JUDGMENT : Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J. 1. The Insurance Company has filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment dated March 4,2016 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court Tamluk-cum-Motor Accident Claim Tribunal in Motor Accident Claim case No. 43 of 2013. 2. The claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed inter alia stating that on October 23, 2012 at about 10:30 A.M. when one Bishnupada Adhikary (hereinafter referred to as the "victim") was standing on the extreme left side mud portion of Chaittanyapur Brojolal Chawk Road at Village Barbasudebpur (Gosher More), the offending vehicle which was coming from Chaitannyapur side and proceeded towards Brojolal Chawk with extreme high speed and dashed and ran over the victim with great force. The victim was taken to Tamluk District Hospital but died subsequently. It was stated in the claim petition that the victim was a quack Doctor and his monthly income was Rs. 10,000/-. It was further alleged that the victim was aged about 28 years at the time of his death. The claimants prayed for compensation of Rs. 12,00,000/-. 3. The Insurance Company was impleaded as the Opposite Party No. 2 in the claim petition and contested the claim case by filing the written objection denying the material allegations contained therein. It was specifically contended that the claim made by the claimants was excessive, abnormal and without any legal and equitable basis. 4. The owner of the vehicle was impleaded as the Opposite Party No. 1 but did not contest the said proceedings. 5. The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal held that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 10,000/-. After applying 18 as the multiplier, and allowing a deduction of 1/3rd of the said amount assessed the compensation at Rs. 14,40,000/-. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to further sum of Rs. 25,000/- on account of funeral expenses, Rs. 5,000/- for loss of estate and Rs. 10,000/- for consortium. Thus, the Tribunal held that the total amount of compensation for the claimants stand at Rs. 14, 80,000/-. 6. In support of the appeal Mr. Rajesh Singh learned Advocate submitted that the Tribunal erred in law by holding that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 10,000/-. 5,000/- for loss of estate and Rs. 10,000/- for consortium. Thus, the Tribunal held that the total amount of compensation for the claimants stand at Rs. 14, 80,000/-. 6. In support of the appeal Mr. Rajesh Singh learned Advocate submitted that the Tribunal erred in law by holding that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 10,000/-. He further submitted that the claimants produced a certificate issued by the Pradhan of Deulpota Gram Panchayat who certified that the monthly income of Bishnupada Adhikary was Rs. 10,000/- and the said certificate was marked as "X" for identification as the claimants could not prove the same in accordance with law. The claimants did not produce any other document to prove the income of the deceased and as such the finding of the Tribunal that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 10,000/- is without any basis. Mr. Singh thus submitted that the assessment of compensation by the Tribunal is liable to set aside on that ground. Mr. Singh further submitted that since there was no material to establish the income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the notional income of Rs. 3,000/- per month as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case reported at (Laxmi Devi and Ors. -vs- Md. Tabbar and anr.,2008 SAR(Civ) 445). 7. Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the claimants/respondents submitted that the Tribunal was perfectly justified in passing the award. He further submits that the deceased was a good skilled quack doctor in Allopathy System of medicine. His training was completed under Dr. M.L. Bishayi and the said Doctor adduced evidence as witness No. 3 for the claimants. According to him, the deceased had an income of Rs. 10,000/- per month at the time of accident which has been duly proved in evidence. 8. The accident took place on October 23, 2012 at about 10:30 A.M. The eyewitness adduced evidence as the second witness for the claimants and narrated exhaustively the accident which resulted in the death of the victim. The cross-examination of the said witness at the instance of the Insurance Company failed to bring out any evidence discrediting the said witness. 8. The accident took place on October 23, 2012 at about 10:30 A.M. The eyewitness adduced evidence as the second witness for the claimants and narrated exhaustively the accident which resulted in the death of the victim. The cross-examination of the said witness at the instance of the Insurance Company failed to bring out any evidence discrediting the said witness. Thus, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the death of Bishnupada Adhikary was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. There is also no evidence to show that there was any contributory negligence on the part of the victim in the said accident. 9. With regard to the challenge as to the quantum of compensation to which the claimants are entitled to, it is evident from the materials available on record that the claimants have not produced any document to prove the income of the said deceased. The Pradhan is not competent to issue an income certificate. Furthermore, the certificate issued by the Pradhan was also not marked as an exhibit and the same was marked as 'X' for identification as the said document was not proved in accordance with law. Thus, the certificate issued by the Pradhan cannot be relied upon for the purpose of assessing the monthly income of the deceased. 10. The Tribunal relied upon the Exhibit 9 which is a certificate issued by Doctor M.L. Bishayi and held that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 10,000/-. The document being exhibit 9 is a certificate issued by the said Doctor. In the said certificate Dr. M.l. Bishayi certified that Bishnupada Adhikary was a trainee under him for certain period and he is competent to practice and dispense in Indo Allopathy system of medicine. The said Doctor further certified that said deceased was also skilled in dressing wounds and first aid matters. The said certificate also states that the same was not valid for medico legal purpose. The finding of the tribunal that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 10,000/- is a perverse finding inasmuch as there is no evidence to support the said finding. 11. However, it was nobody's case that the deceased was not working at all. The widow of the deceased has entered in the winess box and stated that her husband was a Gramin Chikitsak and used to earn Rs. 10,000/- is a perverse finding inasmuch as there is no evidence to support the said finding. 11. However, it was nobody's case that the deceased was not working at all. The widow of the deceased has entered in the winess box and stated that her husband was a Gramin Chikitsak and used to earn Rs. 10,000/- per month. Even if the claim of the widow with regard to the income may not have been proved by way of any documentary evidence, but there is no dispute that the victim was working. When no direct evidence with regard to the income of the victim is forthcoming and at the same time it is also not in dispute that the victim was working for his livelihood, some amount of guesswork is permissible for the purpose of assessing the income of the deceased. 12. The principles laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Laxmi Devi (supra) can be applied in the instant case for the purpose of assessing the income of the deceased. In the case of Laxmi Devi (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has accepted the assessment of the concerned High Court that at the relevant point time even an unskilled labourer can easily earn Rs. 100/- per day and i.e. Rs. 3000/- per month. After taking into consideration the monthly income of Rs. 3,000/- and after deducting one third towards personal expenses the national income was taken to be Rs. 24,000/-. From the facts of the said case, it appears that the monthly income of an unskilled labourer in 2004 was taken into consideration as the accident took place in the year 2004 and the concerned High Court passed the final judgment on 4th July, 2006. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had the occasion to consider the assessment made by the High Court for the period 2004 in the year 2008. 13. In the instant case the accident occurred on 23.10.2012 and the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal passed the judgment on March 4, 2016. In the meantime the price index has gone up considerably and the rate of daily wages of an unskilled labourer has increased substantially from Rs. 100/-. In these days even an unskilled labourer can easily earn Rs. 300/- per day i.e. Rs. 9,000/- per month. In the meantime the price index has gone up considerably and the rate of daily wages of an unskilled labourer has increased substantially from Rs. 100/-. In these days even an unskilled labourer can easily earn Rs. 300/- per day i.e. Rs. 9,000/- per month. Taking into consideration the daily wage of an unskilled labourer as a guiding factor for assessing the notional income, the annual income of the said deceased can be taken to be Rs. 1,08,000/- in the instant case. After deducting one third income of the deceased for his personal expenses, the claimants dependency can be assessed at Rs. 72,000/- . Since the victim was aged about 28 years at the time of his death, the multiplier which is to be applied in the instant case is 18. Thus, the compensation should be Rs. 12,96,000/-. Over and above the aforesaid amount, the claimants are entitled to get further sum towards expenses funeral expanses of Rs. 25,000/- and loss of estate of Rs. 5,000/- and consortium Rs. 10,000/- as has been allowed by the Tribunal by the impugned judgment. So the total amount of compensation for the claimants stands at Rs. 13,36,000/-. The impugned judgment is modified only to the extent as indicated above. The appeal is thus allowed in part. 14. The insurance company is directed to pay the said amount of Rs. 13,36,000/- as a compensation along with an interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of filing of the case. The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. is directed to pay to the applicants/ respondents Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 the said sum of Rs. 13,36,000/- along with the interest calculated at the aforesaid rate in equal proportion. The said amount is to be paid by the Insurance Company by issuing separate cheques in the names of individual claimants/respondents earmarking that the same is to be encashed only through the bank account standing in the individual name of the claimants. Since it appears from the record that the claimants/respondents No. 2 herein is a minor, the cheque in the name of the said minor claimant shall be encashed only through the account standing in the name of the minor which will be operated only by her mother namely Sulekha Mondal (Adhikary) as his guardian till the said minor attains majority. Since it appears from the record that the claimants/respondents No. 2 herein is a minor, the cheque in the name of the said minor claimant shall be encashed only through the account standing in the name of the minor which will be operated only by her mother namely Sulekha Mondal (Adhikary) as his guardian till the said minor attains majority. The amount deposited in the account of the said minor shall not be utilised during his minority for any purpose other than in case of dire necessity and only for the purpose of the benefit of the said minor. The aforesaid payment shall be made by the Insurance Company within the period of two weeks from the date of this judgment. 15. There shall be however no order as to costs. 16. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the applicant expeditiously, subject to compliance of all the required formalities. I agree.