JUDGMENT & ORDER : This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 16.04.2016 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, No.1, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. TS(MAC)277/2014 wherein the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.9,92,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 2. The cross objection was filed by the claimants and on agreement of the learned counsel for the parties both the appeal and the cross objection have been taken up together for disposal by a common judgment. 3. The claimant respondents No. 1 to 5 by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act have stated inter alia, that on 16.03.2016 Chaiwa Mog along with her husband Ulufru Mog was proceeding from Rupaichari to Agartala by a motor bike bearing registration No. TR03 E 5339 and when they reached Bishramganj at about 8.30 hrs the offending vehicle bearing registration No. TR01 W 1672 coming from the same direction at a high speed rashly and negligently dashed the motor bike from the back side. As a result, Chawia Mog along with her husband sprinkled under a truck bearing registration No. TRL 2843, which was in their front side. Consequently, both of them received grievous injuries on their head, chest and other parts of their body and on being taken to the nearby PHC they were declared dead. A police case was also registered with the Bishramganj P.S. being Bishramganj P.S. Case No. 20/2014 under Section 304 Part II of IPC against the driver of the Bolero Maxi Truck bearing registration No. TR01 W 1672. 4. It has been pleaded in the claim petition that Chaiwa Mog, the deceased was a private tutor having a monthly income of Rs.20,000/- and was about 26 years of age at the time of her death. Hence, they claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.46,90,000/-. 5. After receipt of the notice, owner of the Bolero Maxi Truck, being the OP No.1, has filed written objection and disputed the claim of the claimants. The OP No.1 has further pleaded that he has got all the valid vehicular documents and if any compensation is awarded that should be paid by the insurer of the vehicle. 6. The National Insurance Co. The OP No.1 has further pleaded that he has got all the valid vehicular documents and if any compensation is awarded that should be paid by the insurer of the vehicle. 6. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. being the OP No. 2, appellant herein, also denied and disputed the claims of the claimants by filing written objection. 7. On the basis of the pleadings and documents, the learned tribunal has framed the following issues: “1. Did Chaiwa Mog sustain any injury on 16.03.2014 at about 0830 hours at Bishramganj on the National Highway in a road traffic accident involving the Bolero Maxi Truck bearing No. TR-01-W-1672 and the Pulsar Motor Bike bearing No. TR-03-E-5339 in which she was a pillion rider resulting in death the same day due to rash and negligent driving of the driver/rider of either or both the vehicles? 2. Are the claimants entitled to be compensated under the Provision of M.V.Act, 1988? If so, to what extent and who shall be liable to pay the same?” 8. After discussion on all the issues, the learned tribunal has quantified the compensation to the tune of Rs.9,92,000/- only along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 06.09.2014 i.e. from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the date of actual payment. Being dissatisfied with the said award, the Insurance Company has preferred the appeal. 9. By filing cross-objection, the claimant-respondents No. 1 to 5 herein, have sought for enhancement of compensation on the ground that the learned tribunal has not appreciated their claim that the deceased Chaiwa Mog was earning Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month as a private tutor. 10. Heard Mr. SD Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Co. as well as Mr. DC Roy, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondents No. 1 to 5 as well as cross-objectors. 11. Having taken up both the appeal and the cross-objection together, I have perused the entire records and the judgment of the learned tribunal. 12. It has been proved that Chaiwa Mog was a private tutor but I concur with the finding of the learned tribunal that the claimants have failed to prove that the deceased used to earn Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month as a private tutor as there is no corroborative evidence in support of this claim. 13. 12. It has been proved that Chaiwa Mog was a private tutor but I concur with the finding of the learned tribunal that the claimants have failed to prove that the deceased used to earn Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month as a private tutor as there is no corroborative evidence in support of this claim. 13. It is undisputed that the deceased was a graduate and the learned tribunal has rightly held that since the deceased used to live in a remote village where the income as private tutor shall not be as much as like in the urban areas and so I find no infirmity in the judgment of the learned tribunal wherein the income of the deceased was assessed at Rs.4,000/- per month. 14. Mr. SD Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance co. has disputed the fact that except the respondent No.2, other claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased, and he further submits that the learned tribunal has committed error in holding that the claimant respondents are the legal heirs of the deceased Chaiwa Mog. He further submits that in spite of several opportunities the respondent claimants have failed to produce the survival certificate as legal heirs of the deceased Chaiwa Mog. However, in course of arguments, he admits that the claimant-respondent No.2, Smt. Saindayong Mog, wife of Raianggya Mog, who is the mother-in-law of the deceased, can be held to be the only legal heir of the deceased. He has further submitted that the other claimants being the father-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law and the grandmother-in-law are not entitled to get any compensation. 15. Per contra, Mr. DC Roy, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-cross-objectors submits that the burden of proof lies upon the appellant Insurance co. to prove that the claimant-respondents are not the legal heirs of the deceased Chaiwa Mog. 16. In my considered view, there is no dispute in the Bar that the claimants who claim to be the legal heir of Chaiwa Mog have to prove that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Chaiwa Mog. So, I repel this submission of Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the claimant-respondents. 17. However, this Court has given enough opportunity to Mr. Roy, in pursuance of his prayer, to produce the survival certificate of the deceased Chaiwa Mog, which the learned counsel has failed to furnish till the date of hearing of this appeal. So, I repel this submission of Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the claimant-respondents. 17. However, this Court has given enough opportunity to Mr. Roy, in pursuance of his prayer, to produce the survival certificate of the deceased Chaiwa Mog, which the learned counsel has failed to furnish till the date of hearing of this appeal. Thus, I hold that the claimant-respondent No.2 who is the mother-in-law of the deceased Chaiwa Mog being the only legal heir is entitled to get the entire amount of compensation and the other claimant-respondents are not entitled to get any compensation due to the death of Chaiwa Mog. 18. Mr. SD Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has wrongly calculated dependency by making deduction of 1/4th of the income of the deceased in place of 50% as dependency of the personal expenses as deceased left behind only one dependant on her income, i.e. the mother-in-law, respondent No.2 herein. 19. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/4th towards the personal and living expenses and did not follow the ratio laid down in Sarala Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd. and Anr. reported in 2009 AIR SCW 4992 towards personal and living expenses. On the basis of this submission, he has submitted that the tribunal has awarded Rs.4,00,000/- more in favour of the respondent claimant for wrong deduction of 1/4th towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased Chaiwa Mog. 20. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submission of Mr. SD Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant. I have already held that in the present case the respondent claimant No.2, Smt. Saindayong Mog being the mother-in-law is the only legal heir of the deceased Chaiwa Mog and none else can be held to be the legal heir, and as such, the deduction against the head of dependency should be 50% instead of 1/4th of the income of the deceased. 21. The learned tribunal has decided the monthly income of deceased Chaiwa Mog at Rs.4,000/- per month which requires no interference by this Court. As such, the deduction should be Rs.4,000-Rs.2,000 which comes to Rs.2,000/-. 21. The learned tribunal has decided the monthly income of deceased Chaiwa Mog at Rs.4,000/- per month which requires no interference by this Court. As such, the deduction should be Rs.4,000-Rs.2,000 which comes to Rs.2,000/-. Hence, the income of deceased would be Rs.2,000 x 12 which comes to Rs.24,000/- per annum, which would again be multiplied by the multiplier 18 considering the age of the deceased, which comes to Rs.4,32,000/- (24,000 x 18). 22. In my considered view, the learned tribunal committed error in relying upon the judgment of Rajesh and Ors vs. Rajbir Singh, 2013 9 SCC 54 for addition of further 50% as loss of prospective income of the deceased Chaiwa Mog. 23. The Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 has settled this issue and following the settled principle, I hold that 40% of the annual income, i.e. Rs.1,72,800/- has to be added as loss of prospective income, since Chaiwa Mog was a self-employed and below the age of 40 years. Hence, the total comes to Rs.4,32,000 + Rs.1,72,800 = Rs.6,04,800/-. 24. The deceased Chaiwa Mog was a married lady and she along with her husband Ulufru Mog, who also died in the said accident, had to manage their own family. The claimant respondents have also filed a claim petition due to the death of Ulufru Mog. 25. Ulufru Mog, the husband of the deceased Chaiwa Mog was a government employee under the Public Works Department, Government of Tripura. The claim petition which was filed by the claimant-respondents due to the death of Ulufru Mog was registered as TS(MAC)278/2014. I have also gone through the records of TS(MAC)278/2014 and I find that in the claim petition the claimants have stated they were dependents upon the deceased Ulufru Mog. The same evidence, the claimant respondents have led in connection with the present case also but because of the fact that the deceased Chaiwa Mog was a married lady, in my considered view, she would have contributed maximum amount to maintain their own family along with her husband Ulufru Mog. So, the deduction should be 2/3rd of Rs.6,04,800/-, i.e. Rs.2,01,600/- which could be her living expenses. Therefore, the total amount now comes to Rs.4,03,200/- [Rs.6,04,800 – Rs.2,01,600]. This is settled even in Sarala Verma (supra) that the courts should consider just and adequate compensation. 26. So, the deduction should be 2/3rd of Rs.6,04,800/-, i.e. Rs.2,01,600/- which could be her living expenses. Therefore, the total amount now comes to Rs.4,03,200/- [Rs.6,04,800 – Rs.2,01,600]. This is settled even in Sarala Verma (supra) that the courts should consider just and adequate compensation. 26. Besides, the tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- against the head of funeral expenses. In view of the ratio laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra) it should be Rs.15,000/- instead of Rs.20,000/-. Hence, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs.4,03,200 + 15,000 = Rs.4,18,200/-. 27. Hence, respondent No.2, Smt. Saindayong Mog is entitled to receive the total amount of Rs. Rs.4,18,200/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e. 06.09.2014 till actual payment is made. 28. The appellant insurance co. being the insurer of the offending vehicle TR-01-W-1672 is liable to pay the entire amount of compensation. It is further ordered that out of the total amount of compensation, 25% of the amount shall be released in favour of the claimant-respondent No.2, Smt. Saindayong Mog and the rest shall be kept in a fixed deposit in any nationalized bank at least for a period of three years. 29. With the aforesaid observation and directions, the present appeal is partly allowed and consequently, the cross-objection filed by the claimant-respondents is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.