JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. B Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in MAC Appeal No. 59/2016 [Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Niyati Deb (Sen)] as well as Mr. J Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the Cross-Objector in CO (FA) No. 06/2016 and the claimant-respondents in MAC Appeal No. 59/2016 and Mr. K Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., the respondent No.1 in the Cross Objection. 2. Both the appeal and the Cross Objection are combined for disposal by a common judgment inasmuch as this appeal and the cross objection arise from the same judgment and award dated 27.07.2016 delivered in T.S.(MAC) 421/2016. 3. Both in the appeal and the cross objection, the basic and foundational facts are not in dispute. On 11.07.2012 in the morning when one Manika Deb was travelling with her father to reach the private tutor’s house at Dhaleswar from her residence at Subhashnagar, Gandhigram by scooter bearing registration number TRM 7855, the said scooter even though being driven along the extreme left side was dashed by a Truck bearing registration No. HR-38-Q-2272, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. As a result, Manika Deb fell from the scooter and sustained fatal injuries. She was immediately rushed to the GBP Hospital and wherefrom she was referred to the SSKM Hospital, Kolkata but due to shortage of seats in the SSKM Hospital, Kolkata she was taken to the Park Clinic Nursing Home, Kolkata but the said victim succumbed to the injuries. At the time of her death her father, PW1, has stated that she was 18 years of age and was reading in class-XII. 4. By filing an application under Section 166 of the MV Act, a damage of Rs.40,08,000/- was claimed for the death of said Manika Deb. The said claim was stiffly contested both by the owner of the offending vehicle and the insurer. 5. On the scrutiny of the pleadings in the claim petition as well as in the written statement, two basic points were framed for determining the said application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Those two points are: i. Whether the victim received the injuries in the road traffic accident involving the said vehicle (truck) bearing registration No.HR-38-Q-2272 due to the rash and negligent driving, resulting in her death on 31.07.2012; and ii. Those two points are: i. Whether the victim received the injuries in the road traffic accident involving the said vehicle (truck) bearing registration No.HR-38-Q-2272 due to the rash and negligent driving, resulting in her death on 31.07.2012; and ii. Are the claimants entitled to be compensated under the provisions of MV Act, 1988, and if so, to what extent they will be entitled to? 6. The father of the victim only deposed as the witness and introduced the documentary evidence namely, (i) discharge summary (Exhibit-1), (ii) referral certificate (Exhibit-2), (iii) further discharge summary (Exhibit-3 series), (iv) cash memos (Exhibit-4 series), (v) bills (Exhibit-5 series), (vi) money receipts (Exhibit-6 series), (vii) further bills (Exhibit-7 series), (viii) cash memos (Exhibit-8 series), (ix) other bills (Exhibit-9 series), (x) further money receipts (Exhibit-11 series), (xi) order for cremation (Exhibit-12), (xii) mark sheet and admit card (Exhibit-12 series), (xiii) post mortem report (Exhibit-13 series) and (xiv) FIR, final report, etc. (Exhibit-14 series). 7. The tribunal having appreciated the evidence has, as no evidence was led by the respondents, held that the claimants are entitled to an aggregate sum of Rs.8,96,190/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition, i.e. 26.09.2012 till the date of payment. It has been directed that if the award is satisfied by the insurer, each of the claimants would get equal share and 50% of their share would be kept in a fixed deposit scheme for a period of five years. No loan shall also be allowed to the claimants against such fixed deposit amount. 8. Both the insurer and the claimants, being aggrieved, filed an appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Cross-objection under Order XLI Rule22 of the CPC respectively, for two different purposes. The appeal has been filed to show that the amount that has been assessed as compensation is irrationally exorbitant and the cross-objection is structured on the ground that the components of compensation which the claimants are entitled have not been incorporated while determining the final award under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 9. Mr. The appeal has been filed to show that the amount that has been assessed as compensation is irrationally exorbitant and the cross-objection is structured on the ground that the components of compensation which the claimants are entitled have not been incorporated while determining the final award under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 9. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the admitted fact is the victim was not working anywhere and she had no independent income, even though, the claimants have asserted that the victim was giving tuition and earning some money but there is no cogent evidence in this regard. Even PW1’s statement in this regard has not been corroborated by anyone. 10. However, Mr. Chakraborty has not questioned the method of accepting the amount of Rs.15,000/- as the notional income per annum but he has canvassed a grievance that no deduction as per the 2nd schedule has been made. The reason that has been given is that since the victim was not earning, there could not be any personal expenses and as such there is no question of any deduction. 11. To buttress this point, Mr. Chakraborty has relied on a decision of the Apex Court in Mr. R.K.Mallik & Anr. Vs Kiran Pal & Ors., reported in AIR 2009 SCW 4381 . In R.K. Mallik (supra) the Apex Court had occasion to dwell upon that aspect and to observe as under: “17. Reverting back to the factual position of the present case, the date of accident is 18.11.1997. Prior to this, the Second Schedule of the Act was already introduced w. e. f. 14.11.1994. Thus, the notional income mentioned in the Second Schedule and the multiplier specified therein can form the basis for the pecuniary compensation for the loss of dependency in the present cases. No fact and reason was highlighted during the arguments why the Second Schedule should not apply in the present cases. The Second Schedule also provides for deduction of 1/3rd consideration towards expenses; which the victim would have incurred on himself if he had lived. As compensation for loss of dependency is to be calculated on the basis of notional income because the deceased was a child. It by necessary implication takes into account future prospects, inflation, price rise etc.” 12. The Second Schedule also provides for deduction of 1/3rd consideration towards expenses; which the victim would have incurred on himself if he had lived. As compensation for loss of dependency is to be calculated on the basis of notional income because the deceased was a child. It by necessary implication takes into account future prospects, inflation, price rise etc.” 12. It appears from the above passage that the Apex Court was also in favour of the deduction of 1/3rd from the deduced income of the person who had virtually no income for deriving the loss of income. 13. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel has further submitted that the components of loss of love & funeral expenses were also given exorbitantly high. According to Mr. Chakraborty, the same issue has been settled by a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 . 14. For the Cross-objector, Mr. J Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has appeared and submitted that law has definitely taken a change but while determining the income of the deceased, her occasional income earned by giving tuitions to the students of the junior classes was completely ignored. That apart, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has submitted that the cost for the escort was not given. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has submitted that in view of Sarala Verma (Smt.) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in 2009 6 SCC 121 the multiplier for the age group in the range of 15 years to 20 years is 18 whereas the Tribunal has adopted 16 and thereby the multiplier of loss of income has come down substantively. Moreover, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has also placed reliance on National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 to point out that the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court has decided in respect of the loss of future prospects as follows: “59. Moreover, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has also placed reliance on National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 to point out that the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court has decided in respect of the loss of future prospects as follows: “59. ……….Taking into consideration the cumulative factors, namely, passage of time, the changing society, escalation of price, the change in price index, the human attitude to follow a particular pattern of life, etc., an addition of 40% of the established income of the deceased towards future prospects and where the deceased was below 40 years an addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years would be reasonable.” 15. Mr. Bhattacharjee, therefore, has stoutly contended that it is 40% of the established income that has to be calculated as the loss of future prospects. 16. Mr. K Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Insurance Company in the cross-objection has submitted that there is insufficiency of the evidence. However, since an unfortunate death has occurred, this Court would determine the just compensation based on the assessment of the multiple components. 17. Having appreciated the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is inclined to re-determine the compensation. The first and foremost, let the income of the victim be established and determined. As there is no dispute that the victim was studying in class-XII and she was around 17 /18 years and she has no income, her income has to be determined notionally. 18. Thus, her income has to be taken at Rs.15,000/- p.a. in terms of the 2nd schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The claimants are entitled to 40% of the said amount as the loss of future prospect. Thus, the income as should be indexed comes to Rs.21,000/-. Out of the said income, 50% shall be deducted as the victim was a bachelor and the father and mother cannot truly be accepted as dependent on her income. Thus, the income index would come to Rs.10,500/-. With the said index, the correct multiplier being 18 would provide us the loss of dependency. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.1,89,000/-. With the said sum, the medical expenses and other pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses have to be added. Thus, the income index would come to Rs.10,500/-. With the said index, the correct multiplier being 18 would provide us the loss of dependency. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.1,89,000/-. With the said sum, the medical expenses and other pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses have to be added. Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate, Rs.80,000 for loss of love for the claimants, [Rs.40,000 for each] and Rs. 15,000/-funeral expenses are to be added. Thus, with the medical expenses and other co-related expenses, the claimants are entitled to get Rs.2,99,000/-. 19. With this amount, the following sum would be added: i. the actual cost of treatment at Rs.3,91,458/-; ii. for conveyance charges and cost of stay at outstation (Kolkata) for about 20 days [from 11.07.2012 to 30.07.2012], the lump sum cost would be Rs.30,000/-; iii. the claimants have produced the air tickets for 12.07.2012 at Rs.61,000/- and for return journey at Rs.8,727/-, the total cost of the air journey thus comes to Rs.69,730/-; 20. Hence, the total compensation comes to Rs.7,90,181/-. The said sum shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e. 26.09.2012 till the payment is made. The appellant shall deposit the entire amount within a period of 45 days from today, after deducting the amount that they have already paid in the Tribunal below. On such deposit, the claimant-petitioner each shall get 50% out of their share from the compensation and the rest would be deposited in a term deposit for a period of 5 years. In case of necessity, the tribunal may permit the claimants to withdraw any sum from the said term deposit. 21. With these observations and directions, the appeal is partly allowed. However, as corollary to those findings the cross-objection is dismissed. Send down the LCRs forthwith. Copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel for the parties.