JUDGMENT & ORDER : Aggrieved by the judgment dated 19-2-2015 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura in T.S.(MAC) No. 229 of 2013 awarding a compensation of Rs.9,85,960/- carrying interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. the date of claim petition to the appellants, this appeal is filed for enhancement of the compensation. 2. The factum of accident and the liability of the respondents to satisfy the award are not in dispute. What is worthy of notice is that the claimant No. 1 and the claimant No. 3 are the mother and father of the deceased (late Dulal Sarkar), while the claimant No. 2 is the son of the deceased. The wife of the deceased was already divorced by the deceased prior to his death. The grievance of the appellants, as projected by Mr. S.B. Debnath, the learned counsel for the appellants, are that the Tribunal merely assessed the monthly income of the deceased, who was 40 years old and running a grocery shop at Chowrangi Market, at Rs.6,600/- whereas it should have assessed the same to be Rs.12,000/- per month; that the Tribunal only did not even award compensation for loss of love and affection to the appellant, which should have been quantified at Rs.2,00,000/- and that no award for pain, suffering and mental agony was granted though it is proper that at least a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- ought to have been granted. He, therefore, strenuously urges that the impugned judgment should be enhanced accordingly by making necessary modification to that effect. On the other hand, Mr. A. Nandi, the learned counsel for the insurer, supports the impugned judgment and no interference in the impugned award is called for. According to him, the appellants could not prove that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month, and the Tribunal was more than generous in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.6,600/- per month. He further submits that there is no provision for awarding compensation for loss of love and affection or pain and suffering in the case of death. He, therefore, submits that the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 3. I have perused the impugned judgment and I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. He, therefore, submits that the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 3. I have perused the impugned judgment and I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. In order to prove the income of the deceased, the appellants did not submit any income certificate worth the name. Apart from the oral evidence of PW-1, who is the mother of the deceased, there is no other evidence to substantiate her claim that her son was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. Not even a trade license issued by the competent authority to substantiate her claim that her son was running a grocery shop under the name and style of “M/s Suman Bhander” was produced by her. Not even corroborative evidence was produced by her to prove that her son was running a grocery shop. In the teeth of denial by the respondents, I am unable to hold that he was running any grocery shop or earning Rs.12,000/- per month at the time of death. I, therefore, find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the insurer, that the Tribunal was more than generous in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.6,600/- per month at the time of the accident. 4. I noticed from the impugned judgment that the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- for funeral expenses. This obviously goes against the latest decision dated 31-10-2017 of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and ors. in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 25590 of 2014, which limits the expenses to Rs.15,000/-. However, there is no appeal against the award on this aspect of the matter, I decline to interfere. As for loss of estate, in terms of Pranay Sethi (supra) case, I decide to award a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the appellant. As he did not leave behind him a wife, there is no question of awarding any amount for loss of consortium. A very limited interference of this Court in the impugned judgment is, therefore, warranted. 5. For the reasons stated in the foregoing, this appeal succeeds to a limited extent. As he did not leave behind him a wife, there is no question of awarding any amount for loss of consortium. A very limited interference of this Court in the impugned judgment is, therefore, warranted. 5. For the reasons stated in the foregoing, this appeal succeeds to a limited extent. The insurer-respondent is, therefore, directed to deposit with this Registry a sum of Rs.10,00,960/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from the date of the claim petition within two months from the date of receipt of this judgment. Needless to say, any amount already deposited or paid to the appellants shall stand adjusted. As and when the amount is deposited, the same shall be released to the appellants in the manner specified by the Tribunal. The impugned judgment stands modified only in the manner and to the extent indicated above. No costs. Transmit the L.C. record forthwith.