JUDGMENT Parthivjyoti Saikia, J. - Heard Mr. M. Talukdar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. R. Goswami, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The instant appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "MV Act") is preferred against the judgment and award dated 18.12.2012, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morigaon, Assam in MAC Case No. 115/2010. This appeal has been filed for enhancement of award. The case of appellant 3. On 05.08.2010 the deceased Late Bhairab Medhi was riding a bicycle while going home. It was about 4.30 pm, when the deceased reached Gandhi Bhawan on the PWD road at Marigaon town, a Tata Winger vehicle bearing registration no. AS-21-B/0420, which was going out of Morigaon town towards Kushtuli knocked down the deceased. It is claimed that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner. The deceased sustained grievous injury and he was immediately shifted to Morigaon Civil Hospital. After that, he was taken to Dispur Hospital and ultimately on 06.08.2010, at about 7 pm, he died. On 07.08.2020, the post-mortem examination was conducted at Morigaon Civil Hospital. 4. In connection with the instant accident, on 09.08.2010, Morigaon Police has been made a GD Entry being GDE No. 326/2010, dated 09.08.2010. On the same day, Morigaon P.S. Case No. 112/2010 was also registered. Case of the owner-cum- driver of the vehicle. 5. The owner-cum-driver of the vehicle has claimed that his vehicle bearing registration no. AS-21-B/0420 was insured with the United Insurance Company Limited vide Policy No. 130103/31/10/01/00001108, valid up to 14.06.2011 and therefore, he pleaded that he is not liable to pay compensation. Case of the Insurance Company 6. Apart from some stare type pleadings there are no specific pleadings in the written statement filed by the Insurance Company. 7. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues for adjudication: (i) Whether the alleged accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle in question, AS-21-B/0420(Tata winger)? (ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to get any compensation? if so, which should be the quantum of the said compensation? (iii) Who should be liable to pay the compensation? 8. The appellant examine three (3) witnesses. The respondent did not examine any witnesses. (ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to get any compensation? if so, which should be the quantum of the said compensation? (iii) Who should be liable to pay the compensation? 8. The appellant examine three (3) witnesses. The respondent did not examine any witnesses. On the basis of the evidence on records the Tribunal arrived at the impugned finding, whereby it was directed that the Insurance Company shall pay Rs. 7, 45,524/- with future interest at the rate of 9% from the date of the Judgment. 9. The learned counsel, Mr. Talukdar has categorized the grievances of the appellant as under : (a) The deceased was earning Rs. 8000/- per month but the concerned salary certificate was not accepted by the Tribunal and held notionally the income to be Rs. 5000/- p.m. (b) The deceased was 27 year old and therefore, 50% of future income should have been added to the monthly income. (c) The deceased left behind his wife and two children and also his parents. It means that the deceased have left behind five dependents. Therefore the deduction should have been one fourth not one third of the monthly income. (d) Instead of Rs. 5,000/- as funeral expenses the Tribunal should awarded atleast Rs. 25,000/-. (e) The Tribunal should have awarded an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss of love and affection. (f) Rs. 2,00,000/- should have been awarded for loss of care and guidance to the minor sons. (g) On loss of estate head Rs. 1,00,000/- should have been awarded. 10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties. Point for determination 11. The only point for determination in this appeal is as to whether the appellant is entitled to enhance amount of compensation. For the point of determination I have taken up Issue no 2 first before taking up the rest of the Issues. Issue no. 2: 12. The Tribunal did not accept the salary certificate of the deceased because apart from the said salary certificate, the employer of the deceased could not file any register or other documents showing that he used to pay salary to his employees. The Tribunal notionally held that the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 5,000/- in support of this fact, Mr. R. Goswami, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that Rs. The Tribunal notionally held that the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 5,000/- in support of this fact, Mr. R. Goswami, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that Rs. 5,000/- was a big amount in the year 2010, when the accident took place. 13. On this point, I have decided to agree with the respondents because simply filing a certificate issued by some one cannot be held to be sacrosanct. So as per its evidentiary value is concerned, there must be some other documents like registers etc., which are regularly maintained by a employee showing that he was paying monthly salary to his employees. 14. Pursuant to the judgment passed in Sarla Verma case, (2009) 6 SCC 121 the Tribunal correctly determine the multiplier to be 17. 15. So far as the funeral expenses, medical expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate are concerned, I find that the Tribunal has already awarded higher amount of compensation because in the year 2017, The Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company -Vs- Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 has mandated a deferent opinion. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment passed by the Tribunal on those issues. 16. In the claim petition it is stated that the deceased left behind six (6) dependent which included the father, mother and the younger brother. The father is aged about 55 years while the mother is 50 years old and the younger brother shown to be 17 years old. There is no evidence in this case to show that the appellant and the younger brother of the deceased were dependent upon the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly did not consider them to be dependent of the deceased. This issue is answered accordingly. 17. Here in this case the deceased was below 40 years of age, therefore, 40% of the salary should have been added to the income of the deceased. Therefore, the calculation should be like this: a) Dependency Rs.5000/-x12 =Rs.60,000/-+Rs.2000/- = Rs.62,000/- x17= Rs.10,54,000/- b) Funeral Expenses = Rs. 5,000/- c) Conveyance = Rs. 5,000/- d) Loss of Consortium = Rs. 10,000/- e) Loss of Estate = Rs. 10,000/- f) Medical Expenses = Rs . 35,524/- Total = = Rs. 11,19,524/- Therefore, the appellant is entitle to Rs.11,19,524/- only. Issue no. 1 : 18. 5,000/- c) Conveyance = Rs. 5,000/- d) Loss of Consortium = Rs. 10,000/- e) Loss of Estate = Rs. 10,000/- f) Medical Expenses = Rs . 35,524/- Total = = Rs. 11,19,524/- Therefore, the appellant is entitle to Rs.11,19,524/- only. Issue no. 1 : 18. This issue has not resisted by the respondent, therefore, no elaborate discussion is necessary upon this issue the accident took place because of rash and negligent driving by the driver of AS-21-B/0420. The Tribunal correctly decided this issue. In agreement with the decision of the Tribunal this issue answered in favour of the appellant. Issue no. 3 : 19. The offending vehicle no AS-21-B/0420 was insured under the respondent Insurance Company and therefore, the respondent Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. 20. In the light of the aforesaid findings, the appeal is allowed to the extent that instead of Rs. 7,45,524/-, the appellant is entitled to received a compensation of Rs. 11,19,524/- only. The Tribunal had directed that future interest will be applied @ 9% per annum. Therefore, it is hereby directed that the Insurance Company shall pay Rs. 11,19,524/- to the claimant within next three (3) months. 21. In the event of failure to pay the same, an interest @ 9% per month will be levied from the date of the Judgment passed by the Tribunal. With the aforesaid observation appeal is disposed of.