JUDGMENT : RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.R. Agarwala, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Ms. R.D. Mozumdar, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the National Insurance Co. Ltd. (respondent No.2). 2. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, challenging the judgment and order dated 5.7.2013, in the MAC Case No.384/2004, whereby the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhubri, has awarded compensation to claimant Mrs. Khusboo Chirania @ Kanta Chirania (appellant herein) for the death of her husband Pawan Kumar Chirania in a road traffic accident. 3. Briefly stated, the case of the claimant is that on 9.5.2003, when the husband of the claimant was standing by the side of the NH-31, at South Raipur near Nandini Bridge, at that time he was knocked down by a vehicle (Vespa Scooter) bearing Regn. No.AS-17/0715, driven by the driver in a rush and negligent manner. As a result, the victim sustained multiple grievous injuries on his person and severe head injury and there was complete collapse of brain function apart from other fracture of bone also. Although the victim was provided all possible treatment from the local hospital to GNRC, Guwahati and to Vellore also but the condition of the victim did not improve. The brain operation of the victim was also done twice but of no result. The victim was stated to be completely bed ridden and permanently disabled and due to continuous disability, the victim died on 21.4.2006, out the said brain injury. The wife of the deceased preferred the claim petition claiming compensation for the death of her husband including the expenditure incurred while continuing the treatment and all other compensation admissible under the law. 4. The aforesaid petition was registered as MAC Case No.384/2004 and necessary notice was issued to the driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle and all of them contested the case by filing their written statement denying the allegations. The driver and owner in their written statement have admitted the accident and stated that such an incident has happened due to machinery defect and act of the God. However, they have submitted that as the vehicle was duly insured with the National Insurance Co. Ltd., so the compensation, if any, is to indemnify by the Insurance Company. The driver and owner in their written statement have admitted the accident and stated that such an incident has happened due to machinery defect and act of the God. However, they have submitted that as the vehicle was duly insured with the National Insurance Co. Ltd., so the compensation, if any, is to indemnify by the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company in their written statement also admitted about the fact of accident but submitted the claim as baseless, speculative, inflated, excessive, abnormal and prays for dismissal of the claim. 5. The learned Tribunal after framing the necessary issues and recording the evidence of the claimant's side and examining the bunch of documents that were filed in course of the proceeding, has come to a finding that the accident occurred due to fault of the aforesaid scooter driven by the driver and the deceased died of the injuries sustained in the said accident. Calculating the amount that incurred for treatment of the victim and taking into note the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month and after necessary deduction, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 8,23,000/- to the claimant with interest @8% per annum, with direction to the Insurance Company to pay the awarded amount. 6. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant on being dissatisfied with the award that was given by the Tribunal and has prayed for enhancement of the award on the ground that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated certain aspects while assessing the compensation. It has been contended that the income of the deceased should have been taken as Rs. 7000/- per month, as per the salary certificate given in this regard and assessment of Rs. 3,000/- per month is quite on lower side which should be increased. Further it has been contended that the learned Tribunal did not take into account the actual cost that has been incurred by the claimant for continuing three years treatment to the victim, who was not even able to move from his bed. He was taken to different hospitals for such treatment up to Vellore and thereafter he was provided continuous treatment in house for long period of three years and as such he should have been provided further amount for such miscellaneous expenditures he has incurred, apart from loss of amenities in life, etc. 7. He was taken to different hospitals for such treatment up to Vellore and thereafter he was provided continuous treatment in house for long period of three years and as such he should have been provided further amount for such miscellaneous expenditures he has incurred, apart from loss of amenities in life, etc. 7. Against the said claim of the appellants, the respondent Insurance Company has filed the Cross Objection No.5/2015, resisting the claim of the appellants on the ground that the assessment of claim is on higher side and there is no evidence regarding such continuous treatment since the date of accident on 9.5.2003, till the death of the deceased on 21.4.2006 and there is no connection between the death of the deceased and the injuries he received. Further it has been raised that the salary of the deceased has been wrongly assessed and accepted by the Tribunal, while the said salary receipt was issued none other than by the mother-in-law of the deceased himself. On the other hand, the deduction towards personal expenses should have been assessed as 1/3rd and not 1/4th. 8. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and re-consideration has been given to the submission of the parties. Pursuant to the submission, I have also examined the LCR, which consists of evidence of the claimant's side, documents relating to treatment, etc. 9. The medical documents that have been exhibited in the case pertains to the year 2003, which reflects that the deceased/victim sustained severe head injury for which he was treated at different placed including GNRC, Guwahati and Vellore also. Going by the documents that have been produced for the year 2003, the amount of calculation on medical expenses, calculated by the Tribunal appears to be proper. 10. On the other hand, as has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, it is found that there was no any document regarding to further continuous treatment from 2004 to 2006, of the victim. In this regard, except some receipt from the Physiotherapist, for the physiotherapy that were carried out, no other document is found regarding further treatment. In this regard, except some receipt from the Physiotherapist, for the physiotherapy that were carried out, no other document is found regarding further treatment. In this context, the learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court towards the certificate given by the CMC, Vellore, who has released the victim for further management in their own place, as the victim continues to be in the condition of coma, despite treatment. The said aspect coupled with the evidence from the claimant's side that the victim remain in coma since the date of accident till the date of death along with findings in the post mortem report that the deceased died due to head injury sustained in the accident, has unerringly pointed out that the deceased died of such brain injury sustained in the said accident. There is no evidence to show that the victim recovered in between the said period from his condition of coma and lead a normal live. Rather the documents as well as the photographs that have been exhibited in the record indicative of the fact that the deceased continued to be in the stage of coma, all through. There is no rebuttal evidence to the contrary. That being so, the evidence of the learned Tribunal that the deceased died out of injuries so sustained, appears to be in proper side. 11. On the next, although the claimant's side has produced certain documents regarding the monthly salary of the deceased as that of Rs. 7000/- per month but the learned Tribunal has taken the same of Rs. 3000/- per month, as the monthly salary of the deceased, which is also appears to be proper, in the given circumstances, the deceased was a salesman of the clothe store, having his family to maintain consisting wife and two minor children. However, the learned Tribunal has deducted 1/4th from the annual income holding the mother of the deceased is also a dependent, appears to be not proper as the mother of the deceased was running a clothe shop of her own. That being so, deduction from the income should be 1/3rd. Further, the learned Tribunal has not taken the calculation of future prospect of the deceased which deserves consideration. That being so, deduction from the income should be 1/3rd. Further, the learned Tribunal has not taken the calculation of future prospect of the deceased which deserves consideration. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any further amount of compensation on account of miscellaneous expenses, that has been incurred by the family of the victim, while carrying out such prolong treatment, by employing attendants, continuing physiotherapy, etc. 12. All these aspects are now been considered in the light of the evidence of record and the claim of the claimant appears to be a genuine one, who has lost her husband in such serious road traffic accident and she suffered lot of agony for such incident. 13. On verification of the record, it reveals that the claimant herself delayed the due proceeding of the case, as the case was filed on 20.3.2004 and despite the written statement filed by the respondents soon thereafter, the evidence was filed on 21.2.2009 and thus in the process, the case was fixed for several years for defence evidence and argument and finally the case was decided on 5.7.2013 and in such backdrop, while there was no fault on the part of the Insurance Company, awarding of interest @8% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition, appears to be in the higher side. 14. After going through all details of the matter, following amount of compensation is appears to be just and proper, to be awarded to the claimant, as calculated below: (i) Monthly income Rs. 3000/- P.M. + 25% of the monthly income (Rs. 750/-) be added on future prospect. Hence the monthly income will be Rs. 3750/- and after deduction of 1/3rd, the monthly income of the deceased will be Rs. 2500/-. (ii) Thus the loss of dependency will be Rs. 2500/- X 12 X 14 = Rs. 4,20,000/-. (iii) In addition, Rs. 70,000/- is to be awarded under the head of loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate. (iv) Adding medical expenses of Rs. 4,23,000/-, the amount of compensation will be Rs. 9,13,000/- (Rs. 4,20,000/- + Rs. 70,000/- + Rs. 4,23,000/-) and in all fitness of the matter, as discussed above, Rs. 1,00,000/- is being awarded for the miscellaneous expenses for prolong treatment of the injured. Thus the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 10,13,000/- (Rupees ten lakh thirteen thousands) only. 4,23,000/-, the amount of compensation will be Rs. 9,13,000/- (Rs. 4,20,000/- + Rs. 70,000/- + Rs. 4,23,000/-) and in all fitness of the matter, as discussed above, Rs. 1,00,000/- is being awarded for the miscellaneous expenses for prolong treatment of the injured. Thus the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 10,13,000/- (Rupees ten lakh thirteen thousands) only. However no interest on the future prospect will be calculated. 15. Accordingly, the claimant will now be entitled to the aforesaid amount of Rs. 10,13,000/- (Rupees ten lakh thirteen thousands) only, which will carry 6% interest, from the date of filing of the petition till realization. The Insurance Company will deposit the remaining amount of the award, after adjusting the earlier amount already deposited along with interest @6% p.a., within two months and the claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount, on due verification by the engaged counsel. 16. With the above alteration and modification, the appeal stands disposed. 17. Return the LCR immediately.