JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. G. Baishya, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Ms. I. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1. None appears on call for the respondents No. 2 & 3, as such, this appeal has been heard ex-parte against them. 2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the judgment and award dated 18.06.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 3 (FTC) and Member, MACT Guwahati in MAC Case No. 1179/2007 (MAC Case No. 475/02-Old). The appeal is for enhancement of award. 3. The appellants are the parents of the deceased, Farid Ali. The deceased was working as a conductor in a passenger bus bearing Registration No. AS-25-B-8996 belonging to the respondent No. 2. On the date of the accident, the respondent No. 3 was driving this vehicle. On 11.12.2001 at about 9-45 AM, when the deceased was on duty in the bus, the deceased fell down from the bus due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the respondent No.3. As a result of the accident, the deceased died on spot. By projecting that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month and the appellants as well as 7 minor siblings were dependent on his income, the appellants filed the claim petition and prayed for compensation of Rs.11,12,000/-. 4. The respondent No. 1 contested the claim petition by filing written statement. The respondents No. 2 and 3 did not contest the claim petition. The respondent No. 1, in their written statement, took up their usual plea and the appellants were put to strict proof of their claim and a further stand was taken that at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle had met with a head on collusion with an Ambassador Car bearing Registration No. AS-03- 0202, as such, the respondent No. 1 had prayed for apportionment of the award equally between the two vehicles. 5. The learned Tribunal framed the following three issues for trial:- (i) Whether the claimants have any cause of action for the death of late Farid Ali who died on a motor accident on 11-12-01? (ii) Whether the alleged accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing registration No. AS-25-B-8996? 5. The learned Tribunal framed the following three issues for trial:- (i) Whether the claimants have any cause of action for the death of late Farid Ali who died on a motor accident on 11-12-01? (ii) Whether the alleged accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing registration No. AS-25-B-8996? (iii) Whether the claimants are entitled to the relief claimed in the claim petition and if so, to what extent? 6. The appellants had examined two witnesses and had exhibited the following documents, viz., Post-Mortem Report (Ext.1), Accident Information Report (Ext.2), photocopy of Monthly Income Certificate given by the Circle Officer, Matia Revenue Circle (Ext.3). The appellant No. 1 was examined as PW-1 and one Abdul Sattar, a passenger in the said vehicle was examined as PW-2. The PW-2 had stated that the offending vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner and the passengers had asked the driver to slow down but he did not do so, as such, the deceased fell down and died because of head injury. 7. All the issues were taken up together. The learned Tribunal had recorded that none of the witnesses were cross-examined by the respondent No. 1. By relying on the Post-Mortem Report, the age of the deceased was taken to be 25 years old at the time of his death. However, the multiplier was taken to be 15 on the basis of appellant No. 1 i.e. the mother, who was 49 years old. The learned Tribunal did not accept the Monthly Income Certificate (Ext.3) on the ground that it was a photocopy. Therefore, the learned Tribunal assumed the income of the deceased to be Rs.3600/- per month. By deducting 1/3rd of the income towards personal and living expenses, the contribution of deceased was taken to be Rs.2400/- as the multiplicand. By applying multiplier of 15, the annual loss of dependency was calculated at Rs.28,800/- and a further amount of Rs.7,000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses and the total compensation was determined at Rs.4,39,000/-, which was awarded together with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of judgment. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant, by referring to the cases of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC and Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 ; National Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi and Ors, MANU/SC/1366/2017 : (2017) 8 Supreme 107 . 9. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant, by referring to the cases of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC and Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 ; National Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi and Ors, MANU/SC/1366/2017 : (2017) 8 Supreme 107 . 9. His submissions are that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above stated cases had held that the age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier and that in case the deceased was self-employed or on fixed salary, the addition of income should be made at 40 per cent of the established income, if the age of the deceased was below 40 years. It was also held that the compensation on account of conventional heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/- each. It is also submitted that it is well-settled that the interest of compensation amount should be applied from the date of filing of the claim petition and not from the date of the award. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant seeks an enhancement of compensation of award on these above referred three grounds. It is further submitted that as the evidence of the appellants witnesses remain uncontroverted, the income of the deceased should be accepted as Rs. 6,000/- per month in terms of the contents of the salary certificate (Ext.3). 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has submitted that the salary certificate (Ext.3) was merely a photocopy and the said document was not proved in accordance with law by examining the author. The learned counsel, by relying on the cited cases, has submitted that in the present case the deceased was a bachelor and therefore, the deductions on account of personal and living expenses should be deducted at the rate of 50% and not 1/3rd as done by the learned Tribunal. She had made submissions in support of the impugned judgment. 11. Therefore, on the basis of the submissions made by the learned counsels for the both sides, the only point of determination in this appeal is - whether the appellants are entitled to enhancement of compensation ? 12. It is seen that as per the Post-Mortem Report (Ext.1), the age of the deceased was shown to be as 25 years. 11. Therefore, on the basis of the submissions made by the learned counsels for the both sides, the only point of determination in this appeal is - whether the appellants are entitled to enhancement of compensation ? 12. It is seen that as per the Post-Mortem Report (Ext.1), the age of the deceased was shown to be as 25 years. However, while applying the multiplier, the learned Tribunal had relied on the age of the appellant No. 1, being the mother, who was 49 years old and the multiplier of 15 was adopted. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), as laid in paragraph 61 (vii) that the age of the deceased should be the basis of applying the multiplier. The said authority, being the Constitution Bench judgment, has a binding precedent and, as such, the applicable multiplier would be 18 by considering the age of the deceased. 13. In this case, the learned Tribunal, by rejecting the Income Certificate (Ext.3) had presumed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 3,600/- per month. In the opinion of this Court, as the learned Tribunal had accepted a particular income to be his monthly income, the same would constitute “established income” as referred to in paragraph 61 (iv) of the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Accordingly, this Court is inclined to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant to hold that in terms of paragraph 61 (iv) of the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the income of the deceased was liable to be enhanced by 40% on account of his future prospects. 14. For the purposes of his dependency, the multiplicand and the deductions for personal and living expenses, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), had held that the Tribunals and the Courts would be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of the case of Sarla Verma (supra). In the said case of Sarla Verma (Supra), in Paragraph 31, thereof, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that for the bachelor deceased, 50% of the income is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. In the said case of Sarla Verma (Supra), in Paragraph 31, thereof, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that for the bachelor deceased, 50% of the income is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. However, in the present case, it is projected that apart from the dependent parents, the deceased had seven siblings (3 minor sisters and 4 minor brothers), as such, the contribution of the deceased towards family should be taken to be 2/3rd by deducting 1/3rd of his income towards personal and living expenses. Following the ratio laid down in paragraph 31 and 32 of the case of Sarla Verma (supra), as the deceased had left behind a large family of both parents and 7 minor brothers and sisters, this Court is inclined to deduct 1/3rd of income of deceased towards his living and expenses. 15. The claim of monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.6,000/- is considered. On perusal of the Income Certificate (Ext.3) shows that the Circle Officer had issued the said Certificate on 04.08.2005, without indicating the period for which the assessment of income was made. The Circle Officer had vaguely noted that in his lifetime monthly income was approximately Rs.6,000/-. This appears to be a very vague statement because the word ’lifetime’ would also include age of the deceased during his adolescent and minority. Therefore, in the absence of a specific finding of the income of the deceased at the time of his death, the vague certificate which was also a photocopy and not proved by its author, is in the opinion of this Court, is not found to be acceptable. Therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal that the income of the deceased is assumed to be Rs. 3600/-. 16. In view of the discussions above, the reassessed compensation would be as follows, by considering the income of the deceased is that Rs.6000/- per monthi. i Monthly income : Rs.3,600/- ii. Less: deduction for living expenses (1/3rd of 3,600/-) Rs.1,200/- iii. Add future prospects (40% of Rs. 2400/-) Total of (i-ii+iii) Rs.960/- Rs.3360/- iv. Loss of dependency (Rs. 3360x12x18) = Rs.7,25,760/- v. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- vi. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.7,55,760/- Accordingly, the total compensation would come to Rs.7,55,760/- (Rupees seven lakh fifty five thousand seven hundred sixty only). Less: deduction for living expenses (1/3rd of 3,600/-) Rs.1,200/- iii. Add future prospects (40% of Rs. 2400/-) Total of (i-ii+iii) Rs.960/- Rs.3360/- iv. Loss of dependency (Rs. 3360x12x18) = Rs.7,25,760/- v. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- vi. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.7,55,760/- Accordingly, the total compensation would come to Rs.7,55,760/- (Rupees seven lakh fifty five thousand seven hundred sixty only). Hence, the award stands enhanced by Rs.3,16,760/- (Rupees three lakh sixteen thousand seven hundred sixty only). 17. As per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Municipal Corporation Delhi Vs Upahaar Tragedy Victims Association, (2011) 14 SCC 481 , interest at the rate of 9% was granted. Therefore, the appellants are found to be entitled to 9% interest w.e.f. filing of claim petition, which is 21.02.2002 till realization. 18. The respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation together with the applicable interest within a period of two months from today before the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Kamrup (Metropolitan) Guwahati. On such deposit being made, a total sum of Rs.2,00,000/- may be kept in eight equal Fixed Deposit Accounts of Rs.25,000/- each) in the names of appellants No. 1 as well as in the names of 7 brothers and sisters of the deceased, whose names are mentioned in the page 4 of the claim petition, which shall be kept for a period of 3 years or till the said siblings attain majority and the balance amount of Rs. 1,16,760/-(Rupees one lakh sixteen thousand seven hundred sixty only) may be released in favour of the appellant No. 1 on being duly identified by the learned counsel appearing for her. 19. The appeal stands allowed as indicated above. The impugned judgment and award dated 18.06.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, No. 3(FTC) & Member, MACT Guwahati in MAC Case No. 1179/2007 (MAC Case No. 475/02-Old) stands modified accordingly. The parties are left to bear their own cost. 20. Let the LCR be returned back.