JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. R. Saha, learned counsel and Mr. K. De, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. S. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 4 and Mr. R. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5. 2. This is an appeal by the insurer, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited from the judgment and award dated 27.01.2016 delivered in T.S.(MAC) No. 255 of 2012. 3. The solitary ground that has been raised in this appeal is that the assessment of income as made by the tribunal below relying on a letter dated 04.09.2011 issued by the Secretary of Jirania Hawkers Union (PW-2) is entirely unsustainable inasmuch as PW-2 himself has stated that he has reflected the income in the said letter dated 04.09.2011 [Exbt.4] on guess only. He has in the cross-examination admitted that he did not examine any documents for that purpose. In the appeal, the incident of the road traffic accident that occurred on 30.07.2012 on Assam-Agartala Road near Madhabbari, involvement of the mini truck bearing No. TR-01-N-1773, in the said accident, rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle as the prime cause of the accident and death of one Gurupada Saha are not in dispute. 4. It is not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 40 years and he has left his mother, two sons and his wife. By filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant-respondents urged the tribunal to award compensation to the extent of Rs.37,50,000/- for the damage they suffered from the death of said Gurupada Saha. 5. Mr. R. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that Exbt.4-documents cannot be made the basis for assessing the income. PW-2 did not have any authority to issue such income certificate or to make any survey to find out what was the income of the deceased at the relevant point of time. Therefore, Exbt.4 letter dated 04.09.2011 is of no relevance. Consequently, the assessment that has been made on Exbt. 4 cannot be sustained. 6. Mr. S. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that when the letter dated 04.09.2011 was admitted in the evidence, the appellant did not raise any objection even though he had participated in the proceeding. Therefore, Exbt.4 letter dated 04.09.2011 is of no relevance. Consequently, the assessment that has been made on Exbt. 4 cannot be sustained. 6. Mr. S. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that when the letter dated 04.09.2011 was admitted in the evidence, the appellant did not raise any objection even though he had participated in the proceeding. Now, they cannot question the content of the said letter dated 04.09.2011. That apart, Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel has submitted that PW-1 (Smt. Shipra Saha), wife of the deceased has also in her statement on oath has categorically stated in the tribunal that her husband was a renowned businessman of Jirania and at the time of death his monthly income was Rs.15,000/- to 18,000/- per month. However, she has stated that her husband was about 43 years at the time of accident. Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel has stated that in the cross examination even though the appellant had confronted stating that income of her husband was not Rs. 15,000/-, but PW-1 did not give in to such suggestion. PW-2 has corroborated the said statement of PW-1. Thus, what has been held by the tribunal does not warrant any interference. 7. It appears that the tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at the time of the accident at Rs.16,000/- and on such basis, proceeded to quantify the damage and accordingly the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.22,41,000/- as compensation with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 02.06.2012 till the payment is made. There is no dispute that the deceased had four dependents. Having regard to this aspect of the matter and the nature of occupation of the deceased, this court is of the view that the income of the deceased is to be assessed at Rs. 10,000/- per month. 8. In terms of the apex court decision in Rajesh and Others versus Rajbir Singh and Others reported in 2013 ACJ 1403, the tribunal has not added any loss of future prospect. According to this court, in the context of the case, it was the duty of the tribunal to consider that aspect of the matter. Hence, this court is of the view that 30% to be added with the income of the deceased as the loss of future prospect. According to this court, in the context of the case, it was the duty of the tribunal to consider that aspect of the matter. Hence, this court is of the view that 30% to be added with the income of the deceased as the loss of future prospect. For purpose of quantifying the loss of income initially, this court is to add Rs. 3000/- with that amount. Thus, the amount comes to Rs. 13,000/- per month. The tribunal has correctly deducted 1/4th of the income as the personal expenses of the deceased in terms of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 as the deceased had four dependents on his income. Thus, the multiplicand would be : Rs.13,000 x 12 = Rs.1,56,000/- per annum. From that sum, 1/4th has to be deducted as the personal expense and after such deduction the amount would come to Rs.1,17,000/-. With the said amount, the multiplier 14 in consideration of the age of the deceased has to be applied. Loss of income thus comes to Rs.16,38,000/-. With the said amount another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to be added as the loss of consortium for the wife of the deceased. The Claimant-respondent No.1 and the other claimant-respondents would get Rs.50,000/- each for loss of love and affection. Thus the total amount comes at Rs.18,88,000/-. The said amount shall carry interest @ 7% per annum till the payment is made from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e. 02.06.2012. 9. It is made clear that at the time of disbursing the money, the award for the loss of consortium and the loss of love and affection shall individually be distributed according to their proportion as decided by the court along with their share. The share should be decided solely on the basis of the sum of Rs.16,38,000/- with interest. The interest also separately be calculated on the award as given for loss of consortium and for loss of love and affection. 50% of the share of each of the claimant respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall be invested in a term deposit under any Nationalized Bank for five years. Without leave of the court, no amount therefrom can be withdrawn by the claimant respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under any circumstances. 50% of the share of each of the claimant respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall be invested in a term deposit under any Nationalized Bank for five years. Without leave of the court, no amount therefrom can be withdrawn by the claimant respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under any circumstances. So far the share and the loss of love and affection of the claimant respondent Nos.3 and 4 are concerned, the entire share with the amount for loss of love and affection shall be deposited in the term deposit till they attained majority. However, the claimant respondent No.1 will be entitled to withdraw the interest on yearly basis from the said deposit for their proper upbringing. However, the respondent No.1 shall maintain an account which shall be submitted before the tribunal when asked for. The tribunal shall release the remaining amount. 10. Mr. Saha, learned counsel has submitted that a sum of Rs.10,20,500/- has been deposited by the appellant in this court in terms of the order dated 17.08.2016 of this court. The remainder of the award shall be deposited by the appellant in the tribunal within a period of 2(two) months from today without delay. At the time of releasing the amount, the manner as stipulated above shall strictly be followed by the Registry of this court and the tribunal below. 11. With these observation and direction, this appeal stands partly allowed to the extent as indicated above. No order as to costs. Send down the LCRs after preparation of the award in terms of this judgment.