JUDGMENT : This is an appeal preferred by the claimant-appellant for enhancement of the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (2nd), Unakoti Judicial District, Kailashahar vide judgment and order dated 30.08.2016, in connection with Case No. TS(MAC) 10 of 2015. 2. Mst. Anwara Nessa along with her deceased husband Masuk Ali were travelling by an auto-rickshaw bearing Registration No. TR02-3425 and at that time one vehicle bearing Registration No.TR02-D-1974 (Maximo pick-up Van) dashed the said auto-rickshaw at Murar Dukan, kailashahar-Rangauti Raod at a high speed, which was coming from opposite direction. The wife Anwara Nessa was taking her husband Masuk Ali for his treatment at RGM Hospital, Kailashahar. Due to the said accident, all the passengers of the auto-rickshaw suffered injuries but the husband of the claimant-appellant had suffered severe injuries and on his way to hospital he succumbed to his injuries. Mst. Anwara Nessa being the wife has filed an application under Section 166 of the M.V. Act claiming that her husband was having a shop and the income was Rs.15,000/- per month. At the time of death, the age of the deceased was 55 years. 3. After being summoned, the owner and the drivers appeared before the Tribunal and contested the suit by filing their respective written statements. The parties also have led their respective evidence. However, the proceeding was made ex parte against the respondents No.2 and 3, but no liability was fixed upon them and the respondent No.1, being the owner of the offending vehicle (TR02-D-1914, Maxximo pick-up Van), was made liable to pay the compensation. The vehicle had no valid insurance at the time of accident. 4. Learned Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties had considered the age of the deceased as 55 years and his income was assessed at Rs.3000/- per month and on that basis, applying the principle of Sarla Verma & Anr. Vrs. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in 2009 AIR SCW 4992, multiplier was determined as 11 and after considering all relevant factors, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.2,74,000/- as compensaton along with interest @ 7% per annum. 5. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the judgment and award dated 30.08.2016, the claimant-appellant has preferred the present appeal for enhancement of compensation. 6. Mr. Vrs. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in 2009 AIR SCW 4992, multiplier was determined as 11 and after considering all relevant factors, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.2,74,000/- as compensaton along with interest @ 7% per annum. 5. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the judgment and award dated 30.08.2016, the claimant-appellant has preferred the present appeal for enhancement of compensation. 6. Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in these days even a labour can earn at least Rs.10,000/- per month. In the case in hand, the deceased was running a shop and his income was not less than Rs.15,000/-. However, he could not furnish any such document or any books of account of his shop to arrive at a conclusion by this Court that the income of the deceased was Rs.10,000/- or Rs.15,000/- per month. It is settled principle of law that though Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation but the Court should not be unmindful in regard to the income of the deceased so that the Court can come to a definite conclusion that the deceased was having income which the claimant-appellant has claimed in her claim application. In absence of such proof there is no room left for the Tribunal or Court to determine the income of the deceased but to depend on some guess work. 7. This Court is not oblivious of the present social scenario and the cost of daily labour, and considering all the aspects this Court is of the opinion that a sum of Rs.5000/- can be worked out as the monthly income of the deceased. There is no controversy that multiplier will be taken as 11 considering the age of the deceased as stated above. Thus, Rs.60,000/- is the yearly income and multiplying it by 11, on calculation it comes to Rs. 60,000/- X 11= Rs.6,60,000/-, which is the loss of income of the deceased. The deceased was surviving by 2/3 family members. Following the ratio laid down in Sarla Verma (supra), 1/3rd amount is deducted from the total loss of income being the personal and living expenses of the deceased had he been alive. Thus, on calculation it comes to (Rs.6,60,000-Rs.2,20,000) Rs.4,40,000/- which the claimant-appellant will be entitled being the loss of income of the deceased. Following the ratio laid down in Sarla Verma (supra), 1/3rd amount is deducted from the total loss of income being the personal and living expenses of the deceased had he been alive. Thus, on calculation it comes to (Rs.6,60,000-Rs.2,20,000) Rs.4,40,000/- which the claimant-appellant will be entitled being the loss of income of the deceased. More so, a sum of Rs.5000/- is awarded in favour of the claimant-appellant towards the funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards the loss of consortium. In total, the claimant-appellant is entitled to receive compensation of (Rs.4,40,000+ Rs.15,000) Rs.4,55,000/- (Rupees four lakhs fifty five thousand). The said amount will carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim application. 8. In the light of the aforesaid discussions and observations, the appeal stands allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 30.08.2016, passed by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (2nd), Unakoti Judicial District, Kailashahar in Case No. TS(MAC) 10 of 2015 is modified to the extent above. 9. Since it is found that the offending vehicle had no valid insurance policy on the date of accident, the respondent No.1, Rajeswar Dey, being the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TR02-D-1914 (Maxximo pick-up Van), shall pay the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.4,55,000/- to the claimant-appellant within a period of 6(six) months from today. 10. Send back the L.C. records along with a copy of this judgment : The appeal accordingly stands disposed of.