JUDGMENT : Dipankar Datta, J. 1. CAN No. 3165 of 2017 is an application for withdrawal in F.M.A. No. 3352 of 2013. While hearing such application, we have heard the parties on the merits of the appeal and the cross-objection. We propose to decide F.M.A. No. 3352 of 2013 and C.O.T. No. 18 of 2014 by this common judgment and order. 2. F.M.A. No. 3352 of 2013 is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereafter the ‘Act’) at the instance of an insurance company (hereafter the insurer), questioning the award dated 21st May, 2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track 1st Court, Barasat, North 24-Parganas on an application under section 166 thereof, registered as M.A.C. Case No. 508 of 2011. 3. How long a driving license (issued by the appropriate licensing authority) in favour of an individual to drive a non-transport vehicle in terms of the Act remains effective, is the sole question of law that arises for decision in the appeal in the factual background as discussed hereafter. 4. Bibhas Sarkar @ Kala (hereafter the ‘victim’) died in a motor vehicular accident on 2nd May, 2011. The tribunal was approached by the heirs of the victim with a claim application impleading the owner of the offending vehicle (a lorry) and its insurer as opposite parties 1 and 2, respectively. The owner duly proved that the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy of the insurer. The insurer denied liability on the ground that the offending vehicle was being driven by Narayan Chandra Deb (hereafter Narayan), whose license had expired as on 2nd May, 2011. The insurer proved that Narayan was issued a driving license, the period of validity of which was from 21st April, 2008 to 20th April, 2011 (the license having later been renewed and its validity extended from 30th November, 2012 to 29th November, 2015). Since the accident took place on 2nd May, 2011, when Narayan did not have a valid driving license, it was the contention of the insurer that the owner ought to be held liable to bear compensation payable to the claimants. The tribunal did not agree with such a contention and held the insurer liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 5. Appearing for the insurer-appellant, Mr. The tribunal did not agree with such a contention and held the insurer liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 5. Appearing for the insurer-appellant, Mr. Das, learned advocate has urged us to decide the question of law in favour of the insurer-appellant and thereby divest it of the liability to pay the compensation awarded by the tribunal to the claimants. 6. In that view of the matter, we need not discuss the evidence in detail as to how the accident occurred. Also, it is an undisputed fact that driving of the offending vehicle rashly and negligently by Narayan resulted in the death of the victim. The question that has been formulated above is required to be answered bearing in mind the provisions of the Act. The tribunal has referred to section 14 of the Act to hold the insurer liable. We are, thus, called upon to decide whether the tribunal was right in its interpretation of such provision. 7. For facility of reference, section 14 is quoted below:- “Currency of licences to drive motor vehicles - (1) A learner’s licence issued under this Act shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act, be effective for a period of six months from the date of issue of the licence. (2) A driving licence issued or renewed under this Act shall: (a) in the case of a licence to drive a transport vehicle, be effective for a period of three years: Provided that in the case of licence to drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature be effective for a period of one year and renewal thereof shall be subject to the condition that the driver undergoes one day refresher course of the prescribed syllabus. (b) in the case of any other licence: (i) if the person obtaining the licence, either originally or on renewal thereof, has not attained the age of fifty years on the date of issue or, as the case may be, renewal thereof: (A) be effective for a period of twenty years from the date of such issue or renewal. (B) until the date on which such person attains the age of fifty years, whichever is earlier. (B) until the date on which such person attains the age of fifty years, whichever is earlier. (ii) if the person referred to in sub-clause (i), has attained the age of fifty years on the date of issue or as the case may be, renewal thereof, be effective, on payment of such fee as may be prescribed, for a period of five years from the date of such issue or renewal: Provided that every driving licence shall; notwithstanding its expiry under this sub-section, continue to be effective for a period of thirty days from such expiry.” 8. It is clear on a perusal of sub-section (2) of Section 14 that a license to drive a transport vehicle would be effective for a period of three years. Mr. Das has, while assailing the impugned award, drawn sustenance therefrom. However, this contention raised by Mr. Das overlooks the proviso at the foot of section 14. Having provided that notwithstanding its expiry under sub-section (2) every driving license shall continue to be effective for a period of thirty days from such expiry, it leads one to the unshakable conclusion that although in terms of clause (a) of sub-section (2) section 14 of the Act the license would be effective for a period of three years, it would continue to remain effective for a further period of thirty days from such expiry. This, in our considered view, is the only possible outcome of a plain and literal interpretation of the law. 9. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 , the Supreme Court has ruled that the proviso appended to section 14 in unequivocal terms states that the license remains valid for a period of thirty days from the day of its expiry. Upon interpretation of section 15, it was also laid down as follows: “46. Section 15 of the Act does not empower the authorities to reject an application for renewal only on the ground that there is a break in validity or tenure of the driving licence has lapsed, as in the meantime the provisions for disqualification of the driver contained in Sections 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 will not be attracted, would indisputably confer a right upon the person to get his driving licence renewed. In that view of the matter, he cannot be said to be delicensed and the same shall remain valid for a period of thirty days after its expiry.” 10. The question of law arising for decision on the appeal is, thus, answered. 11. It is now time to apply the law to the facts of the case. It cannot be doubted that the driving license issued in favour of Narayan was effective for a period of three years [from 21st April, 2008 till 20th April, 2011 as per clause (a) of sub-section (2), section 14 of the Act] but by reason of operation of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 14, it continued to remain effective for a further period of a month from 20th April, 2011. For all intents and purposes, the license was valid till 19th May, 2011. The date of the accident being 2nd May, 2011, it was within the period the license of Narayan was effective and, therefore, the contention that Narayan did not have the authority in law to drive the offending vehicle on the date of the accident stands overruled. The net result is that the insurer cannot avoid liability. 12. The appeal, thus, stands dismissed. The statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- made by the insurer-appellant stands forfeited towards costs. It shall be paid to the claimants/ respondents 1 to 3 in equal shares. 13. We now proceed to consider the cross-objection filed by the claimants upon receipt of the notice of appeal. 14. The tribunal on consideration of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 26,09,500/-. 15. Mr. Mondal, learned advocate appearing in support of the cross-objection assailed the quantum of compensation awarded by raising the following points:- (i) The victim was a businessman having a steady source of income and the tribunal erred in computing loss of dependency by treating the annual income of the victim as Rs. 3,00,000/- prior to his death; instead, the income of Rs. 4,56,965/- reflected in the income tax return for the assessment year 2010-11 ought to have been considered as his annual income. In support of the contention that the income as shown in the last return ought to be considered, Mr. Mondal placed reliance on decision in Shashikala vs. Gangalakshmamma, 2015 ACJ 1239 . 4,56,965/- reflected in the income tax return for the assessment year 2010-11 ought to have been considered as his annual income. In support of the contention that the income as shown in the last return ought to be considered, Mr. Mondal placed reliance on decision in Shashikala vs. Gangalakshmamma, 2015 ACJ 1239 . (ii) Next, placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 6 WBLR (SC) 308, it was contended that the claimants are entitled to compensation on account of future prospect of the victim who had a steady income from his business. (iii) Thirdly, it has been contended that the claimants are also entitled to enhanced sums on account of loss of consortium, loss estate and funeral expenses in view of the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra). (iv) Finally, it was contended that interest awarded by the tribunal @ 6% per annum is too meagre and that interest @10% per annum should have been awarded. 16. Mr. Mondal, thus, prayed that the cross-objection be allowed. 17. Mr. Das, in his usual fairness, left the matter to the discretion of the Court. 18. In Shashikala (supra), income tax returns for two assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 were filed. The return for the subsequent year was more than the previous year. In paragraph 16 of the decision, the Supreme Court observed that the income of the deceased as stated in the income tax return for the year 2006-2007 i.e. Rs. 2,02,911/- may be taken as the income of the deceased. It is not that a law having the effect of a binding precedent was laid down in the said decision but there being no other binding decision on the point to guide us, we propose to keep the approach adopted by the Supreme Court in Shashikala (supra) in mind while re-determining compensation payable to the claimants. 19. From the income tax returns of the victim filed before the tribunal by the claimants, we find that there was marginal variation, while for the assessment year 2009-10 it was Rs. 4,37,345/- for the subsequent assessment year it was Rs.4,56,965/-. The return for the assessment year 2011-12 was not filed. 19. From the income tax returns of the victim filed before the tribunal by the claimants, we find that there was marginal variation, while for the assessment year 2009-10 it was Rs. 4,37,345/- for the subsequent assessment year it was Rs.4,56,965/-. The return for the assessment year 2011-12 was not filed. However, since the victim died on 2nd May, 2011, the possibility of the return not having been filed by him since the last date of filing return had not lapsed prior to his death cannot be ruled out. We are, thus, of the opinion that omission to adduce the tax return for the assessment year 2011-12 was not fatal to the claim of the claimants and that the tribunal ought to have determined compensation reckoning Rs. 4,56,965/- as the annual income of the victim prior to his death, less income tax of Rs. 38,768/- that was paid by him, i.e. Rs. 4,18,197/-. 20. Also, the claimants are entitled to enhanced sums under the heads of future prospect, loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses in line with the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra). 21. We, therefore, proceed to re-assess the amount of compensation payable to the claimants in the manner as follows:- S. No. Heads Calculation (i) Notional yearly income Rs. 4,18,197/- (ii) Less 1/3rd on account of personal and living expenses Less Rs. 1,39,399/- = Rs. 2,78,798/- (iii) Multiplier of 13 applied Rs. 36,24,374/- (iv) Add 25% future prospect Rs. 9,06,093.50, Rounded off to Rs. 9,06,093/- (v) Loss of consortium Rs. 48,800/- (vi) Loss of estate and funeral expenses Rs. 36,300/- Total compensation Rs. 46,15,567/- 22. We are not inclined to grant interest @ 10% per annum as claimed by Mr. Mondal. However, the claimants shall be entitled to simple interest @ 7.5% per annum on the aforesaid sum of Rs. 46,15,567/- from the date of filing of the claim application till full payment is made by the insurer-appellant. 23. The insurer-appellant has secured a sum of Rs. 25,84,500/- out of Rs. 26,09,500/- without interest as directed by the tribunal while complying with the interim order dated 13th August, 2013 passed in the appeal. 46,15,567/- from the date of filing of the claim application till full payment is made by the insurer-appellant. 23. The insurer-appellant has secured a sum of Rs. 25,84,500/- out of Rs. 26,09,500/- without interest as directed by the tribunal while complying with the interim order dated 13th August, 2013 passed in the appeal. Whatever additional amount is due and payable in terms of this order by the insurer-appellant, over and above what it has secured while complying with the interim order dated 13th August, 2013, shall be deposited by it with the Registrar General within two months from date positively. 24. It is made very clear that the widow of the victim shall be exclusively entitled to Rs. 48,800/- on account of loss of consortium. The balance sum of Rs. 46,15,567/- shall be equally shared by the appellants 1, 2 and along with proportionate share of interest. In addition, the interest accrued on the sum secured by the insurer-appellant shall be equally shared by the heirs of the victim. 25. Separate cheques shall be issued by the Registrar General in favour of the widow and the mother of the victim in accordance with the terms contained hereinabove, preferably within 30th September, 2018, if an approach is made in this behalf. 26. The cross-objection stands disposed of along with CAN No. 3165 of 2017, without any order for costs. I agree – Asha Arora, J.