ORDER : 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the insurance company against the award dated 10.02.2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (No. 2), Agatala in Case No. T.S. (MAC) No. 251 of 2016. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are as under: Deceased Dipak Debbarma was travelling in a Safari (Max) bearing Registration No. TR-01-B-4417 from Sonamura for returning home. On the way he slipped from the speeding vehicle at Kulubari and received grievous injury. He succumbed to his injuries on the same day in GBP and AGMC Hospital at Agartala. FIR was filed by one Yusuf Miah who witnessed the incident while riding his motor bike from Kulubari to Sonamura. 3. Based on his FIR, Sonamura P.S. Case No. 2016 SNM 0116 under Sections 279, 338 IPC was registered. During investigation it was divulged that deceased was standing at the backside of the vehicle as a result of which he slipped from the vehicle and died. The Investigating Officer submitted final report stating that charge of negligent driving was not proved against the driver. Deceased was survived by his wife, parents, a minor son and a minor daughter who filed the claim petition claiming compensation of a sum of Rs. 64,70,000/-. Case of the claimants was that the accident occurred as a result of negligent driving of the offending vehicle on account of which said Dipak Debbarma died. Initially, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. was impleaded as respondent in the case. Subsequently, after the owner appeared and pleaded that his vehicle was insured with Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. said Sriram General Insurance Company Ltd. was impleaded as respondent No. 2 deleting the name of the Oriental Insurance co Ltd. According to the claimants deceased was 25 years old at the time of his death who used to earn Rs. 15,000/- per month as a skilled mason. The Tribunal held that deceased was 29 years old at the time of the occurrence. It was guessed by the Tribunal that monthly income of the deceased as a skilled mason would not be less than Rs. 9000/-. 40% of the said amount i.e. Rs. 15,000/- per month as a skilled mason. The Tribunal held that deceased was 29 years old at the time of the occurrence. It was guessed by the Tribunal that monthly income of the deceased as a skilled mason would not be less than Rs. 9000/-. 40% of the said amount i.e. Rs. 3600/- was added to his income since he was a self employed person below the age of 40 years in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . Multiplier of 17 was applied by the Tribunal for calculation of the loss of dependency in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . Since number of dependent family members of the deceased was 05(five), one-fourth (1/4th) of his income was deducted for his personal and living expenses as per decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), Tribunal then added a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss of love and affection, Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate, Rs. 40,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs. 25,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs. 50,000/- for loss of care and guidance of the children and Rs. 30,000/- for cost of medicines and transportation. Tribunal thus awarded a total sum of Rs. 21,87,000/- with 9% annual interest thereon from the date of presentation of the claim petition until payment. 4. Owner of the vehicle being respondent No. 1 and the insurance company being respondent No. 2 contested the case by filing written objections. It was pleaded by the owner of the vehicle that he had no liability since his vehicle was insured with respondent No. 2 and the policy of insurance was in operation on the date of accident. Insurance company pleaded that liability of the insurance company would arise only when the owner would produce the policy document and other valid documents of the vehicle including a valid driving licence. Even though the insurer did not take the plea of contributory negligence in its written statement, during his arguments counsel appearing for the insurance company pleaded that the accident occurred as a result of contributory negligence of the deceased because at the time of occurrence he was standing at the backside of the vehicle. 5. Heard Mr. Even though the insurer did not take the plea of contributory negligence in its written statement, during his arguments counsel appearing for the insurance company pleaded that the accident occurred as a result of contributory negligence of the deceased because at the time of occurrence he was standing at the backside of the vehicle. 5. Heard Mr. P.K. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. P.S. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the claimant respondents. 6. In the course of his arguments Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel of the appellant contended that since the accident occurred as a result of contributory negligence of the deceased, the insurance company was not liable to pay any compensation for his death. It was further contended by Mr. Ghosh that the fact of contributory negligence was proved during investigation for which the Investigating Officer laid a final report for lack of evidence against the accused driver. It was also contended by the counsel of the appellant that even otherwise, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was exorbitant and the said award was made by the Tribunal contrary to the settled principles of assessment of award in an accident claim. Learned counsel has, therefore, urged for dismissal of the award passed by the Tribunal. 7. Mr. P.S. Roy, counsel appearing for the claimant respondents on the other hand has argued that award of the tribunal is just and fair and there is no reason to interfere with the said award. 8. It would be appropriate to deal with the plea of the insurance company with regard to contributory negligence of the deceased before examining the correctness of the award. As noted, the owner contested the case at the Tribunal by filing written statement. Nowhere in his written statement the owner pleaded that at the time of the accident deceased was standing on the vehicle and accident occurred as a result of his contributory negligence. Only in his examination-in-chief as OPW No. 1 the owner of the vehicle testified that the deceased was standing at the back side of the vehicle at the time of accident as a result of which he slipped from the vehicle. Obviously he is no eye witness to the accident. He could have produced his driver to confirm this fact. Only in his examination-in-chief as OPW No. 1 the owner of the vehicle testified that the deceased was standing at the back side of the vehicle at the time of accident as a result of which he slipped from the vehicle. Obviously he is no eye witness to the accident. He could have produced his driver to confirm this fact. The insurance company also filed written objection at the Tribunal and nowhere in the written objection, the insurance company pleaded that accident occurred as a result of contributory negligence of the deceased. During trial, the claimants examined two witnesses. Among them, PW-2, Ramchandra Debbarma was a passenger of the offending vehicle who categorically stated that the deceased was sitting inside the vehicle at the extreme back and speed of the vehicle was so high that when the vehicle took a sudden turn on the road without reducing its speed, the deceased slipped from the vehicle and received multiple injuries to which he succumbed at the hospital. Said PW namely, Ram Chandra Debbarma (PW-2) was cross examined on behalf of the insurance company. During his cross examination it was not even suggested to the witness on behalf of the insurance company that the deceased slipped from the vehicle for his own fault since he was standing at the back side of the vehicle. It would be appropriate to reproduce the cross examination of said PW-2: “Cross on behalf of insurance company. It is not a fact that I was not a passenger of the offending vehicle on the date of accident. It is not a fact that I am deposing falsely on the instruction of the claimant petitioners.” Moreover, the plea of contributory negligence was not also taken by the insurer at the Tribunal. After providing full opportunity of hearing to the parties, Tribunal held that accident occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving and awarded compensation to the claimants. Situated thus, plea of the insurance company regarding contributory negligence of the deceased does not survive. 9. With regard to the assessment of compensation, Tribunal rightly assessed the loss of dependency by applying the correct multiplier and making the deductions as per the settled provisions. The award of the Tribunal however, needs some modification in respect of assessment made under various conventional heads. 9. With regard to the assessment of compensation, Tribunal rightly assessed the loss of dependency by applying the correct multiplier and making the deductions as per the settled provisions. The award of the Tribunal however, needs some modification in respect of assessment made under various conventional heads. As per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses, whereas the Tribunal has granted Rs. 25,000/- for funeral expenses. Similarly, the Tribunal has granted loss of consortium only to the wife of the deceased, no amount has been granted to children under the head of ‘loss of consortium’ and no filial consortium has been granted to the parents of the deceased. It would appear from tribunal’s award that the Tribunal has granted Rs. 50,000/- to each of the children for loss of love and affection. They should have been given parental consortium at Rs. 40,000/- per head instead of granting Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss of love and affection. Moreover, the Tribunal has also granted Rs. 50,000/- to the claimants for loss of care and guidance. No filial consortium has been granted to the parents of the deceased. Moreover, interest at the rate of 9% is also on the higher side which should be reduced to 7%. Accordingly, a fresh computation of the compensation is made which is as under: S. No. Heads Amount 1. For loss of dependency Rs. 19,27,800/- 2. For loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- 3. For funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- 4. For loss of consortium to wife Rs. 40,000/- 5. For loss of consortium to two minor children Rs. 40,000 x 2 = Rs. 80,000/- 6. For filial consortium to parents Rs. 40,000 x 2 = Rs. 80,000/- Total Rs. 21,57,800/- 10. The said amount of Rs. 21,57,800/- will carry 7% annual interest from the date of presentation of the claim petition until payment. The claimants shall be entitled to equal share of such compensation. Minors’ share would be invested in fixed deposit with the provision of monthly income in a nationalised bank and the monthly income generated from the said deposit shall be spent for the welfare of the children. In no circumstances, their share would be released before they attain majority. The claimants shall be entitled to equal share of such compensation. Minors’ share would be invested in fixed deposit with the provision of monthly income in a nationalised bank and the monthly income generated from the said deposit shall be spent for the welfare of the children. In no circumstances, their share would be released before they attain majority. Similarly, 50% of the share of the parents of the deceased would also be invested in fixed deposit in a nationalised bank for a period of five years and the interest earned from the deposit shall be paid to the parents of the deceased for their welfare by depositing the same in their individual savings bank account. After five years, the amount so deposited shall be released in favour of them. Rest 50% of their share shall be released in their favour. The whole share of the wife of the deceased shall be released in her favour. Amount already deposited by the appellant, if any, shall be adjusted. 11. In terms of the above, the appeal is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Send down the L.C. record.