JUDGMENT : (Through : Video Conferencing) 1. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 2. Claimants namely, Tetri Orain, Ashok Oraon and Binita Oraon (minor) are the appellants before this Court and they have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the award dated 05.01.2013 passed by learned Principal District Judge-cum-P.O., M.A.C.T., Lohardaga, in Compensation Case No.28 of 2007 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation amount of Rs.3,04,200/-+ Rs.9,500/-= Rs.3,13,700/-. However, an amount of Rs.50,000/- paid to the claimants in view of order dated 15.07.2008 shall be deducted and adjusted from the total compensation amount of Rs.3,13,700/-. The balance due awarded compensation of Rs.2,63,700/- with 9% interest per annum shall be paid to the claimants within two months from the date of the filing of the application i.e. 09.03.2007 failing which, the claimants shall be entitled to recover the same with interest on compensation @ 12% per annum by taking suitable step for its recovery. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Ashutosh Anand assisted by learned counsel, Ms. Rishi Bharti has submitted that the deceased [Bartu Oraon] died on 09.02.2007 at the age of about 50 years in a motor vehicle accident while going to Patratoli from Sankh side on his bicycle which was dashed by tractor and trailor bearing its registration Nos.JH 08A-7228 and JH08A-7229. The deceased was working as Mason. The claimants have claimed the income of the deceased to be Rs.7,000/- per month as they are dependents upon the deceased but the learned Tribunal without any specific reason has considered the income of the deceased to be Rs.2600/- per month. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants in support of his submission has relied upon the judgment of Chameli Devi vs. Jivrail Mian, reported in 2019 (4) TAC 724 SC where the Apex Court has considered the income of the carpenter to be Rs.5,000/- per month in absence of any documentary evidence. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that in the instant case the accident of Bartu Oraon took place on 09.02.2007, as such, it was incumbent upon the learned Tribunal to consider the income of the deceased not less than Rs.5,000/- at least, as the deceased was a mason and was doing similar type of work of carpenter. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that in the instant case the accident of Bartu Oraon took place on 09.02.2007, as such, it was incumbent upon the learned Tribunal to consider the income of the deceased not less than Rs.5,000/- at least, as the deceased was a mason and was doing similar type of work of carpenter. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that under the conventional head instead of Rs.70,000/- as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 at para 59.8, the learned Tribunal has only awarded Rs.9,500/-, as such, the same may be enhanced as Rs.70,000/- as the Apex Court has considered loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-, loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- and funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-, as such, on the score of financial head the amount may be enhanced. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that future prospect of the deceased has not been considered though in view of the judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) at Para 59.4, since the deceased was self-employed and died at the age of about 50 years, as such, this Court may also grant future prospect @ 10%. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that no appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company nor by the owner though in para 40 of the impugned judgment, the learned Tribunal has held that O.P. Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and subsequently liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation and take suitable steps for its recovery from the owner. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has submitted that though Insurance Company has not preferred any appeal, but this Court in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Ranjana Prakash & Ors. vs. Divisional Manager & Anr., reported in 2011 (14) SCC 639 para 8 may consider the same and para 8 is profitably quoted hereunder:- “8. vs. Divisional Manager & Anr., reported in 2011 (14) SCC 639 para 8 may consider the same and para 8 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. 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.” 11. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has thus submitted that this Court may consider para 8 of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ranjana Prakash (Supra). 12. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has further submitted that it is true that the learned Tribunal has not granted future prospect and has granted less amount under the conventional head but on the other hand, the learned Tribunal has granted excess interest to the claimants 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. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has already held O.P. No.1 [Tewari Oraon, S/o Late Jaguwa Oraon, resident of Village Kutmu Tola Fekuwatoli, P.S. Lohardaga, Distt. Lohardaga at present address-Tewari Oraon, S/o Late Jaguwa Oraon, R/o Village-Kisko More Village Kutmu, Post Ningni, P.S. Lohardaga, Distt. Lohardaga (Jharkhand) owner of New John Deer HP 35 Tractor bearing Engine No.PY3029D149333 and its Chasis No.PY5103A002739 and Trailor Chasis No.HF/CH/35/06] along with O.P. No.2 [Divisional Manager, Bajaj Alianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, at issuing office 504 Mahabir Towers Opposite Church Complex, Main Road, Ranchi Post G.P.O. Ranchi viz. Hindpirhi P.S. Hindpirhi, Distt. Lohardaga (Jharkhand) owner of New John Deer HP 35 Tractor bearing Engine No.PY3029D149333 and its Chasis No.PY5103A002739 and Trailor Chasis No.HF/CH/35/06] along with O.P. No.2 [Divisional Manager, Bajaj Alianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, at issuing office 504 Mahabir Towers Opposite Church Complex, Main Road, Ranchi Post G.P.O. Ranchi viz. Hindpirhi P.S. Hindpirhi, Distt. Ranchi8344001] jointly liable for payment of the same and has also given liberty to Insurance Company at para 42 of the impugned judgment to take suitable steps for its recovery, as such, Insurance Company has nothing to say upon this. 14. Learned counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle, Mr. Rajesh Kumar has submitted that owner has also not preferred any appeal though there is finding recorded by the learned Tribunal holding O.P. Nos.1 and 2 jointly and subsequently liable to pay the compensation to the claimants and liberty has been given to the Insurance Company to take suitable steps for its recovery, as such, he has also nothing to say on this. 15. Considering the rival submission of the parties looking into the legal proposition of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Ranjana Prakash (Supra), this Court considers it proper to consider it afresh. The deceased (Baratu Oraon) died at the age of about 50 years in Motor Vehicles Accident by a tractor and tailor bearing registration no.JH08A-7228 and JH08A-7229 respectively, which was duly insured with the Bajaj Alianz General Insurance Company Ltd, but there was some violation of terms and conditions of Insurance, for which the learned Tribunal has held both O.P. Nos.1 (owner) and 2 (Insurance Company) jointly and subsequently liable to pay the compensation. 16. No appeal has been preferred either by the Insurance Company or by the owner of the offending vehicle, as such, enhanced amount shall be paid in terms of the award passed by the learned Tribunal. It appears that appeal has been preferred for enhancement of the award on the ground of the income of the deceased. 16. No appeal has been preferred either by the Insurance Company or by the owner of the offending vehicle, as such, enhanced amount shall be paid in terms of the award passed by the learned Tribunal. It appears that appeal has been preferred for enhancement of the award on the ground of the income of the deceased. The claimants/appellants have claimed the income of the deceased to be Rs.7,000/-per month but the learned Tribunal has considered the same to be Rs.2,600/-per month in absence of any documentary evidence but from perusal of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Chameli Devi (Supra), it is true that the income of the carpenter has been assessed to be of Rs.5,000/- by the Apex Court in absence of any documentary evidence and the occurrence was of the year, 2001 whereas in the present case occurrence was of the year, 2007 ( i.e. 09.02.2007) for which the claim application has been preferred on 09.03.2007 and deceased was mason. 17. As such, this Court has considered the income of the deceased (Baratu Oraon) to be Rs.5,000/-per month, thus, annual income come to Rs.5,000/-x 12 = Rs.60,000/-. Since the family comprises of three persons, as such, deduction towards personal and living expenses to be 1/3rd. Thus, it comes to Rs.20,000/-, as such, the net income of the deceased shall be Rs.60,000/- minus Rs.20,000/-= Rs.40,000/-per annum and after application of multiplier of 13 it come to Rs.40,000/-x 13 = Rs.5,20,000/-. 18. It appears that the learned Tribunal has not considered the future prospect of the deceased which ought to have been @ 10% considering the age of the deceased to be above 50 years in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra). Thus after adding 10% future prospect it comes to Rs.5,20,000/-+ Rs.52,000/-= Rs.5,72,000/-. 19. It appears that under the conventional head instead of Rs.70,000/- in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), where the loss of Estate has been considered to be Rs.15,000/-, loss of consortium to be Rs.40,000/- and funeral expenses of Rs.15,000/- i.e. total Rs.70,000/-, the learned Tribunal has only granted Rs.9,500/-. Thus after adding Rs.70,000/- under the conventional head total compensation amount comes to Rs.5,72,000/-+ Rs.70,000/-= Rs.6,42,000/-. 20. Thus after adding Rs.70,000/- under the conventional head total compensation amount comes to Rs.5,72,000/-+ Rs.70,000/-= Rs.6,42,000/-. 20. Now the new calculation chart is:- Income Rs.5,000/- Annual Income Rs.5,000/- x 12 = Rs.60,000/- 1/3rd Deduction towards personal and living expenses Rs.60,000/- x 1/3rd =Rs.20,000/- Total Income Rs.60,000/- minus Rs.20,000/- = Rs.40,000/- Multiplier of 13 (as the deceased was in the age group of 50 years) Rs.40,000/- x 13 = Rs.5,20,000/- Future Prospect @ 10% Rs.52,000/- Conventional Head Rs.70,000/- Total Compensation Amount Rs.5,20,000/- + Rs.70,000/- + Rs.52,000/- = Rs.6,42,000/- Interest Rs.6,42,000/- along with simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till the date of actual payment. 21. As such, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.6,42,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of actual payment in view of Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act and judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Dharampal & Sons Vs. U.P. Transport Corporation, reported in 2008 (4) JCR 79 SC. 22. The Insurance Company is directed to satisfy the award within a reasonable time as the occurrence is of year 2007. The amount already paid to the claimants shall be deducted/adjusted from the new calculated amount passed by this Court. 23. However, it is made clear that observation regarding recovery made in para 42 of the impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal remains intact. 24. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands allowed.