JUDGMENT : Nelson Sailo, J. 1. Heard Mr. R. Goswami, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. I.A. Talukdar, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. Also heard Mr. A.J. Saikia, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 and Mr. H.K. Buragohain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 9. None appears for the other respondents. 2. The appellant Insurance Company being aggrieved with the Judgment & Award dated 22.01.2014 passed by the learned Member, MACT Golaghat (the Tribunal) in MAC. Case No. 54/2010 has filed the present appeal. 3. Mr. R. Goswami, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal failed to take into consideration the fact that the claimant being aged 30 years would hardly be said to have been dependent upon the deceased, who was his father and was aged 62 years. The learned Tribunal also committed an error by awarding a lump sum compensation to the tune of Rs. 1 Lakh towards increment on pension which otherwise is without any basis. Therefore, the appellant being aggrieved in the manner in which the claim has been considered by the Tribunal while awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,64,820/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty) only as compensation is before this Court. 4. Mr. I.A. Talukdar, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/claimant on the other hand submits that there is nothing wrong with the compensation awarded to the claimant. He submits that in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant will also be entitled to an enhanced amount on the Funeral Expenses and the Loss of Estate as quantified by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . He also submits that considering the Bank interest rate at the relevant time, the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded a higher interest than 6% per annum that was awarded. 5. Mr. A.J. Saikia, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 submits that since no claim has been made from the respondent No. 6, the said respondent is only a formal party in the appeal and therefore, he has no submissions to make. Likewise, Mr. 5. Mr. A.J. Saikia, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 submits that since no claim has been made from the respondent No. 6, the said respondent is only a formal party in the appeal and therefore, he has no submissions to make. Likewise, Mr. H.K. Buragohain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 9 similarly submits that the respondent No. 9 is only a formal party and therefore, he has no role in the appeal. 6. I have heard the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. 7. As may be noticed, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1 Lakh towards lump sum increment of pension. The deceased admittedly was a pensioner also receiving pension but however, the settled position in law is that pension can be revised but the question of there being increment on pension does not arise. Therefore, the learned Tribunal appears to have awarded the claimant compensation to the tune of Rs. 1 Lakh assuming that there will be an increment on pension. The same, in my considered view is only misconceived and therefore, liable to be deducted. 8. In so far as the award made by the learned Tribunal under the conventional head of Funeral Expenses and Loss of Estate is concerned, the same will only have to be modified in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in Pranai Sethi (Supra). Apart from the said modifications, I am of the considered opinion that the amount awarded by the Tribunal appears to be just and proper. Consequently, the amount of compensation entitled to the respondent No. 1/claimant shall be as follows:- 8210 x 12 x 7 = 3,44,820/2 Addition towards Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses = 15,000 x 2 = 30,000 i.e. 3,44,820 + 30,000 = 3,74,820 9. The respondent No. 1/claimant shall thus be entitled to Rs. 3,74,820/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Seventy Four Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty) only as compensation with interest @ 6 % per annum w.e.f. the date of filing the claim i.e. 12.04.2010 till final realization. The entire amount shall be deposited by the appellant before the Registry of this Court within a period of 6 (six) weeks from today. On such deposit, the respondent No. 1/claimant shall be allowed to withdraw the amount on proper identification and as per usual formalities. 10. The entire amount shall be deposited by the appellant before the Registry of this Court within a period of 6 (six) weeks from today. On such deposit, the respondent No. 1/claimant shall be allowed to withdraw the amount on proper identification and as per usual formalities. 10. It is further made clear that the appellant Insurance Company will be at liberty to deduct the amount already paid to the respondent No. 1/claimant if any and further, the appellant Insurance Company is also allowed to withdraw the statutory fee of Rs. 25,000/- deposited before the Registry of this Court. 11. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. 12. Registry to send back the LCR to the Tribunal concerned.