JUDGMENT & ORDER : Both Mr. G.K. Nama, the learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. A. Gon Choudhury, the learned counsel for the insurance company are heard at some length. 2. Dissatisfied with the award of Rs.1,22,000/- made by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in T.S. (MAC) No.06 of 2009 in his judgment dated 16.03.2011, this appeal has been filed by the appellant for enhancement of the compensation so awarded. 3. The facts of the case material for disposal of this appeal may be briefly noticed at the outset. According to the appellant, her son, late Amit Deb was an assistant of the vehicle bearing registration No.TR02-A-1770 while the driver-cum-owner of the vehicle, who also died in the same accident, was her husband i.e. father of the deceased. The vehicle was used for carrying petroleum products from Dharmanagar to Agartala. On 15.05.2008, while the vehicle was proceeding towards Agartala carrying petroleum products, it dashed against a tree standing by the side of Assam-Agartala road at a place called Joynagar. The accident occurred between 1.15 to 1.30 a.m. of 16.05.2008. As a result, the vehicle got damaged. Both the deceased and his father died on the spot. The dead bodies were taken to the Government Medical College and Hospital, Agartala where post mortem examinations were conducted. The police also registered Jirania P.S. Case No.32/2008 under Sections 279/304A/427 IPC in connection with the vehicular accident. In the FIR, it has been clearly reported that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The appellant, therefore, filed the claim petition. According to the appellant, the deceased was unmarried and was earning Rs.3,300/- per month including allowance for food @ Rs.60/- per day. The vehicle was insured with the respondent-insurer at the time of the accident. 4. The claim case was resisted by the respondents including the insurance company, who denied any liability to pay the compensation so claimed. The respondent-insurer also disputed the income of the deceased as claimed by the appellant. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- “(i) Whether the deceased Amit Deb died in a motor accident occurred on 16.05.2008 at about 01.15/01.30 hours at Joynagar beside Assam-Agartala road under Jirania P.S. due to the use and driving of the vehicle TR02 A 1770 (oil tanker)? On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- “(i) Whether the deceased Amit Deb died in a motor accident occurred on 16.05.2008 at about 01.15/01.30 hours at Joynagar beside Assam-Agartala road under Jirania P.S. due to the use and driving of the vehicle TR02 A 1770 (oil tanker)? (ii) Whether the victim was the assistant of his father’s vehicle No.TR02A 1770 (oil tanker)? (iii) Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation due to the death of her son Amit Deb in the said motor accident, if so what is the quantum of compensation and who is/are liable to pay the compensation? (iv) To what other relief/reliefs the parties are entitled?” 5. To prove her case, the appellant examined three witnesses including herself and adduced some documentary evidence which are marked as Exbt.1 to Exbt.17. No oral evidence was adduced by the insurance company, which, however, exhibited some documents marked as Exbt.A series. At the conclusion of the trial, the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment, which is under challenge in this appeal. 6. Mr. G.K. Nama, the learned counsel for the appellant makes fourfold contention, namely, (i) the Tribunal completely overlooked the glaring fact that the deceased was working as assistant in the offending vehicle and was earning Rs.3,300/- per month at the time of his death; (ii) Tribunal has illegally omitted to award 50% of the salary of the deceased as future prospect as laid down the latest decisions of the Apex Court and (iii) the Tribunal has not even awarded any amount for loss of love and affection, which should be a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and (iv) the Tribunal, contrary to the decision of the Apex Court, adopted a multiplier of 16 whereas it should have been 18 in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . He, therefore, submits that the amount awarded by the Tribunal has to be substantially enhanced so to compensate the appellant justly and fairly and proportionately. 7. Refuting the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. He, therefore, submits that the amount awarded by the Tribunal has to be substantially enhanced so to compensate the appellant justly and fairly and proportionately. 7. Refuting the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. A. Gon Choudhury, the learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the assessment of the income of the deceased made by the Tribunal was on the basis of statement of the appellant in her examination-in-chief where she has stated that the deceased was earning Rs.1,500/- per month. He also submits that the accident took place in 2008 and in that view of the matter, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and cannot be said to be inadequate. He, therefore, submits that the impugned judgment was passed by the Tribunal after taking into consideration the evidence on record and the same does not warrant the interference of this Court. He, therefore, submits that the appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. 8. After gong through the evidence on record, in so far as the income of the deceased is concerned, in her examination-in-chief, the appellant has clearly stated that the deceased used to earn Rs.1,500/- per month as a salary and a sum of Rs.60/- per day as food allowance thereby, making it a total of Rs.3,300/- per month. The statement of the appellant with respect to the income claimed by her in her examination-in-chief is not disputed by the respondent in the cross-examination. However, considering the ground realities obtaining at the time of accident, I am of the view that it will be more reasonable to assess the income of the appellant at Rs.3,000/- per month. In terms of the decision of the Apex Court in Surti Gupta vs. United India Insurance Company and another, (2015) 11 SCC 457 , the appellant is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection. The Apex Court in Sarla Verma case (supra), which has been followed in subsequent decisions by the Apex Court, held that a multiplier of 18 is to be adopted in the case of death of a deceased in the age group of 40 to 50. The Apex Court also held that for a deceased victim below the age of 40 years, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. The Apex Court also held that for a deceased victim below the age of 40 years, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. At this stage, the learned counsel for the insurance company points out that 50% shall also have to be deducted from the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. I agree. 9. Against the backdrop of the parameters laid down by the Apex Court, the compensation payable to the appellant shall have been calculated as follows:- from the proven monthly salary of the deceased of Rs.3,000/-, 50% shall be deducted for his personal expenses thereby making the loss of dependency to Rs.1,500/- per month i.e. Rs.18,000/-, which when multiplied by 18 will come to Rs.3,24,000/- to which another 50% shall be added as future loss of income which will come to Rs.4,86,000/-. In addition to this, the appellant will be entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of love and affection and another Rs.10,000/- as funeral expenses. Thus, the total amount of compensation payable to the appellant is enhanced to Rs.5,96,000/-. 10. For the reasons stated in the foregoing, this appeal partly succeeds. The insurer-respondent is, therefore, directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation, i.e. Rs.5,96,000-Rs.1,22,000=Rs.4,74,000/- together with the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition within two months from the date of receipt of this judgment to this Registry for payment to the appellant. As and when the amount is deposited, fifty per centum of the deposited amount shall be released to the appellant after satisfying the usual formalities without further reference to this Court, but the remaining amount shall be kept in a fixed deposit with any scheduled commercial bank for a period of five years. The impugned judgment stands modified in the manner and to the extent indicated above. Transmit the L.C. record forthwith.