JUDGMENT : Re: CAN 12046 of 2017. 1. CAN 12046 of 2017 is treated as on day’s list. It is an application by the appellant no. 1 seeking to bring to the notice of the Court that the appellant no. 2 has passed away during the pendency of the appeal. 2. Death of the appellant no. 2 shall be recorded by the office. Office shall delete the name and particulars of the appellant no. 2 in the cause title of the memorandum of appeal. The appeal shall henceforth be proceeded with, only by the appellant no. 1. CAN 12046 of 2017 is, thus, disposed of. Re: F.M.A. 422 of 2006. 3. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereafter the Act) is directed against the judgment and award dated 28th November, 2005 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 4th Fast Track Court, Barasat, 24-Parganas (North) (hereafter the tribunal). 4. An application under Section 166 of the Act presented by the appellants was disposed of by the tribunal by awarding Rs.1,47,000/- to the claimants. It was, however, directed that if the award is not satisfied within 60 days, the claimants shall be at liberty to realise the same along with interest @ 9% per annum. 5. Appearing in support of the appeal, Ms. Bakshi, learned advocate submits that the impugned judgment and award suffers from various infirmities. 6. Firstly, Ms. Bakshi submits that although it was proved before the tribunal that the victim (son of the appellants) was earning Rs.1,700/- per month, the tribunal proceeded to compute compensation reckoning Rs.15,000/- per annum as the notional income of the victim in terms of the Second Schedule of the Act. According to her, such schedule is not applicable to applications filed under Section 166 of the Act and the tribunal grossly erred in assessing compensation on the basis that Rs.15,000/- has to be reckoned as the notional income of the victim. 7. Secondly, it is submitted by Ms. Bakshi that the victim was 18 years old on the date of the fatal accident that took away his life and having regard to the decision reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 (Sarla Verma –vs- Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.), the multiplier of ‘18’ should have been selected instead of ‘17’. 8. 7. Secondly, it is submitted by Ms. Bakshi that the victim was 18 years old on the date of the fatal accident that took away his life and having regard to the decision reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 (Sarla Verma –vs- Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.), the multiplier of ‘18’ should have been selected instead of ‘17’. 8. Finally, it has been urged that the tribunal once again erred in not awarding interest on the sum awarded as compensation from the date of filing of the claim application. Reference was made to the decision of Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited –vs- Keshav Bahadur [2004(1) Supreme Today 749], wherein it has been laid down that the tribunal does not have the power to award interest on account of default being committed by the insurer to satisfy the award within the stipulated time but is empowered to award interest in exercise of power conferred by Section 171 of the Act. 9. Answering the contentions of Ms. Bakshi, it has been submitted by Mr. Pahari, learned advocate for the appellant insurer that the victim having died a bachelor, the tribunal ought to have deducted 50% of the income towards personal and living expenses of the victim and that we ought to re-assess compensation payable to the appellants bearing in mind the same. In so far as the other points which have been raised on behalf of the appellants are concerned, Mr. Pahari has left the same to the discretion of the Court. 10. The first contention of Ms. Bakshi appears to be sound. The claimants had pleaded and proved that the victim had an earning of Rs.1,700/- per month. However, without assigning any reason whatsoever, the tribunal calculated compensation on the basis of Rs.15,000/- per annum, as appearing in the Second Schedule. In our considered view, the tribunal ought not to have applied the provisions of the Second Schedule to the application under consideration which was filed under Section 166 of the Act. 11. In terms of Section 171 of the Act, the tribunal has been conferred jurisdiction to award simple interest. In our considered view, the tribunal ought not to have applied the provisions of the Second Schedule to the application under consideration which was filed under Section 166 of the Act. 11. In terms of Section 171 of the Act, the tribunal has been conferred jurisdiction to award simple interest. In the absence of any reason having been assigned by the tribunal as to why the claimants were not entitled to interest from the date of filing of the claim application and there being no other material on record to suggest that the proceedings before the tribunal were procrastinated because of the dilatory tactics adopted by the claimants, we are of the view that the tribunal erred in exercising its jurisdiction in not awarding interest from the date of filing of the claim application. Accordingly, we hold that the appellants are entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum on the awarded compensation from the date of filing of the claim application. 12. The accident occurred on 25th September, 1990. We are also of the view, having regard to the recent decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court reported in 2017(4) T.A.C. 673 (S.C.) (National Insurance Company Limited –vs- Pranay Sethi and Ors.), that interest of justice would be sufficiently served if the appellants are awarded enhanced sum on account of funeral expenses, which is assessed at Rs.30,000/- and also enhanced sum on account of loss of estate to the extent of Rs.30,000/-. 13. In view of the above, we re-calculate compensation as follows: Heads Calculation Notional Income Rs.(1,700 x 12) = 20,400/- Less 50% on account of personal and living expenses of the victim Rs.20,400 – 10,200=10.200 Compensation after multiplier 18 applied Rs. 10,200 x 18 = Rs 1,83,600/- Funeral expenses Rs.30,000/- Loss of estate Rs.30,000/- Total amount of compensation Rs.2,43,600/- Since the insurance company has satisfied the award, the differential sum on account of compensation in terms of this order shall be deposited by the insurance company together with interest @ 7.5% per annum on the entire sum of compensation from the date of filing of the claim application with the office of the tribunal within two months from date of receipt of copy of this judgment and order. Thereafter, the appellant no. 1 shall be at liberty to approach the tribunal for disbursal of the compensation in her favour, in accordance with law. Thereafter, the appellant no. 1 shall be at liberty to approach the tribunal for disbursal of the compensation in her favour, in accordance with law. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously, after complying with all formalities.