JUDGMENT : 1. The opposite party no. 2 in M.A.C. Case No. 63 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 9th Court, Alipore, 24-Parganas (South) is in appeal before us challenging the award dated December 23, 2011. By such award, a claim application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereafter the Act), presented by the respondents 1 and 2 herein (hereafter the claimants), was allowed and the opposite party no. 2 (hereafter the insurer) was found liable to pay compensation to them in a sum of Rs. 12,35,420/- together with interest @ 8 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till payment. 2. The victim of the motor accident was the husband and the father of the claimants 1 and 2 respectively. He was an engineer, employed in a private company. While riding a motorcycle, the victim was dashed from behind by a bus on January 29, 2008. He suffered multiple injuries as a result thereof. Immediately thereafter, he was taken to a nearby hospital where he was declared brought dead. The victim, on the relevant date, was 56 years old and was drawing a net pay of Rs. 16,030/-. 3. In course of trial the claimants were successful in proving the accident as well as involvement of the bus in such accident, which led to the untimely demise of the victim. It was also proved beyond doubt that the bus had been insured by the insurer and that the insurer was liable to pay compensation. 4. Appearing in support of the appeal, Mr. Pahari, learned advocate has raised two points: (1) contributory negligence of the victim. (2) error in determination of compensation by the tribunal. Upon service of notice of appeal, the claimants entered appearance and filed a cross objection. 5. It is contended by Mr. Mondal, learned advocate for the claimants/cross objectors that the tribunal erroneously determined compensation and in view of the recent Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 6 WBLR (SC) 308, the claimants are entitled to enhanced amount of compensation on account of future prospect, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. 6. It is also contended by Mr. 6. It is also contended by Mr. Mondal that a week or so prior to his untimely death, the victim had been informed by his employer that keeping in mind his all round performance for the year 2007 it had been decided to grant him special increments and with effect from February 01, 2008, his gross emoluments would be Rs. 30,000/- per month. According to Mr. Mondal, in determining compensation payable to the claimants, this factor ought to be borne in mind. 7. We have heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the lower court records. 8. The insurer had obtained leave from the tribunal under section 170 of the Act to urge all points in defence that were available to it. A written statement had been filed by the insurer. We have meticulously perused the written statement but unfortunately do not find any pleading therein to the effect that the victim had, by his negligence, contributed to the accident which led to his death. 9. We have further found an eye-witness version (PW-2), which is unchallenged, making the position clear that the bus dashed the victim from behind and it was rash and negligent driving thereof that took away the victim's life. 10. It is also found from the records that a police officer, who was investigating the F.I.R. which was registered immediately after the death of the victim, had been adduced as a defence witness. He had been examined by the insurer on September 16, 2011. In the midst of his examination-in-chief, an adjournment had been sought for by the insurer, which was granted by the tribunal. Two further dates were fixed by the tribunal for production of the defence witness but owing to filing of petitions praying for adjournment at the instance of the insurer, examination-in-chief of the defence witness was deferred. Ultimately, the insurer did not wish to rely on the evidence of the defence witness and participated in the arguments, whereafter hearing was closed. 11. We do not find any evidence adduced on behalf of the insurer, which would suggest that the victim by his negligence had contributed to the accident and, therefore, the insurer could evade liability. We are, thus, of the opinion that the first ground of objection to the impugned order is thoroughly without merit. 12. 11. We do not find any evidence adduced on behalf of the insurer, which would suggest that the victim by his negligence had contributed to the accident and, therefore, the insurer could evade liability. We are, thus, of the opinion that the first ground of objection to the impugned order is thoroughly without merit. 12. Insofar as determination of compensation payable to the claimants by the tribunal is concerned, rather than agreeing with Mr. Pahari that there has been an error, which would lead to reduction in the quantum of compensation, we are inclined to agree with Mr. Mondal that the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation not only based on the decision of Pranay Sethi (supra) but also upon consideration of Ext.21. 13. Before we advert to Ext. 21, we wish to place on record Mr. Pahari's submission that the point of future prospect being one of the heads under which compensation could be assessed had not been settled by the Supreme Court when this appeal came to be presented and, therefore, the determination of compensation made by the tribunal taking into consideration future prospect of the victim was challenged. With the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra), the point of 'future prospect' is no longer res integra and, thus, would not be raised. 14. Ext. 21 appears to be a letter issued by the employer to the victim reading as follows: "Mr. K.K. Karmakar Calcutta Dear Mr. Karmakar, In view of your all round performance for the year 2007, the management is pleased to offer you a special increment and now your gross emoluments will be Rs. 30,000/- per month effective February 01, 2008. Trust you will appreciate this gesture of the company and will work with more vigor for betterment of yourself and the company. Thanking you Ranjit Pakrasi General Manager (Marketing and Operation)." 15. Ext.21 had been filed alongwith the claim application by the claimant no. 1 (PW-1). The contents of such document were proved by PW-3, Rupen Chatterjee, Manager, Accounts of the company in which the victim was employed. Thanking you Ranjit Pakrasi General Manager (Marketing and Operation)." 15. Ext.21 had been filed alongwith the claim application by the claimant no. 1 (PW-1). The contents of such document were proved by PW-3, Rupen Chatterjee, Manager, Accounts of the company in which the victim was employed. Although Ext.21 was admitted into evidence on objection raised by the learned advocate for the insurer, we do not find any relevant question put to PW-3 in course of his cross examination either to the effect that the employer of the victim had not taken any decision to award him incremental benefits or that it was not proposed to enhance the victim's emoluments to Rs. 30,000/- per month from February 01, 2008 or that Ext.21 is a manufactured document for the purpose of suiting the convenience of the claimants. In the absence of any relevant question having been put to PW-3 challenging the contents of Ext.21, the objection which was raised and recorded in course of admission of the document into evidence pales into insignificance. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the tribunal ought to have taken into consideration such document at the time of determining compensation. 16. We have found from the evidence on record that while the victim's net pay was Rs. 16,030/- per month, his gross pay was Rs. 20,531/- per month. Since the victim did not live to draw Rs. 30,000/- with effect from February 01, 2008, it is obviously not possible for us to ascertain the quantum of deduction on account of income tax and the like. We are, however, of the view that after deducting some amount on account of income tax as well as other charges, which could have been made from the emoluments of the victim, Rs. 25,000/- per month could be treated to be his notional income on and from February 01, 2008. We feel persuaded to take such notional income into consideration in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in K.R. Madhusudhan and Others vs. Administrative Officer, AIR 2011 SC (Civil) 639. 17. We, accordingly, proceed to re-assess compensation as follows:- S. No. Heads Calculation (i) Loss of Dependency Rs. 25,000 p.m. x 12 = Rs. 3,00,000 (ii) Add Future Prospect @ 15% Rs. 45,000 (iii) Less deduction of 1/3rd on account of personal and living expenses Rs. 3,45,000 - Rs. 1,15,000 = Rs. 17. We, accordingly, proceed to re-assess compensation as follows:- S. No. Heads Calculation (i) Loss of Dependency Rs. 25,000 p.m. x 12 = Rs. 3,00,000 (ii) Add Future Prospect @ 15% Rs. 45,000 (iii) Less deduction of 1/3rd on account of personal and living expenses Rs. 3,45,000 - Rs. 1,15,000 = Rs. 2,30,000 (iv) Compensation after multiplier 9 is applied Rs. 2,30,000 x 9 = Rs. 20,70,000 (v) Loss of consortium (Rs. 40,000 + Rs. 12,000/-) Rs. 52,000 (vi) Loss of estate (Rs. 15,000+ Rs. 4,500) Rs. 19,500 (vii) Funeral expenses (Rs. 15,000 + Rs. 4,500/-) Rs. 19,500 Total Compensation Awardable Rs. 21,61,000 18. While hearing the stay application, a coordinate Bench directed the insurer to secure the compensation awarded by the tribunal. In compliance with such order, the insurer has secured Rs. 12,35,420. It has also deposited Rs. 25,000/- in terms of section 173 of the Act. In terms of an order passed by a coordinate Bench on September 18, 2013, the claimants have withdrawn a sum of Rs. 5,00,000. The balance amount i.e. Rs. 9,00,580/- together with interest @ 8% per annum on the entire amount of compensation payable to the claimants in terms of this order, i.e. Rs. 21,61,000/- (less interest on Rs. 12,60,420/- from the date of deposit till payment is made in terms of this order) shall be deposited by the insurer with the Registrar General of this Court within two months from date of communication of this judgment and order. 19. The claimants would be entitled to receive such sum as they are entitled, after adjustment of Rs. 5,00,000/- together with interest accrued thereon. 20. The registrar general shall ensure release of the sum payable in terms of this order in favour of the claimants, in the same proportion fixed by the tribunal, upon satisfaction of the identity of the claimants. 21. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed while the cross objection (C.O.T. 26 of 2012) stands allowed. In view thereof, C.A.N. 1777 of 2017 also stands disposed of. 22. There shall be no order as to costs. 23. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously.