JUDGMENT : Dipankar Datta, J. 1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track, 1st Court, Jalpaiguri by an award dated January 22, 2015, decided MAC Case No. 435 of 2012, which was registered on an application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereafter the Act) presented by the claimants. In this appeal under section 173 of the Act, they have called in question such award. 2. On August 23, 2012, Barun Kumar Routh (hereafter the victim), the husband of the appellant no. 1 and the father of the minor appellants 2 and 3 (hereafter the appellants), had boarded a bus bearing registration no. WB-71A/0682 from Dinbazar bus stand, Jalpaiguri. While on his way to Maynaguri, the driver of the bus lost control over the same due to his negligence as a result whereof it skidded off the road and turned turtle on the left side. The victim sustained severe injuries on his head and chest with multiple rib fracture and was admitted to Anandalok Hospital, where after he was shifted to Sadar Hospital, Jalpaiguri. There he succumbed to his injuries on September 2, 2012 at about 7 am while undergoing treatment as an indoor patient. The appellants approached the tribunal on the death of the victim on December 19, 2012 by impleading the owner of the bus and its insurer as opposite parties 1 and 2 respectively and claimed compensation in a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/-. It was pleaded in the application that the victim was an ex-army man who, on the date of the accident, used to earn Rs. 4000/- per month for discharging the duty of security guard at Nursing Training School, Sadar Hospital, Jalpaiguri. Being a retired army man, he also used to receive pension of Rs. 10,108/-. 3. The claim was not contested by the owner of the bus. The insurer, obtaining leave under section 170 of the Act, contested the claim by filing a written statement wherein the material allegations were denied and disputed. The insurer denied the claim on twin grounds; first, the bus was insured with it and secondly, the accident which took away the life of the victim did not occur due to negligence of the driver of the bus. 4. The appellant no.1 and three other witnesses, including an eye-witness, deposed in support of the claim. The insurer did not rely on any evidence, oral or documentary. 5. 4. The appellant no.1 and three other witnesses, including an eye-witness, deposed in support of the claim. The insurer did not rely on any evidence, oral or documentary. 5. The tribunal, upon considering the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record framed the following issues for decision: Issues (1) Was the victim, Barun Kumar Routh a passenger of the offending bus ‘Mangalchandi’ having registration No. WB-71A/0682 at about 06:30 a.m on 23.08.2012? (2) Did the driver of the said bus bearing No. WB-71A/0682 loose (sic lose) control over the said bus causing the same to go off from the road and becoming turtle on the left side of Jalpaiguri-Maynaguri Road in the region of Ulladabri under Maynaguri P.S, Dist-Jalpaiguri causing severe injuries to the victim Barun Kumar Routh, for which he was treated at different places, but ultimately died in Sadar Hospital, Jalpaiguri on 02.09.2012 where he was last admitted for treatment? (3) Did the accident take place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of bus bearing No. WB-71A/0682? (4) Was the bus having Regn. No. WB-71A/0682 owned by O.Ps No.1, Dipali Chakraborty and Indrani Sarkar plying on the date of accident and was it covered by a valid policy of insurance with O.P No.1 National Insurance Company Ltd. at the relevant point of time? (5) Was the victim Barun Kumar Routh aged about 55 years on the date of accident i.e. on 23.08.2012? (6) Was the victim Barun Kumar Rouh (sic Routh) working as a security guard under Nursing Training School, Sadar Hospital, Jalpaiguri and did he earn Rs. 4000/- per month prior to his accidental death? (7) Are the claimants entitled to get any compensation in this case? If so, what is the quantum thereof? 6. Issues (1) to (4) were dealt with together and answered in favour of the claimants. Issues (5) to (7) were dealt with together and it was ultimately concluded by the tribunal that the appellants were entitled to compensation of Rs. 11,00,626/- from the insurer, which was directed to be paid in equal proportionate share to the appellants by issuing A/c payee cheque within two months from date. Issues (5) to (7) were dealt with together and it was ultimately concluded by the tribunal that the appellants were entitled to compensation of Rs. 11,00,626/- from the insurer, which was directed to be paid in equal proportionate share to the appellants by issuing A/c payee cheque within two months from date. No interest was awarded but it was observed that in the event of failure to make payment of the compensation awarded within two months, interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of lodging of the application till payment would have to be borne by the insurer. The share of the minor appellants was directed to be invested in a fixed deposit scheme of a post office/nationalised bank. 7. Mr. Chattopadhyay, learned advocate appearing for the appellants argued that the appeal is confined to the quantum of compensation assessed by the tribunal. According to him, the tribunal erred in (i) not selecting the appropriate multiplier considering the age of the victim; (ii) awarding Rs. 75,350/- on account of medical expenses incurred by the appellants till the time the victim was in hospital, instead of Rs. 1,50,000/- as claimed; (iii) not considering future prospects of the victim; (iv) failing to award just and reasonable compensation by proceeding in ignorance of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 [Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others], since followed in the decision reported in (2015) 2 SCC 764 [Kalpanaraj and others v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation]; and (v) not awarding interest @ 9% p.a. on the compensation awarded from the date of lodging of the claim application in terms of the decision in Kalpanaraj (supra). 8. It was accordingly prayed that the awarded be suitably modified to meet the ends of justice. 9. Per contra, Mr. Singh, learned advocate for the insurer contended that the tribunal proceeded in the right direction while assessing compensation payable to the appellants and there is no apparent infirmity in the award. He further contended that by assigning cogent reasons, the tribunal spurned the claim on account of medical expenses incurred and rightly awarded Rs. 75,350/-. Insofar as future prospect of the victim is concerned, it was contended by him that the victim was more or less 58 years of age, as found by the tribunal, and therefore his future prospect seems to be bleak. 75,350/-. Insofar as future prospect of the victim is concerned, it was contended by him that the victim was more or less 58 years of age, as found by the tribunal, and therefore his future prospect seems to be bleak. That apart, he contended that the issue of awarding compensation taking into consideration future prospect is pending consideration before a larger Bench of the Supreme Court and, therefore, till such time the same is decided, no amount on future prospect should be awarded. Finally, placing reliance on the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court reported in (2017) 1 Cal LT 684 (HC) [The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mainak Ghosh and ors.], he urged us to follow the same while considering, if at all, the award under challenge needs modification. 10. In the absence of any cross appeal/objection having been preferred by the insurer, the findings returned by the tribunal in regard to the first four issues are not required to be examined at all. The insurer has accepted the position that the said bus was covered by an insurance policy issued by it and the victim suffered injuries and ultimately passed away as a result of the accident because of negligent driving of the bus by its driver. The appeal being essentially directed against the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, we are of the considered view that an exercise for re-assessment ought to be embarked upon considering the fact that the decision in Rajesh (supra) may not have been placed before the tribunal at the time of hearing of the claim application. 11. The tribunal selected 9 (nine) as the multiplier considering certain documents on record wherein the age of the deceased was mentioned as 58 years. Since the appellants could not produce any document acceptable as evidence showing the age of the victim between 51 and 55 years, we find no infirmity insofar as selection of the appropriate multiplier is concerned. 12. Insofar as the loss of dependency is concerned, we find that the tribunal accepted the claim of the appellants that the deceased used to receive Rs. 10,108/- as pension and earned Rs. 4000/- as salary for discharging the duty of a security guard. Considering the same, the tribunal arrived at the figure of Rs. 15,23,664/- (Rs.14108/- x 12 x 9). Insofar as the loss of dependency is concerned, we find that the tribunal accepted the claim of the appellants that the deceased used to receive Rs. 10,108/- as pension and earned Rs. 4000/- as salary for discharging the duty of a security guard. Considering the same, the tribunal arrived at the figure of Rs. 15,23,664/- (Rs.14108/- x 12 x 9). Then, the tribunal deducted one-third towards personal and living expenses of the victim and rightly reached the figure of Rs. 10,15,776/-. To that, the tribunal added Rs. 2000/- on account of funeral expenses, Rs. 2500/- on account of loss of estate and Rs. 5000/- as loss of consortium. Besides that, it awarded Rs. 75,350/- on account of medical expenses thereby totalling to Rs. 11,00,626/-. 13. The claim for Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of medical expenses incurred by the appellant was not believed by the tribunal in the absence of supporting documentary evidence. We do not consider the course of action adopted by the tribunal to be such so as to warrant interference. An appellate court interferes when the lower court is wholly wrong; not when it is not right. The decision of the tribunal on the point in issue has to be respected. 14. However, we find that the tribunal did not have the occasion to consider the decision in Rajesh (supra) and Kalpanaraj (supra) as a consequence whereof paltry amounts have been awarded to the appellants. Keeping in mind such decision, we direct that the appellants shall be entitled to enhanced compensation in the manner as follows: (i) Loss of estate : Rs.1,00,000/-; (ii) Funeral expenses + litigation costs : Rs.50,000/-; (iii) Loss of consortium for the widow of the victim : Rs.1,00,000/-; (iv) Loss of care, affection and guidance for the minor children : Rs.1,00,000/-. 15. In all, the appellants are, thus, entitled to Rs. 14,16,126/- on account of compensation i.e. an increase of Rs. 3,15,500/-. 16. Minutes before, we have delivered our decision while disposing of FMA 3895 of 2015 [Chapa Ghosh (Roy) & ors. v. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. & anr.]. There too, Mr. Singh had also appeared for the insurer and had placed heavy reliance on the decision in Mainak Ghosh (supra). We have assigned reasons in Chapa Ghosh (Roy) (supra) why we are disinclined to follow the decision in Mainak Ghosh (supra). v. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. & anr.]. There too, Mr. Singh had also appeared for the insurer and had placed heavy reliance on the decision in Mainak Ghosh (supra). We have assigned reasons in Chapa Ghosh (Roy) (supra) why we are disinclined to follow the decision in Mainak Ghosh (supra). In view thereof, we do not propose to assign separate reasons. 17. Insofar as interest concerned, we agree with Mr. Chattopadhyay that the tribunal committed gross error in not assigning a single reason as to why the appellants would not be entitled to interest on the compensation awarded from the date of lodging of the claim application. There being no finding to the effect that the appellants had delayed disposal of the claim application and considering the provisions of section 171 of the Act, we hold that the appellants were entitled to interest as of right. 18. It is true that in Kalpanaraj (supra), interest @ 9% p.a. annum was directed to be paid. However, since we have followed the decision in Rajesh (supra) while reassessing compensation, we hold that the appellants shall be entitled to interest @ 7.5% on the compensation awarded above till payment is affected. Let a cheque for the said amount, minus whatever has been paid to the appellants, if at all, be drawn by the insurer in favour of the appellant no.1 and submitted before the Registrar General of this Court within a month from date of communication of this judgment and order, whereupon the appellant no.1 shall be entitled to collect it from the registrar general upon proving her identity and in accordance with law. 19. With the aforesaid modification of the impugned award, the appeal stands allowed. Parties shall bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.