JUDGMENT : Asha Arora, J. - This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1973 (hereafter the Act), at the instance of the widow, mother and three children of the victim of a road traffic accident, is directed against the award dated 29th April, 2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Burdwan (hereafter the tribunal) in M.A.C. Case no. 161 of 2004, renumbered as 50 of 2005. The said case was registered on an application under Section 166 of the Act, which was presented before the tribunal by the appellants on the death of the victim on 12th March, 2004 in an accident that occurred on Burdwan-Katwa road. While the victim was standing by the side of the road, a motor car bearing no. WB-37/7303 coming from Katwa side with high speed dashed the victim who suffered multiple injuries on his person. He was shifted to Burdwan Hospital, where he subsequently died. 2. It was the specific allegation of the appellants that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and that the owner of the offending vehicle and/or insurer thereof are jointly and severally liable to compensate the appellants in a sum of Rs. 7,50,000.00. 3. The tribunal, considering the oral and documentary evidence placed before it, arrived at a finding that the appellants are entitled to Rs. 2,50,000.00. The claim of the appellants that the victim was earning Rs. 4,000.00 per month as a lottery ticketseller was dis-believed by the tribunal. The loss of dependency was calculated by the tribunal by referring to the Second Schedule appended to the Act, which provides Rs. 15,000.00 per annum to be reckoned as income for a non-earning person. The tribunal also did not add any amount on account of future prospect of the victim as well as declined to grant any interest on the compensation determined by it. 4. Dissatisfied with the paltry amount awarded by the tribunal as compensation, the appellants have carried it before us in appeal contending, inter alia, that they are entitled to Rs. 7,45,087.00 together with interest @ 7.5% per annum since 23rd March, 2004 i.e. the date of filing of the claim application till realisation. 5. It is not in dispute that Rs. Dissatisfied with the paltry amount awarded by the tribunal as compensation, the appellants have carried it before us in appeal contending, inter alia, that they are entitled to Rs. 7,45,087.00 together with interest @ 7.5% per annum since 23rd March, 2004 i.e. the date of filing of the claim application till realisation. 5. It is not in dispute that Rs. 2,50,000.00 awarded by the tribunal has been released in favour of the appellants and they have received it without prejudice to their rights and contentions in this appeal. 6. Since the insurance company, respondent no. 1 has accepted the award of the tribunal and has paid Rs. 2,50,000.00 in favour of the appellants, we need not examine the evidence adduced by the appellants to prove the accident as well as rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle ultimately resulting in death of the victim. 7. We have heard Mr. Ashique Mondal, learned advocate for the appellants and Mr. Kartick Bhattacharya, learned advocate for the respondent no. 1. 8. The first contention of Mr. Mondal is that the tribunal committed gross error in not accepting the oral evidence of P.W. 1 (appellant no. 1) to the effect that the victim was feeding a family of 6 (six) members and, therefore, Rs. 4,000.00 claimed as earning of the victim was a reasonable amount which should have been accepted by the tribunal. His further contention is that the respondent no. 1 in course of cross-examination of P.W. 1 could not dislodge her version. In any event, it is submitted that even if the claim of the appellant no. 1 that her husband was earning Rs. 4,000.00 per month did not appeal to the tribunal as creditworthy, the tribunal should have at least worked out loss of dependency on the basis of notional income of the victim of Rs. 36,000.00 per annum on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in Laxmi Devi and Ors. vs. Md. Tabbar : (2008) 12 SCC 165 . It is, therefore, urged that loss of dependency may be calculated on such basis, if at all we are not inclined to accept Rs. 4,000.00 as the actual earning of the victim. 9. Next, it has been contended by Mr. Mondal relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Hem Raj vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. It is, therefore, urged that loss of dependency may be calculated on such basis, if at all we are not inclined to accept Rs. 4,000.00 as the actual earning of the victim. 9. Next, it has been contended by Mr. Mondal relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Hem Raj vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. : 2018 ACJ 5 , Savita and Ors. vs. The Divisional Manager : (2018) 12 SCC 24 and Nagarmal and Ors. vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. : A.I.R. 2018 S.C. 468 that the appellants are entitled to in addition on account of future prospect over and above the compensation determined by the tribunal to be payable. 10. The last contention of Mr. Mondal, based on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Alok Shankar Pandey vs. Union of India : AIR 2007 S.C. 1198 , and of this Court in Kohinur Begum vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Anr. : AIR 2008 Cal. 84 and New India Assurance Company vs. Pratima Barik : 2018 A.C.J. 77, is that the tribunal committed gross error in not awarding interest on the compensation determined by it. 11. Having regard to the first two contentions of Mr. Mondal, we are inclined to follow the decision in Laxmi Devi (supra) and calculate loss of dependency based on notional income of the victim at Rs. 3,000.00 per month for the reasons indicated hereafter. 12. We do not accept the tribunal's approach of working out the loss of dependency as if the victim was a non-earning person and, therefore, the Second Schedule of the Act would be attracted. Time and again, it has been laid down by the Supreme Court that the Second Schedule is applicable to applications under Section 163-A of the Act, whereas while deciding applications under Section 166 of the Act it is just compensation i.e. a sum which is fair and reasonable, ought to be awarded bearing in mind the circumstances of the case as well as the evidence on record. 13. 13. However, at the same time, the tribunal cannot really be faulted for having looked at the Second Schedule since at the material time when the award was rendered, Tribunals constituted under Section 165 of the Act were prone to rely on the Second Schedule to calculate loss of dependency in the absence of any other indication either in the Act or in the decisions of the Supreme Court to work out the loss of dependency. With the decision in Laxmi Devi (supra), which was delivered on 25th March, 2008, the position seems to be indisputable that in the case of a person who is unable to prove his earning, the Court by taking a pragmatic view and bearing in mind the provisions contained in the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 can proceed on the basis that the victim, if he was an able bodied man, could have earned at least Rs. 3,000.00 per month. Incidentally, the accident in Laxmi Devi (supra) occurred on 12th April, 2004, a month later than the accident in the present appeal. Therefore, following such decision, we hold that loss of dependency should have been worked out bearing in mind Rs. 3,000.00 as the earning of the victim. 14. Moving on to the ground of future prospect, we find that in the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. : 2017 ACJ 2700 , the Constitution Bench observed as follows : "61(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50 per cent of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30 per cent, if the age of the deceased was between 40 and 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 and 60 years, the addition should be 15 per cent. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. (iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40 per cent of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. (iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40 per cent of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25 per cent where the deceased was between the age of 40 years and 50 years and 10 per cent where the deceased was between the age of 50 and 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component". 15. From sub-paragraph (iii) supra, we find that compensation on account of future prospect could be allowed if the deceased had a permanent job whereas sub-paragraph (iv) pertains to cases where the deceased was either self-employed or on a fixed salary. Pranay Sethi (supra) in express terms has not decided as to whether a victim having notional income of Rs. 3,000.00 per month, based on the decision in Laxmi Devi (supra), would be entitled to any addition on account of future prospect. 16. We were prepared to reject Mr. Mondal's contention; however, the decision in Hem Raj (supra), which was first placed by Mr. Mondal has persuaded us to take a different view. 17. In Hem Raj (supra) the Supreme Court held in paragraphs 11 to 14 as follows: "11. The contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that in the light of the said judgment 40 per cent increase on estimated income towards future prospects is required to be taken into account as the deceased was 40 years of age. 12. Learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that in absence of actual evidence of income the principle of adding on account of future prospects cannot be applied where income is determined by guesswork. 13. We are of the view that there cannot be distinction where there is positive evidence of income and where minimum income is determined on guesswork in the facts and circumstances of a case. Both the situations stand at the same footing. Accordingly, in the present case, addition of 40 per cent to the income assessed by the Tribunal is required to be made. The Tribunal made addition of 50 per cent while the High Court has deleted the same. 14. Both the situations stand at the same footing. Accordingly, in the present case, addition of 40 per cent to the income assessed by the Tribunal is required to be made. The Tribunal made addition of 50 per cent while the High Court has deleted the same. 14. We modify the impugned order to the effect that the component of future prospects will be 40 per cent. Needless to say that corresponding deduction for personal expenses, etc., may have to be made. On that basis the executing court may recompute the entitlement of the appellants". 18. On a previous occasion (31st July, 2018), we had adjourned hearing of the appeal to enable Mr. Bhattacharya to conduct a search to find out whether the view in Hem Raj (supra) has either been followed or dissented in any subsequent decision of the Supreme Court. Mr. Bhattaharya could not lay his hands on any such decision; however, it was Mr. Mondal who placed the decisions in Savita (supra) and Nagarmal (supra) [both decisions being delivered by Benches of 3 Hon'ble Judges who were also part of the Constitution Bench that decided Pranay Sethi (supra)]. In Savita (supra) addition on account of future prospect was granted in the case of a victim who was an agriculturist having no fixed income and in Nagarmal (supra) to a student who was pursuing a course in Chartered Accountancy. Being bound by the law declared by the Supreme Court, we have no option open but to grant addition on future prospect even in respect of a victim whose notional income works out to Rs. 3,000.00 based on the decision in Laxmi (supra). 19. Finally, the issue regarding interest being declined to the appellants is taken up for consideration. Now, it is fairly well settled that award of interest under Section 171 of the Act is the rule and denial is the exception. The tribunal has not assigned any reason as to why the appellants would not be entitled to interest. We, accordingly, consider it proper to interfere even with that part of the award denying interest to the appellants and propose to grant interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of realisation. 20. The compensation payable to the appellants is re-determined in the manner as follows: Heads Calculation Monthly Income Rs. 3,000.00 Loss of Dependency Rs. 3,000.00x12 = Rs. 20. The compensation payable to the appellants is re-determined in the manner as follows: Heads Calculation Monthly Income Rs. 3,000.00 Loss of Dependency Rs. 3,000.00x12 = Rs. 36,000.00 Future Prospect [40% of Rs. 36,000.00= Rs. 14,400.00] Rs. 36,000.00 + 14,400.00 = Rs.50,400.00 Less %th on account of personal and living expenses of the victim Rs.50,400.00 - 12,600.00= Rs. 37,800.00 Compensation after multiplier 17 is applied Rs.37,800.00 x 17 = Rs. 6,42,600.00 Loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses Rs.1,02,487.00[10% increase (compound) in every 3 years from 12th March, 2004] Total amount of compensation Rs.7,45,087.00 21. The appellant no. 1 is directed to inform the respondent no. 1 the particulars of her bank account within two weeks from date. Within two months of receipt of such information, the respondent no. 1 shall proceed to credit the bank account of the appellant no. 1 with Rs. 4,95,087.00 [Rs. 7,45,087.00 - 2,50,000.00 (already paid)] together with interest @ 7.5% per annum on Rs. 7,45,087.00 from the date of filing of the claim application till the payment of the entire sum of compensation. 22. The respondent no. 1 shall also be liable to pay interest @ 7.5% on the sum of Rs. 2,50,000.00 from the date of filing of the claim application till 15th September, 2006, when such sum was paid to the appellants and received by them, as referred to above. 23. With the aforesaid modification of the impugned award, this appeal stands disposed of. There shall be no order for costs.