JUDGEMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Kohinoor N Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. Sougata Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 1 to 4, the claimants. 2. By means of this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurer-appellant has challenged the findings of the tribunal as to assessment of loss of dependency as returned by the judgment and award dated 03.06.2013 delivered in T.S. (MAC) 38 of 2012. 3. The brief fact relating to the accident, involvement of the vehicle bearing registration no. TR-01-D-4310 (TATA Turbo) and its coverage by the appellant is not under challenge. It is also not disputed that the victim Jhulan Debnath died in the accident that that occurred on 03.07.2012 while she was proceeding towards Melaghar by boarding the said vehicle bearing registration no. TR-01-D-4310 and when it reached near a place at Chandigarh on Melaghar-Kakrabon road it fell into the right side ditch of the road. In the said accident, the victim received fatal injuries. She was rushed to Melaghar hospital where the attending doctor declared her death. At the time of accident, the victim was 32 years of age. The dependant-claimants, the respondents herein, filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation. 4. It appears that the insurer-appellant has seriously contested and opposed the compensation, as claimed, to the extent of Rs. 24,75,000/-, but the insurer-appellant did not adduce any evidence. For the claimant, only one witness was adduced namely Naresh Debnath as PW-1 who introduced a series of documents including the First Information Report, post mortem examination report, final report, survival certificate and death certificate. The respondent no. 4 as the owner of the said vehicle has produced the necessary papers to the satisfaction of the tribunal. After recording evidence and hearing the respective claim and objection, the tribunal passed the impugned judgment. While determining the damage, it has been observed as under: “It is stated by the claimant-petitioners that the deceased Jhulan Debnath was a day labourer as well as seasonal vegetable grower and her earnings was Rs.8,000/- per month. In support of earnings of the deceased, the petitioners’ side did not adduce any documentary evidence. In absence of documentary evidence, it is hard to believe the version of the petitioners in toto. In support of earnings of the deceased, the petitioners’ side did not adduce any documentary evidence. In absence of documentary evidence, it is hard to believe the version of the petitioners in toto. The monthly earnings of the deceased shall require to be assessed on guess. The deceased was a young energetic female. Considering all aspects including the prevailing market at the relevant time of accident, this tribunal feels it will be reasonable if the monthly earnings of the deceased is assessed at Rs. 4,000/-. Therefore, it is held that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 4,000/-. In view of the principle laid down in the case of Santosh Devi vrs. National Insurance Company Limited and others reported in 2012 AIR SCW 2892, there will be 30% increase over the total income towards the future prospects of the deceased. Thus, the total monthly income comes at Rs. 5,200/- (Rs. 4,000/- + 30% of Rs. 4,000)”. That apart, the tribunal has added additional income amounting to of Rs. 3,000/- on the ground that as a home maker she used to contribute to the family, worth of that amount, in view of Arun Kumar Agarwal vs. National Insurance Company Limited reported in (2010) 9 SCC 218 . No doubt that in Arun kumar Agarwal (supra) the Supreme Court has enunciated a new vista by observing that the women are generally engaged in homemaking, bringing up children and also in production of goods and services which are not sold in the market but are consumed at the household level. Thus, the work of women mostly goes unrecognized and they are never valued. It is well known that women make significant contribution at various levels including agricultural production by sowing, harvesting, transplanting and also tending cattle and by cooking and delivering the food to those persons who are on the field during the agriculture season. 5. Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel has strongly opposed the method of the assessment of income of the deceased. He has submitted that firstly to assess Rs. 4,000/- per month for the deceased is not substantiated by the cogent evidentiary material and further he has lambasted the principle as drawn from Arun kumar Agarwal (supra). 5. Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel has strongly opposed the method of the assessment of income of the deceased. He has submitted that firstly to assess Rs. 4,000/- per month for the deceased is not substantiated by the cogent evidentiary material and further he has lambasted the principle as drawn from Arun kumar Agarwal (supra). According to him on both the counts no one can be attributed of earning because if someone works as daily labourer or earns outside in the labour market, cannot be given the benefit as the homemaker. Where someone is not engaged at all such benefit can be granted by using the judicial discretion. He has further submitted that the said assessment is required to be interfered by this court. 6. From the other side, Mr. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 1,2 and 3 has submitted that there is nothing wrong on relying the principle of Arun kumar Agarwal (supra), but he has submitted that the future prospect has recently being modified by way of increase in the rate by the constitutional bench of the apex court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others [judgment dated 31.10.2017 delivered in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014]. He has referred to paragraph 61(iv) as the apex court has laid down as under: “In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component”. Thus, Mr. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondents has submitted that instead of 30% on account of loss of future prospect it should be 40% for assessing the loss of future prospect as the victim was below the age of 40 years. 7. Having appreciated on the point of assessment of the income, this court is of the view that any able bodied female can earn Rs.4,000/- per month by various means. As such this court does not find any infirmity in the said assessment even though that has been done on guess. However, Mr. 7. Having appreciated on the point of assessment of the income, this court is of the view that any able bodied female can earn Rs.4,000/- per month by various means. As such this court does not find any infirmity in the said assessment even though that has been done on guess. However, Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel is absolutely right that with that income to add again Rs. 3,000/- cannot be accepted by bringing in the principle of Arun Kumar Agartala (supra). As such this court will not accept the income as assessed at Rs. 8,200/- per month. At the same time, this court finds sufficient force in the submission made by Mr. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondents that the revised rate of loss of future prospect has to be added with the income. Therefore, with the established income 40% enhancement on the ground of loss of future prospect has to be added. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs. 5,600. The annual income would therefore come to Rs. 67,200/-. With the same, multiplier ‘16’ on the basis of the age of the deceased would be applied. The income index without deduction thus comes to Rs. 10,75,200/-. Out of the said un-deducted income, 1/3rd would be deducted for the personal expenses of the deceased. It would come to Rs. 7,16,800/-. With that amount, the non-pecuniary losses as determined by the tribunal would be added. In that reason, the total compensation would come to Rs. 7,51,800/-. The said amount shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing i.e. 24.02.2012, but the penal interest as determined by the tribunal stands interfered with. The appellant is directed to deposit the said amount within a period of one month to the tribunal below after deducting the amount, if any, the appellant has deposited by now. The amount shall be maintained or disbursed in terms of direction as would follow. Out of the said amount, 40% of the total compensation would be disbursed to the claimant-respondent no.1 and 30% each shall be maintained in a fixed deposit for each of the claimant-respondents no. 2 and 3 in a nationalized bank for a period till the respondents no. 2 and 3 attained majority. 8. In terms of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Send down the LCRs forthwith. 2 and 3 in a nationalized bank for a period till the respondents no. 2 and 3 attained majority. 8. In terms of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Send down the LCRs forthwith. Copy of the order be furnished to the learned counsel appearing for the parties.