JUDGMENT : SUBHASIS DASGUPTA, J. 1. This appeal emerged the judgment and order dated 27th November, 2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balurghat, Dakshin Dinajpur awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.4,60,000/- with a default clause that in the event of failure to deposit the awarded sum within two weeks from the date of the order, there will be an interest of 6% per annum till realisation of the award. 2. Learned advocate for the appellants/claimants frankly submitted that a very short point had been involved in this case pertaining to wrong assessment of income of deceased leading to determination of just compensation, which the Tribunal erroneously ascertained forgoing the settled principle of law together with the precedent operating in the field, and appropriate decision could be effectively reached by the Appellate Court without resorting to any extensive hearing. 3. The learned advocate for the insurance company submitted with all fairness that since the point urged had been very short requiring no maximum use of valuable time of the Court, the same could be determined effectively thereby rendering his support to the expeditious disposal of this claim case, what was simultaneously prayed for by claimants by filing an application being CAN No.8929 of 2018. 4. Each and every circumstances of the road traffic accident causing death of the deceased was elaborately dealt with by the Tribunal, while deciding the quantum of compensation. But some crucial facts may, however, be adhered to for the decision of this appeal. 5. The deceased victim met with a road traffic accident on 21.04.2012 at about 10.30 hours, caused by offending vehicle bearing no. WB-02E/4824 due to rash and negligent driving, when victim was the crossing the road from left to right side near Kalitala of Gangarampur-Buniadpur road riding on a bicycle. Deceased victim Nitai Tudu, a mason by profession suffered serious fatal injuries and his bicycle was subjected to damage. Deceased was first removed to Gangarampur Hospital to secure his medical attention, and thereafter removed to Maldha Hospital, where he succumbed to injuries in the night of 22.04.2012. The claim case came to be filed by the widow of deceased, and three (3) children, left by the deceased, out of which one (1) is his daughter, and two(2) are sons. Deceased was first removed to Gangarampur Hospital to secure his medical attention, and thereafter removed to Maldha Hospital, where he succumbed to injuries in the night of 22.04.2012. The claim case came to be filed by the widow of deceased, and three (3) children, left by the deceased, out of which one (1) is his daughter, and two(2) are sons. The claimants/appellants in support of the prayer for compensation examined two witnesses, out of which PW 1, is the widow of deceased and PW 2 is an eye witness to the accident. The registered owner of the vehicle/OP1 and the insurer/OP-2 contested the claim case by filing their respective written statement. In the written statement, submitted separately by the registered owner of the vehicle and insurance company, an unequivocal stand was taken that deceased victim suffered his death due to his contributory negligence. 6. The solitary point raised by the appellants/claimants and crystallised ultimately is that the Tribunal erroneously ascertained the income of the deceased ignoring the actual income of the deceased, and thus the fixation of compensation after holding the deceased to be a person having income of Rs.3000/- per month was a gross illegality causing serious deprivation to the rightful and legitimate claim of just compensation of the claimants. 7. Let us determine the core issue indicated hereinabove regarding erroneous ascertainment of just compensation, as contended, requiring interference by the Appellate Court or not. 8. The insurance company/respondents contended that in the absence of any convincing evidence being led by the claimants, as regards the proof of income of the deceased, Tribunal had no other alternative, but to decide the income of the deceased, after holding the deceased to be a person having income of Rs.3000/- per month, and further that there left nothing in the evidence to take a contrary view, favourable to the purpose of the appellants/claimants, now raised in this appeal. 9. Admittedly the offending vehicle had coverage of insurance on the fateful day of accident. Further admitted position is that deceased victim/bicyclist suffered death inconsequence of a road traffic accident. 10. The appellants endeavoured to establish before the Tribunal that deceased was a mason by profession having an income of Rs.6000/- per month. 9. Admittedly the offending vehicle had coverage of insurance on the fateful day of accident. Further admitted position is that deceased victim/bicyclist suffered death inconsequence of a road traffic accident. 10. The appellants endeavoured to establish before the Tribunal that deceased was a mason by profession having an income of Rs.6000/- per month. In exercise of that approach, the wife of the deceased turned to witness box and asserted that her husband was the only bread earner of his family comprising of as many as five (5) members including deceased/husband. The Tribunal in the absence of any convincing evidence being led, proceeded to disbelieve the oral testimony of PW1/wife revealing the income of the deceased/husband, and accepted Rs.3000/- per month, as income of the deceased at the time of accident. 11. Fair enough that a mason within the age bracket of 40 to 45 years having four (4) dependents left this world inconsequence of a road traffic accidents, when the deceased husband was duty bound morally being the only bread earner of his family to maintain his dependent family members with his reasonable income per month at least, which the Tribunal was obliged to ascertain for deciding the just compensation. 12. In our considered view, an exercise is necessary as to what prompted the Tribunal to accept the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3000/- per month disbelieving the oral testimony of the wife of the deceased. On this score, reference to a decision delivered by Coordinate Bench in the case of Chapa Ghosh (Ray) & Ors. Vs. Cholamandalam MS. General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. reported in, (2017) 3 TAC 105 (Cal) may be made. Some of the relevant paragraphs may be of significance, which are depicted herein below. 20. The coordinate bench in Smt. Bilasini Mondal (supra) has clearly laid down the law that oral evidence is also a piece of evidence and merely because no documentary evidence could be produced in support of the earning of the victim, such oral evidence cannot be rejected outright unless it is found unrealiable for any other reason. The said decision was followed by the subsequent co-ordinate bench in Gopal Chnadra Dey (supra). 21. We see no reason to take a different view. Evidence, defined in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is of two kinds, oral and documentary. The said decision was followed by the subsequent co-ordinate bench in Gopal Chnadra Dey (supra). 21. We see no reason to take a different view. Evidence, defined in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is of two kinds, oral and documentary. All statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry, are oral evidence. The term ‘proved’ in the same section, reads as follows: “Proved”:- A fact is said to the proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. Section 5 ordains that evidence may be given in any suit or proceedings, inter alia, of existence of every fact in issue and other relevant facts. In terms of Section 59, all facts, except the contents of documents or electronic records, may be proved by oral evidence. The requirement of Section 60 is that oral evidence must in all cases whatever, be directed. 22. Should oral evidence on a fact in issue be not corroborated by documentary evidence, the Tribunal may in its wisdom look for corroboration. However, it has to be remembered that corroboration is not a rule of law but one of caution as an assurance. It is not a rule to be rigidly followed. After all, it is not the quantum of evidence but the quality and credibility of the witness that ought to lend assurance to the Tribunal for its acceptance. 13. In the case referred above, the Tribunal proceeded to determine the loss of dependency of deceased, a conductor of a Maxi-Bus, keeping in mind the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the Case of Laxmi Devi and Ors. Vs. Mohammad Tabbar and Anr. reported in, (2008) 2 TAC 394 (SC) after disbelieving the income of the deceased conductor to the tune of Rs.6000/- per month. Thus, after applying the decision delivered in the case of Laxmi Devi & Ors. (supra) Tribunal held the deceased conductor to be a person having income of Rs.3000/- per month, instead of Rs.6000/- per month, as asserted therein. The Coordinate Bench in the case of Chapa Ghosh (Roy) & Ors. Thus, after applying the decision delivered in the case of Laxmi Devi & Ors. (supra) Tribunal held the deceased conductor to be a person having income of Rs.3000/- per month, instead of Rs.6000/- per month, as asserted therein. The Coordinate Bench in the case of Chapa Ghosh (Roy) & Ors. (supra) delivered decision believing the oral testimony, adduced by the dependent family members of the deceased, even in the absence of documentary evidence being produced, in application of the provisions contained in Sections 3, 5, 59 and 60 of the Evidence Act, and accepted that the deceased conductor could be safely construed to be a person with an income of Rs.6000/- per month. In the case in hand, the wife of the deceased proved the income of her deceased husband by adducing oral evidence for her special knowledge in application of the provisions under Section 106 of Evidence Act. Though the insurer challenged the same in the cross-examination by putting a denial to that effect, but the same would not suffice to suggest that burden of proof shifted upon the insurance company was duly discharged as soon as the income of the deceased was proved by adducing oral evidence. 14. In the midst of hearing, learned advocate for the insurance company, Mr. Rajesh Singh submitted with all frankness most candidly that there would be a serious burden on the insurance company, if the income of the deceased husband was construed to be a person with an income of Rs.6000/- per month believing the oral testimony of wife PW1, and proposed expressing consent that the income of deceased victim could be revisited taking him to be a person with Rs.4000/- per month instead of Rs.6000/- per month for peculiarity of the circumstances involved in this case. 15. Learned advocate for the claimants/appellants submitted in reply to the consent that though he challenged the award describing the same to have been erroneously recorded disbelieving the oral testimony of PW1/wife in support of the income of the deceased, but earnestly appealed to Court for accepting Rs.4000/- per month, as income of deceased victim, instead of Rs.6000/- per month for re-ascertaining of just compensation simply to prevent the claimants from being destituted, who are in dire need of monetary assistance after the sudden demise of sole bread earner of their family. 16. 16. The question previously raised, not got diluted urging for decision is whether the First Appellate Court could dispose of an appeal on the basis of the consent expressed by the respondent in Court and accepted finally by the appellant. The Motor Vehicles Act is piece of social legislation. It’s paramount object is to prevent the dependent family members of the deceased meeting a road traffic accident from getting impoverished by awarding a suitable, reasonable, equitable and just compensation. The provisions of the Act have to be interpreted is a manner so as to effectuate the said object. Apex Court in the case Laxmi Devi & Ors.(supra) without recording any conscious decision accepted the reasonings offered by the High Court in enunciating a proposition that even an unskilled labourer, these days, can easily earn Rs. 100/- per day giving rise to a monthly income Rs.3000/- per month. Being emboldened by such proposition, as accepted by the Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Devi & Ors.(supra), Tribunal considered the deceased victim with an income of Rs.3000/- at the time of accident for want of convincing evidence being led to the satisfaction of the Tribunal. The concept of notional income was incorporated in the 2nd Schedule appended to Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, in the year 1994. The ratio of the judgment rendered in the case of Laxmi Devi & Ors.(supra) of Apex Court was published on 25th March, 2008. The road traffic accident now under reference was held on 21.04.2012. Each and every transaction of our day to day life in our Indian society cannot be expected to be ratified by convincing document. It is, however, more prevalent in case of rural and rustic people having dearth of education. True it is that a mason may not be employed all the days in a month which is, however, dependent upon the requirement of the person employing a mason subject to health condition of mason. But the family composition of the deceased left by the deceased victim is highly indicative to reveal the deceased victim had substantial income per month for the sustenance of their family members. Keeping in mind the inflationary hike of each and every commodity, the social outlook, mindset of the people living in our present society, a realistic approach is always favourable to the purpose of social legislation, instead of a pragmatic one. Keeping in mind the inflationary hike of each and every commodity, the social outlook, mindset of the people living in our present society, a realistic approach is always favourable to the purpose of social legislation, instead of a pragmatic one. There left nothing in the evidence adduced by the PW1 that it suffered from inconsistency, contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment. But considering the fact that a mason may not be suitably employed all the days in a month, in the given circumstances of the case, deceased victim could however be held with an income of Rs.4000/- per month, by reason of the consent being expressed by the respondent/insurance company and finally accepted by the claimants, being a rise of 33% of monthly income, as assessed by the Tribunal. The consent so given by the respondent/insurance company, in our humble exercise, appears to be reasonable, rational and not opposed to the concept of social legislation and rather it would uphold the Rule of law. 17. It is an appeal preferred by the claimants/appellants in which the appellants shall not be permitted to raise any new point without setting forth the same in the memo of appeal. But under Order 41 Rule 2 C.P.C, any new ground may be taken in appeal with the leave of the Appellate Court provided the respondent is given sufficient opportunity of contesting the case on the ground. True it is that the appellant did not set forth any ground pertaining to not granting future prospect together with loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses in terms of the decision of the Apex Court, but respondent/insurance company was extended sufficient opportunity to controvert the same. It is thus, though a new ground, but not taken on surprise without affording an opportunity of hearing to respondent. The Tribunal allowed Rs.5000/- as loss estate, Rs.25000/- as funeral expenses and Rs.25000/- as loss of consortium in addition to the sum of compensation assessed without granting future prospect, which in our considered view, was contrary to the decision of the Apex Court delivered in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . Relevant paragraphs of such decision may be delineated as follows|:- 59.3. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . Relevant paragraphs of such decision may be delineated as follows|:- 59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% 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 additional should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 59.4. 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. 59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional head, namely loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000, Rs.40,000 and Rs.15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. 18. The appeal is a continuation of lis. The decision rendered by the Apex Court is a judgment of the land to be universally applicable over all the Courts by virtue of provision contained in Article 141 of the Constitution of India. All the Courts are bound to pay respect to it. Since the deceased victim was self employed person and left this world being within the age bracket of 40 to 45 years, an addition of 25% of established and accepted income of the deceased be given towards the component of future prospect, while adopting method for computation of just compensation. Though Tribunal granted additional sum on different components like loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses prescribing different amount respectively, not being in conformity with the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case Pranay Sethi and Ors.(supra), but the same needs to be revisited in the guidelines decided in the case of Pranay Sethi and Ors.(supra). 19. The appeal succeeds. 19. The appeal succeeds. The connected application being CAN 8929 of 2018 thus stands disposed of accordingly. The awarded sum stands modified to the extent mentioned here in below: (a) The respondents are entitled to a modified sum of Rs.7,45,000/- as award, the breakup of which is as follows:- (i) Rs.4000/- monthly income x 12 = 48,000/- annual income. (ii) Less 12000/-, being 1/4 spent on personal expenses of the deceased = 48,000 12000 =36,000/- (iii) Addition of Rs.9000/-, as future prospect, being 25% of established income of the deceased, a self employed person having suffered death within the age bracket of 40 to 45 years = 36,000+9,000 = 45,000/- (iv) Multiplication with application of suitable multiplier of 15 = 45000 x 15 = Rs.6,75,000/- (v) Further addition of reasonable figures on conventional head namely loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses to the extent of Rs.15000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively = Rs.6,75000+Rs. 70,000 = Rs.7,45,000/- (b) Further, interest at the rate already prescribed by the Tribunal from the date of filing of application for compensation till the modified sum of award covering all components is disbursed. 20. It was submitted verbally that a sum of Rs.4,60,000/- had already paid to the appellants/claimants, but no supporting document could be furnished before us. The respondent, insurance company, is directed to pay the modified sum of award covering all components, as indicated hereinabove, with interest from the date of application till disbursement to the Registrar General of this Court within three (3) weeks from the date of this order, less the amount, if any, already paid to appellants/claimants, upon receipt of bank particulars held individually by each of the claimants, to be furnished by claimants both to respondent insurance company as well as to Registrar General of this Court within a week of this order. Liberty is given to claimants to make proper approach to Registrar General for release of such modified award and, if any, approach is made by claimants, the Registrar General of this Court shall cause order releasing such modified sum of award forthwith upon establishing identity of claimants. 21. Urgent certified copy of this order if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with requisite formalities. 22. I agree.