum if any, they have already paid. If such payment is made, all the claimant-appellants shall be entitled to draw the 50% of their share and the remainder 50% shall be managed in the termed deposit scheme in the UCO Bank, District Court Branch, Agartala for 6 years. However, at their option the claimants shall be entitled to draw the interest on quarterly basis. 17. It is to be mentioned here that out of this total amount of compensation Rs. 50,000/- which has been accounted as consortium, shall be deducted from the total compensation and be paid to the claimant-appellant No. 1. Having observed thus, this appeal stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. After drawing the award, the LCRs be sent down. There shall be no order as to costs.