JUDGMENT : (Through : Video Conferencing) 1. On the joint prayer of the parties, the matter has been taken up for final adjudication. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. A.K. Sahani has submitted that this appeal has been preferred by the claimant No. 3 namely, Satya Mehta for enhancement of the award dated 24.07.2012 passed by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-MACT, Koderma in Title (M.V.) Case No.10/2008, whereby the claimants namely, Bharat Mehta @ Bharat Kumar Mehta, Bachi Devi and Satya Mehta have been awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs.4,39,000/- in equal proportion within 30 days from the date of order, failing which interest @ 6% per annum be paid to the claimants from the date of filing of the claim application. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Satya Mehta has preferred this appeal being the widow of the deceased Love Kumar and so far father and mother of the deceased are concerned, they have been impleaded as proforma – respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that deceased Love Kumar was coming from Hazaribag with his wife by motorcycle to his Village-Behradih and as soon as they reached near Salfatani on N.H.-33, the truck bearing registration No. RJ-05GA-1439 coming from Hazaribag side being driven rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle of Love Kumar due to which both husband and wife became injured, subsequently the condition of Love Kumar became serious and he was referred to RIMS, Ranchi for treatment but in the way he died. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that deceased Love Kumar died at the age of 27 years as per the post-mortem report and having monthly income of Rs.3,000/-per month leaving behind three dependents. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has fairly submitted that the learned Claim Tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier of 18, rather multiplier of 17 is applicable in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vrs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 (Para-30). 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that deceased was earning a monthly income of Rs.10,000/- by running a coaching center, but in absence of any documentary evidence the learned Tribunal has erroneously considered Rs.3,000/- as monthly income of the deceased. 8. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 (Para-30). 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that deceased was earning a monthly income of Rs.10,000/- by running a coaching center, but in absence of any documentary evidence the learned Tribunal has erroneously considered Rs.3,000/- as monthly income of the deceased. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that under the conventional head, the learned Tribunal has only granted Rs.7,000/- under conventional head i.e. Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium instead of Rs.70,000/-(i.e. for loss of estate Rs.15,000/-, loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- and funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-) in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 (para-59.8). 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that future prospect of the deceased has not been considered and the learned Tribunal has granted interest @ 6% per annum after 30 days from the date of order instead interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application contrary to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Dharmpal and Sons Vs. UP State Road Transport Corporation reported in 2008 (4) JCR 79 SC as well as in view of Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd. may be directed to indemnify the enhanced amount as no appeal has been preferred by the Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd. nor they are disputing violation of any terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act to shift onus upon owner of the offending Truck No. RJ-05GA-1439. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that P.W.-1 and P.W.3 have categorically stated that the income of the deceased to be Rs.10,000/-per month, which has neither been controverted nor reverted by Insurance Company. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the Apex Court in the case of Chameli Devi & Ors. Vs. Jivrail Mian & Ors. reported in 2019 (4) TAC 724 SC has held income of carpenter to be Rs.5,000/-per month and as such, the consideration by the learned Tribunal regarding income of a tutor, Rs.3,000/-per month is a meager amount, as such, this Court may consider the same. Vs. Jivrail Mian & Ors. reported in 2019 (4) TAC 724 SC has held income of carpenter to be Rs.5,000/-per month and as such, the consideration by the learned Tribunal regarding income of a tutor, Rs.3,000/-per month is a meager amount, as such, this Court may consider the same. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has opposed the prayer and has submitted that no document has been brought on record regarding financial transaction of Coaching Centre nor any student of the Coaching Centre have been examined in this case, nor any document regarding the place where the Coaching Centre was situated has been brought on record, so as to accept the submission of the claimants. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 -Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd., Mr. Alok Lal has submitted that fair and just compensation has been awarded by the learned Tribunal in the year, 2012 for an occurrence which took place on 18.03.2008, as such, this Court may not interfere with the same. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has submitted that even if this Court is inclined to enhance the amount, the Court may not interfere as the learned Tribunal has already applied higher multiplier of 18, as such, nothing much will be changed, as such, this Court may not interfere with the same. 16. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. A. K. Sahani and learned counsel for the respondent no.2, Mr. Alok Lal and perused the impugned order as well as the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ranjana Prakash & Others Vs. Divisional Manager & Another reported in 2011 (14) SCC 639 , which is profitably quoted hereunder:- “8. Where an appeal is filed challenging the quantum of compensation, irrespective of who files the appeal, the appropriate course for the High Court is to examine the facts and by applying the relevant principles, determine the just compensation. If the compensation determined by it is higher than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will allow the appeal, if it is by the claimants and dismiss the appeal, if it is by the owner/insurer. Similarly, if the compensation determined by the High Court is lesser than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will dismiss any appeal by the claimants for enhancement, but allow any appeal by the owner/insurer for reduction. Similarly, if the compensation determined by the High Court is lesser than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will dismiss any appeal by the claimants for enhancement, but allow any appeal by the owner/insurer for reduction. The High Court cannot obviously increase the compensation in an appeal by the owner/insurer for reducing the compensation, nor can it reduce the compensation in an appeal by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.” 17. After considering the arguments made on behalf of both the sides, it appears that the Apex Court has held the income of carpenter in the case of Chameli Devi (Supra) to be Rs.5,000/-per month. Admittedly, no evidence contrary to the claim of the claimants has been brought on record by the Insurance Company. On the other side, the claimants have claimed the income of the deceased to be Rs.10,000/-per month, but no document has been brought on record, nor any student has been examined, but his living standard shows that he was maintaining a motorcycle and family of three persons, accordingly, this Court considered the income of the deceased to be Rs.7,500/- per month. 18. Accordingly, computation are as follows:- The income of the deceased is Rs.7,500/-per month. 40% future prospect in view of judgment of Pranay Sethi (Para-59.4) i.e. Rs.7,500/-+ Rs.3,000/-= Rs.10,500/-. Thus, annual income comes to Rs.10,500/-X 12 = Rs.1,26,000/-per annum. After deduction towards the personal and living expenses it comes to Rs.1,26,000/- X 1/3 = Rs.42,000/-. Thus, total income comes to Rs.1,26,000/-minus Rs.42,000/-= Rs.84,000/-. After application of multiplier of 17, as the age of victim was 27 years, the income comes to Rs.84,000/-X 17 = Rs.14,28,000/- and after adding amount of Rs.70,000/- under the conventional head in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Para-59.8) (i.e. loss of estate Rs.15,000/-, loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- and funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-), the total compensation amount comes to Rs.14,28,000/-+ Rs.70,000/-= Rs.14,98,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application before the Claim Tribunal. 19. Since, no appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company in view of the judgment of the Ranjana Prakash (Supra), the compensation amount is enhanced. 20. The amount already paid by the Insurance Company shall be deducted from the enhanced compensation amount. The enhanced amount shall be paid along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. 21. 19. Since, no appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company in view of the judgment of the Ranjana Prakash (Supra), the compensation amount is enhanced. 20. The amount already paid by the Insurance Company shall be deducted from the enhanced compensation amount. The enhanced amount shall be paid along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. 21. Accordingly, the instant Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed.