JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the award dated 24.9.2015, passed by the learned 1st Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Keonjhar, in M.A.C. Case No.133 of 2011, the insurer has filed this appeal. 2. For the death of one Makardhwaj @ Makiram Maharana in a motor vehicular accident, the claimants-respondent nos.1 to 5 filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation before the learned Tribunal. The case of the claimants was that on 05.03.2011, Makardhwaj and others were returning in a Tata-407 Turbo Truck bearing registration No.OR-09-9725 after selling their aluminium utensils at Patilo Jagar festival. Near Kuajharan ghati, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle, the accident took place, as a result of which Makardhwaj succumbed to injuries. The son of the deceased lodged an F.I.R., whereafter Harichandanpur P.S. Case No.06 of 2011 was registered. After completion of investigation the police had submitted charge-sheet against the accused driver for the offences under Sections 279/337/338/304-A I.P.C. The Post-mortem was conducted on the dead body. 3. The owner of the vehicle was set as ex parte. Pursuant to issuance of notice, the insurer-opposite party no.2 entered appearance and filed a written statement denying the liability. The specific case of the opposite party no.2 was that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving licence at the time the accident. The offending vehicle was a goods carriage vehicle. The deceased was a passenger in the said vehicle and as such the insurer is exonerated from its liability. 4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal struck two issues. To substantiate the case, the claimants had examined two witnesses on their behalf and six documents had been exhibited on their behalf. No evidence was adduced by the opposite party no.2. 5. Learned Tribunal came to hold that due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle, the deceased died. The offending vehicle was validly insured with the insurer, Held so, it directed the insurer to pay an amount of Rs. 6,57,500/- along with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e. 04.05.2011. It was further directed that in the event the award amount is not deposited within a month, the award amount shall carry interest @9% per annum till payment. 6,57,500/- along with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e. 04.05.2011. It was further directed that in the event the award amount is not deposited within a month, the award amount shall carry interest @9% per annum till payment. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that deceased was a passenger in a goods vehicle and as such, the insurer is exonerated from its liability. He further submits that the findings of the learned Tribunal that deceased was the owner of the goods carriage vehicle is perverse. The deceased was a self employed person. Learned Tribunal committed a manifest illegality in adding 50% to the actual income of the deceased towards future prospects. He places reliance on a decision of the apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., (2018) 69 OCR 1 (SC). 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants-respondent nos.1 to 5 submits that deceased was the owner of goods. He was travelling in the vehicle to sell the goods. He was self-employed. The award amount is just and proper. 8. On an anatomy of the pleadings and evidence, both oral and documentary, learned Tribunal came to hold that deceased was the owner of the goods. There is no perversity in the said finding. 9. In Pranay Sethi (supra), the apex Court held : "61. (iv) 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." 10. Admittedly, the deceased was 37 years. In view of the above, learned Tribunal committed a manifest illegality in adding 50% to the income of the deceased towards future prospects. Learned Tribunal also fell in patent error in law in awarding default interest @9% per annum. So calculated, the award comes to Rs. 6,17,000/-. 11. In the wake of aforesaid, the appellant-insurer is directed to pay a sum of Rs. Learned Tribunal also fell in patent error in law in awarding default interest @9% per annum. So calculated, the award comes to Rs. 6,17,000/-. 11. In the wake of aforesaid, the appellant-insurer is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 6,17,000/- (Rupees Six lakhs seventeen thousand) along with interest @6% per annum to the claimants-respondent nos.1 to 5 from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e. 04.05.2011 till payment. The award amount with accrued interest shall be deposited before the learned Tribunal within a period of six weeks from today, whereafter the same shall be proportionately deposited in the names of the claimants and disbursed to them by the learned Tribunal in terms of its order. Other part of the order of the learned Tribunal shall remain unaltered. The impugned award is modified to the above extent. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.