JUDGMENT : 1. While riding pillion on a motor-bike, Anowar Molla (hereafter the victim) died in a road accident on September 25, 2011. The motor-bike was dashed from behind by a lorry bearing registration no. WB 41D-6060, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, as a result whereof the victim suffered multiple injuries and succumbed thereto at the local hospital. The parents of the victim and his siblings approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Diamond Harbour, 24-Parganas (South) on May 2, 2014 with an application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereafter the Act). Upon hearing the parties and on consideration of the evidence that were led, the tribunal awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.6,16,500/- to be payable to the claimants by the insurer of the lorry together with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the application within 30 days, failing which interest @ 9% per annum would have to be paid. 2. Quantification of compensation payable to the claimants is under challenge both at the instance of the insurer as well as the claimants, in the appeal and the cross-objection respectively. 3. While hearing the application for stay filed in the appeal, we have heard the parties on the merits of the appeal as well as the cross-objection dispensing with all formalities and with their consent and propose to dispose of the same by this common judgment and order. 4. Mr. Singh learned advocate for the appellant/insurer confined his arguments to the following points:- i. Since the victim was self-employed, the tribunal erred in considering 'future prospects' while determining compensation; ii. Assuming that some amount of compensation could be awarded under the head 'future prospects', the tribunal made a mess by adding 100% of the notional income of the victim towards such future prospects; and iii. Having awarded simple interest @ 6%, the tribunal erred in law by observing that failure to pay interest @ 6% on the awarded sum within the stipulated date would result in the insurer being liable to pay higher interest @ 9%. 5. Mr. Mondal, learned advocate for the cross-objectors/claimants contended that the tribunal erred in determining compensation by treating Rs.3000/- to be the monthly income of the victim. 5. Mr. Mondal, learned advocate for the cross-objectors/claimants contended that the tribunal erred in determining compensation by treating Rs.3000/- to be the monthly income of the victim. According to him, no reason was assigned by the tribunal as to how Rs.10000/-, as stated by the claimant no.1 to be the income that the victim earned from his business of mobile phones and accessories, was not believable. Next, he urged that the tribunal erred in selecting 17 as the multiplier. Since the victim was 22/23 years of age as on date of the accident, 18 should have been selected as the multiplier in tune with the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 [Sarla Verma (Smt.) v. Delhi Transport Corporation]. Referring to the said decision once again, Mr. Mondal contended that the family members of the victim were entirely dependent on him and, therefore, one-third should have been deducted towards personal and living expenses of the victim instead of 50%. It was further contended that only Rs.2,500/- was awarded on account of loss of estate, which is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in its decision reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 (Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others). Finally, he submitted that the amount on account of funeral expenses i.e. Rs.2000/- is extremely inadequate. He, accordingly, prayed for reassessment of the compensation payable to the cross-objectors/claimants by the insurer. 6. We have heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials on record. Bearing in mind the limited points which we are required to decide, narration of the factual aspects in detail is considered unnecessary. Suffice it to note that the cross-objectors/claimants had adduced evidence before the tribunal to show that the victim had obtained certificate of enlistment from the local panchayat and registration certificate of vocational education and training. While proving these two documents, the cross-objector/claimant no.1 had deposed of the victim being in receipt of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month as monthly income. Only on the ground of absence of any document regarding the monthly income of the victim, the tribunal considered the version of the cross-objector/ claimant no.1 to be "not believable" and proceeded to determine compensation on the basis of Rs.3,000/- as monthly income of the victim. 7. Only on the ground of absence of any document regarding the monthly income of the victim, the tribunal considered the version of the cross-objector/ claimant no.1 to be "not believable" and proceeded to determine compensation on the basis of Rs.3,000/- as monthly income of the victim. 7. Law is well settled that determination of compensation, in a case of the present nature, cannot be made with mathematical precision. The endeavour of the tribunal/court must be directed towards awarding compensation that is just, meaning thereby that every effort should be made to place the family of the deceased victim in the same position had the victim been alive. 8. Mr. Mondal is right in his contention that the tribunal did not assign any reason as to why the version of the cross-objector/claimant no.1 was not believable. He invited our attention to the claim application as well as the version in cross-examination, where the cross-objector/claimant no.1 stood firm in his version that the victim had an earning of Rs.10,000/- per month. Reacting to such point raised by Mr. Mondal, it was submitted by Mr. Singh that Rs.10,000/- is an exaggerated figure. According to him, the victim was the resident of a rural area and it is too hard to expect that the victim would have earned Rs.10,000/- per month only by repairing mobile phones. He also contended that there was no evidence to prove that the victim was engaged in selling mobile phones and accessories. 9. In the light of the above submissions and having regard to the facts that apart from the two documents produced by the cross-objector/claimant no.1, referred to above, the PAN card of the victim was also produced before the tribunal, we are of the considered view that interest of justice would be sufficiently served if Rs.6,000/-, which is a plausible figure in the circumstances, is reckoned as the notional monthly income of the victim on the date of his death. 10. However, we do not propose to award any amount on account of future prospects since we can take judicial notice of the fact that now a days the general trend is to purchase a new mobile phone after throwing away the old mobile and that repairs are seldom resorted to. That apart, no evidence of income derived from sale of mobile phones and accessories were led disabling us to proceed in this regard. 11. That apart, no evidence of income derived from sale of mobile phones and accessories were led disabling us to proceed in this regard. 11. Although in Sarla Verma (supra), the Supreme Court has referred to the practise of deducting 50% of the income if the deceased was a bachelor, it has also been observed therein that where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third. The version of the claimant no. 1 that the parents of the victim as well as his siblings were entirely dependent on the income of the victim for their survival, has not been contested by the insurer. In that view of the matter, we propose to assess the compensation payable to the claimants accordingly. 12. We are further in agreement with Mr. Mondal that an incorrect multiplier has been applied by the tribunal. Considering the age of the victim, 18 should have been selected in terms of the decision in Sarla Verma (supra). 13. We are also minded to hold that the tribunal erred in not awarding Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.25,000/- to the cross-objectors/claimants on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses respectively, having regard to the decision in Rajesh (supra). 14. On consideration of all relevant factors, compensation is reassessed as follows: Sl. No. Heads Calculation (i) Income of the victim Rs.6,000/- per month; (ii) ⅓rd of (i) deducted as personal expenses of the victim ⅓rd of Rs.6000/- = Rs.2,000/-; (iii) Compensation after multiplier of 18 is applied (Rs.4,000/- x 12 x 18) = Rs.8,64,000/-; (iv) Loss of estate Rs.1,00,000/-; and (v) Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/- Total Compensation Rs.9,89,000/- 15. The aforesaid sum shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till realization, and shall be payable within a month from date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order. 16. The appellant-insurer is directed to issue an account payee cheque favouring the claimant no. 1 for the total sum payable on account of compensation and deposit the same in the office of the Registrar General. He shall then proceed to deliver the cheque to the claimant no. 1 in accordance with law. 16. The appellant-insurer is directed to issue an account payee cheque favouring the claimant no. 1 for the total sum payable on account of compensation and deposit the same in the office of the Registrar General. He shall then proceed to deliver the cheque to the claimant no. 1 in accordance with law. The sum secured by the appellant-insurer in terms of our order dated April 21, 2017 shall be returned by the Registrar General to it. 17. With the aforesaid modification of the impugned award and the consequent directions, the appeal and the connected application for stay together with the cross-objection stand disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment and order, if applied for, may be furnished to the applicant at an early date. Debi Prosad Dey, J. : I agree.