JUDGMENT : KAILASH PRASAD DEO, J. 1. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Birendra Kumar and learned counsel for the Insurance Company, Mr. D.C. Ghose. 2. Appellants/claimants namely (i) Smt. Margina Bibi (ii) Suleman Khan @ Bablu (Minor) (iii) Raiyesh Khan (Minor) (iv) Sabnam Khatun (Minor) (minors are represented through their natural guardian mother Smt. Margina Bibi,) (v) Md. Abdul Khan and (vi) Smt. Taibun Nisha, have preferred this appeal for enhancement of Award dated 15.09.2014 passed by learned District Judge-IX-cum-MACT, Dhanbad in Title (M.V.) Suit No. 137/2010, whereby claimants have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,02,000/- after deducting Rs. 50,000/- which has already been paid under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of this case till the date of recovery. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the claimants have claimed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 7500/- per month, but the learned Tribunal has wrongly considered the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month contrary to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Chameli Devi and Others vs. Jivrail Mian and Others, 2019 (4) TAC 724 (SC), where the Apex Court has considered the income of deceased, who was a Carpenter for the incident took place in the year 2002 to be Rs. 5,000/- in absence of any documentary evidence, as such, this Court may consider the same. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has not granted future prospect of the deceased contrary to the judgment passed by the Apex Court passed in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 (Paragraph-59.4). Since the deceased died at the age of 35 years, as such, the claimants are entitled for 40% of the future prospect. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that under the conventional head, the learned Tribunal has granted Rs. 20,000/- contrary to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Para-59.8) (Supra), it ought to have been Rs. 70,000/- i.e. Rs. 40,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate. 6. 20,000/- contrary to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Para-59.8) (Supra), it ought to have been Rs. 70,000/- i.e. Rs. 40,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that interest has been granted @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of recovery, which ought to have been granted @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of actual indemnifying the award in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Dharampal and Sons vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, 2008 (4) JCR 79 (SC). 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has thus submitted that the amount may be enhanced as it is not just and fair compensation in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Ranjana Prakash and Others vs. Divisional Manager and Another, 2011 (14) SCC 639 (Para-8), the Court has to consider 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. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the vehicle is duly insured before the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company has not preferred any appeal against the impugned award, as such, the liability can be fastened to the Insurance Company to pay the enhanced amount as the awarded amount has already been indemnified by the Insurance Company on 14.10.2014. 9. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company, Mr. D.C. Ghose has submitted that it is an old case, in which compensation amount has already been indemnified, as such, this Court may not interfere with the same. 10. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, the admitted fact of the case is that Md. Sarwar Khan @ Gulam Sarwar Khan has died in a road accident on 18.04.2008 at about 9:00 A.M. at Village-Madhupur on GT road under Nimiaghat police station District- Giridih. He left behind his wife, Smt. Margina Bibi and three minor children and parents. The deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck bearing registration no. He left behind his wife, Smt. Margina Bibi and three minor children and parents. The deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck bearing registration no. PB-06F-9275, which was duly insured before the United India Insurance Company Limited vide Insurance Cover Note No. 018993 valid for the period from 22.07.2007 to 21.07.2008. No counter affidavit has been filed by the Insurance Company, as such the facts are admitted. 11. After hearing the parties, it appears that the deceased died at the age of 35 years while working as a tailor. The claimants have claimed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 7,500/- per month, but the learned Tribunal in absence of any documentary evidence, has considered the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month. This Court consider the submission and followed the ratio laid down in the case of Chameli Devi (Supra) considering the income of the deceased to be Rs. 5,000/- per month. The deceased died at the age of 35 years, as such, in view of judgment passed the Apex Court passed in the case of Pranay Sethi (Para-59.4), the future prospect is 40%, deduction towards personal and living expenses shall be 1/4th as the number of dependent family members are 6, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 (Para-30) and under the conventional head, Rs. 70,000/- has to be paid in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) (Para-59.8). 12. Accordingly, this Court is computing the compensation afresh: Income Rs. 5,000/- per month Annual Income Rs. 5,000/- x 12 = Rs. 60,000/- 40% future prospect Rs. 60,000/- + Rs. 24,000/- = Rs. 84,000/- Pranay Sethi (Supra) 1/4th deduction towards personal and living expenses Rs. 84,000/- x 1/4 = Rs. 21,000/- (Sarla Verma Supra) Total Income Rs. 84,000/- - Rs. 21,000/- = Rs. 63,000/- Multiplier of 16 (as the deceased was in the age group of 31-35 years) Sarla Verma (Supra) Rs. 63,000/- x 16 = Rs. 10,08,000/- Conventional Head Rs. 70,000/- Pranay Sethi (Supra) Total Compensation Amount Rs. 10,08,000/- + Rs. 70,000/- = Rs. 10,78,000/- 13. 21,000/- (Sarla Verma Supra) Total Income Rs. 84,000/- - Rs. 21,000/- = Rs. 63,000/- Multiplier of 16 (as the deceased was in the age group of 31-35 years) Sarla Verma (Supra) Rs. 63,000/- x 16 = Rs. 10,08,000/- Conventional Head Rs. 70,000/- Pranay Sethi (Supra) Total Compensation Amount Rs. 10,08,000/- + Rs. 70,000/- = Rs. 10,78,000/- 13. The entire amount as awarded by the learned Tribunal shall be paid with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of indemnifying the award dated 14.10.2014 in view of Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act coupled with judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Dharampal and Sons (Supra). The amount already indemnified by the Insurance Company shall be deducted and the balance amount shall be paid along with 7.5% interest from 14.10.2014 till the date of indemnify the award in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi and Others vs. Union of India and Another, (2009) 7 SCC 372 . 14. Accordingly, the instant Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.