JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Tarun Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Anil Kumar Srivastava assisted by Sri Mahesh Kumar Yadav learned counsel for the respondent no.3. 2. None appears for the respondents no.1 and 2, accordingly the appeal has been heard in their absence. 3. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 09.08.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Faizabad in Claim Petition No.164 of 2009 wherein a sum of Rs.4,36,500/-alongwith 6% per cent interest has been awarded in favour of the claimant-appellant. The appellant being aggrieved against the aforesaid award has preferred the appeal for enhancement. 4. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the tribunal has taken the notional income of the deceased whereas a certificate bearing paper No.Ga 25 was placed on record indicating that the deceased was earning rupees seven thousand per month as a driver. It has further been submitted that while assessing the compensation the tribunal has erred in failing to provide for the future prospects as well as the amount granted under the non-pecuniary of benefit is extremely meager. It has also been submitted that the interest of six per cent has also been granted on the lower side whereas as per the rules amended the rate of interest ought to have been seven per cent per annum. 5. Per contra Shri Shrivastava has submitted that the tribunal has rightly arrived at finding and has taken the notional income since it is alleged that the deceased was a driver but his driving licence was not brought on record to substantiate the aforesaid fact alongwith the fact that paper No.Ga 25 which was the income certificate was also not proved. In absence of any cogent evidence the tribunal has rightly taken the notional income and the finding does not suffer from any error. It has also been submitted that the tribunal has erred in adopting a multiplier of 18 since the age of the deceased was 26 years, the appropriate multiplier ought to have been 17 coupled with the fact that 1/3rd deduction made by the tribunal was not justified and the deceased was a bachelor accordingly 50% should have been the appropriate deduction. 6. 6. In view of the above, it has been submitted that over all the compensation as granted is just and appropriate and the judgment dated 09.08.2010 does not suffer from any error. 7. The Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record before adverting the respective submissions brief facts giving rise to the above appeal are being noted herein after first. 8. Jang Bahadur Misra (father of the deceased) instituted a Claim Petition No.164 of 2009 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Faizabad with the averments that his son, namely, Santosh Kumar on 25.05.2009 was sitting as a pillion rider on Bajaj Pulsar Motorcycle bearing number WB-12/M-8889. While the aforesaid motorcycle had reached Kuchera Bazar at that time a Tata Mini Bus bearing number UP 42-4001 which was being driven rashly and negligently hit the motorcycle as a result Santosh Kumar got entangled with the bus and was dragged for quite a distance as a result he sustained grievous injuries and ultimately expired on the spot. It was also pleaded that Santosh Kumar was employed with one Prabhat Kumar Kasera as a driver and was working in Kolkatta drawing a month salary of rupees seven thousand per month. 9. The owner and the driver of the Tata Mini Bus despite service did not appear to contest the proceedings. The case was contested by the insurance company who had raised a general defence apart from the fact that the negligence of the deceased was also pleaded. 10. In light of the pleadings so exchanged, the tribunal framed five issues. While dealing with issue no.1, the tribunal conclusively recorded a finding that the accident in question occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the Tata Mini Bus bearing number UP 42 T 4001. While dealing with the other issue, it found the Tata Mini Bus to be duly insured and that its driver had a valid and effective driving licence. While dealing with the other issue, it found the Tata Mini Bus to be duly insured and that its driver had a valid and effective driving licence. However, while dealing with the issue no.5 the tribunal took the notional income of the deceased at rupees three thousand per month made 1/3rd deduction thereof and applied a multiplier of 18 awarding a sum of rupees four lakh thirty two thousand to which a sum of rupees two thousand was added towards funeral expenses and rupees two thousand five hundred for loss of estate as such a total sum of rupees four lakh thirty six thousand and five hundred was awarded alongwith six per cent interest by means of award dated 09.08.2010. 11. Shri Mishra learned counsel for the appellant while elaborating his submission has submitted that the claimant who was the father of the deceased had produced the certificate issued by the employer of Santosh Kumar bearing paper No.Ga-25 wherein it was clearly indicated that Santosh Kumar was drawing a salary of rupees seven thousand per month as a driver. It has been submitted that in light of the aforesaid income certificate, the tribunal was not justified in taking the notional income. It has been submitted that since there was no denial of the aforesaid certificate coupled with the fact that there was no contradiction in the testimony of Jang Bahadur the income of the deceased was established. 12. On the other hand, Shri Srivastava has submitted that since it has been alleged that the deceased was a driver by profession and was drawing a salary of rupees seven thousand per month. It was incumbent upon the appellant to have produced the driving licence of the deceased which could have corroborated the income certificate despite the fact that the income certificate itself was not proved. 13. Considering the aforesaid submissions and from the perusal of the record, it is correct to say that the appellant did not bring on record the licence of the deceased. The document bearing paper No.Ga-25 is a certificate issued by a firm under the name and style of Super Melt dated 11.06.2010 wherein it has been certified that Santosh Kumar Misra, son of Jang Bahadur was working in the aforesaid organization as a driver since May 2007. The document bearing paper No.Ga-25 is a certificate issued by a firm under the name and style of Super Melt dated 11.06.2010 wherein it has been certified that Santosh Kumar Misra, son of Jang Bahadur was working in the aforesaid organization as a driver since May 2007. The certificate also indicates that he had taken leave for his own marriage and it is in the aforesaid circumstance that he expired on 25.05.2009 while he was drawing a consolidated pay of rupees seven thousand per month. 14. The aforesaid document has also been connected by the claimant in his evidence. The aforesaid document though has been denied by the insurance company but there is no contrary evidence which has been led to indicate that the aforesaid certificate has not been issued by the organization M/s. Super Melt. So much so that there is no evidence at all from the respondent side to contradict the aforesaid evidence either oral or documentary. Merely because in the cross-examination a suggestion was put to the claimant witness that no one appeared on behalf of the organization to prove the document and the claimant witness stated that if required the proprietor can come before the Court, will not give any adverse inference or it would not be open for the tribunal to ignore the document altogether. In the fact and circumstance where the claimant being the father had lost his young son and that too on the occasion of his son's wedding would have been such a heavy circumstance however the original certificate was issued and placed on record and there is no contrary evidence to disbelieve the same. 15. This Court is of the opinion that the tribunal was not justified in adopting the notional income of the deceased especially when from the over all texture of the testimony of the claimant witness the factum regarding the employment of the deceased and his drawing a salary of rupees seven thousand per month coupled with the certificate Ga-25 amply proved the income and thus this Court finds that the income of the deceased has incorrectly been calculated by the tribunal as rupees three thousand whereas it ought to have been rupees seven thousand per month. 16. 16. A submission has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that the deduction of 1/3rd has incorrectly been made since the deceased was a bachelor as well as the fact that considering the age of the deceased as 26 the appropriate multiplier ought to have been 17 in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 (6) SCC page 212. The submission raised by the learned counsel for the respondent has some substance. 17. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the deduction ought to be fifty per cent since the deceased was a bachelor and the appropriate multiplier ought to have been 17 instead of 18 as adopted. But nevertheless in light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in 2017 (16) SCC page 680, the claimants would also be entitled to the future prospects which according to the age of the deceased would be forty per cent. The grant of non-pecuniary benefit is also inadequate and as settled by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi and the same are also admissible to the claimant-appellant. 18. In view of the aforesaid matter, the submission regarding the rate of interest which has been stated to be low does not find favour with the Court. The rate of interest at seven per cent as mentioned in the rules are merely the guidelines. 19. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that six per cent interest per annum as awarded by the tribunal is just and appropriate. However, since the income has incorrectly been assessed as well as the amount under the non pecuniary of benefits have not been properly assessed therefore, the Court re-assesses the compensation as under:- Income Rs.7000/-P.M. Add:-Future Prospect @ 40% Rs.2800/-P.M. Net Income after deduction (50%)(7000+2800= 9800 Divided 2= 4900/-P.M. Age 26 years Multiplier 17 Thus compensation payable:-4900x12x17=9,96,600/ Add:- Funeral Expenses 15000 Add:- Parental Consortium 40,000 Add:- Loss of Estate 15000 Thus the claimant-appellant shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs.10,69,600/= 20. The aforesaid sum of Rs.10,69,600/-shall carry interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date the claim petition till the date of its actual payment. The aforesaid sum of Rs.10,69,600/-shall carry interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date the claim petition till the date of its actual payment. Any amount paid to the claimant in pursuance of the award dated 09.08.2010 shall be adjusted from the amount so determined by the court. The remaining sum shall be deposited by the insurance company before the tribunal within a period of six weeks from today. Subject to the aforesaid, the award dated 09.08.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Faizabad in Claim Petition No.164 of 2009 shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. 21. The appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. The lower court record shall be remitted to the tribunal concerned within a period of two weeks from today.