Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 443 (GAU)

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Lalngaichami

2021-07-20

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

body2021
JUDGMENT : Michael Zothankhuma, J. 1. Heard Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Lalchhanliana Khiangte, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. None appears for the respondent Nos. 6 & 7, even though this Court vide Order dated 04.06.2021 held that notice was deemed to be served upon the respondent Nos. 6 & 7. 2. The appeal has been filed by the appellant Insurance Company against the impugned Judgment & Award dated 11.11.2020 passed by the learned MACT, Aizawl in MACT Case No. 18/2018, by which compensation amount of Rs. 45,33,000/- has been awarded to the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 5. The claimants/respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are the mother and father of the deceased Sh. Lalthianghlima. The claimants/respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are the children of the deceased Sh. Lalthianghlima. 3. The claimants' case in brief is that one Tata Tipper bearing registration No. AS-11/BC-3900, loaded with stone chips, driven by the respondent No. 7, hit and ran over the deceased Sh. Lalthianghlima, who was playing with children by the side of the road on 24.04.2015. The deceased succumbed to his injury on the way to the hospital. The accident was enquired into by the police and as per the police report dated 23.03.2016, the cause of the accident Was due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the truck driver/respondent No. 7. Accordingly, Vairengte PS Case No. 28/2015 dt. 25.4.2015 under Section 279/304 A IPC was registered against the respondent No. 7. 4. The respondent No. 6 contested the case by filing written statement, stating that as the accident vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by the appellant Insurance Company, the liability to pay compensation if any, would lie with the Insurance Company. The respondent No. 7 also contested the case by filing a written statement, stating that he was the driver of the accident vehicle and that he had been arrested by the Vairengte Police and Vairengte P.S. Case No. 28/2015 under Section 279/304 A IPC was registered against him. Thereafter, on his own plea of guilt, he was convicted by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class for rash and negligent driving and was sentenced to undergo 3 days in jail, besides being imposed a fine of Rs. 5000/- in Criminal Trial No. 26/2016. Thereafter, on his own plea of guilt, he was convicted by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class for rash and negligent driving and was sentenced to undergo 3 days in jail, besides being imposed a fine of Rs. 5000/- in Criminal Trial No. 26/2016. The written statement by the respondent No. 7 also stated that he was holding a valid driving license at the time of the accident and that the liability to pay compensation should be borne by the appellant Insurance Company or the respondent No. 6, who was the owner of the vehicle. The Insurance Company also filed its written statement challenging the claim on various grounds. 5. After recording the evidence of the witnesses, the learned MACT thereafter dismissed the claim for compensation vide Judgment & Award dated 14.12.2018, by holding that as there was no documentary proof of the income of the deceased and as the witnesses, CW-3 & 4 were not Managers of the workshop owned by the deceased, they did not personally know the income of the deceased. The Ld. Tribunal also held that as the claim had been made under Section 166 and not under Section 163A of the MV Act, 1988, the claimants were not entitled to compensation. 6. Being aggrieved by the Judgment & Award dated 14.12.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal, the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 preferred an appeal, i.e. MAC App. No. 1/2019 before this Court. This Court, vide Judgment & Order dated 06.08.2019, disposed of the appeal by holding that the learned Tribunal erred in rejecting the claim only on the ground that the claimants' witnesses did not produce any documentary proof on the income of the deceased and that they did not have personal knowledge of the income of the deceased, as they were not employed as Managers in the workshop. It further held that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the evidence led by the witnesses and even if the monthly income of the deceased, as contended by the witness, was not acceptable by the Tribunal, the learned Tribunal could have taken the notional income of the deceased on the basis of the materials available on record. It further held that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the evidence led by the witnesses and even if the monthly income of the deceased, as contended by the witness, was not acceptable by the Tribunal, the learned Tribunal could have taken the notional income of the deceased on the basis of the materials available on record. This Court thereafter remanded the matter back to the learned Tribunal for a fresh consideration, from the stage of arguments by the parties, with an observation that it had not expressed anything on the merits of the case. 7. Consequent to the Judgment & Order dated 06.08.2019 passed by this Court in MAC Appeal No. 1/2019, the learned Tribunal disposed of MACT Case No. 18/2018 vide the impugned Judgment & Award dated 11.11.2020 and awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 45,33,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e. 05.04.2018 till final payment. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company has prayed for setting aside the impugned Judgment & Award dated 11.11.2020, on the ground that rash and negligence act on the part of the driver of the accident vehicle has not been proved by the claimants and as such, compensation cannot be paid on a claim made under Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988. In this respect, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Meena Variyal & Ors., reported in (2007) 5 SCC 428 . He also submits that the income of the deceased has not been proved by the witnesses and as such, the learned Tribunal would have no other option but to rely upon the minimum wages applicable to a Skilled Grade-II workman, in terms of the minimum wages fixed by the Government of Mizoram, Labour, Employment and Industrial Training Department Notification dated 26.09.2013. 9. The appellant's counsel also submits that the learned Tribunal took the age of the deceased to be 40 years in terms of the date of birth certificate issued on 20.04.2016, which showed that the date of birth of the deceased was 18.01.1975. He submits that the police report however clearly shows that the age of the deceased at the time of his death was 46. He submits that the police report however clearly shows that the age of the deceased at the time of his death was 46. He also submits that if the date of birth of the deceased is accepted to be 18.01.1975, then the deceased would have been only 17 years old at the time of birth of his eldest son. The appellant's counsel submits that as the age of the deceased was 46 years at the time of his death, the learned Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 15, which was applicable for deceased persons between the age of 40 to 45. He submits that the multiplier of 13 should be applied. He also submits that the "date of birth" certificate of the deceased cannot be accepted as evidence, as the same was issued only after the death of the deceased. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding interest @ 9% per annum, as the rate of interest applicable should be the interest rates applicable to fixed deposits by banks in terms of the Judgment & Order dated 03.11.2020 passed by this Court in MAC Appeal No. 24/2019 titled M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V.H. Sipau. He also submits that there can be no interest on future prospects in terms of the Judgment & Order dated 03.11.2020 passed in MAC Appeal No. 24/2019. 11. The learned counsel for the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 5 submits that the evidence adduced by the claimants is to the effect that the income of the deceased was between Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- per month. The same not being rebutted by the appellant, the learned Tribunal rightly accepted the income of the deceased to be Rs. 30,000/- per month. 12. The counsel for the claimants also submits that though there is no documentary evidence to prove the income of the deceased, as the income is derived in the unorganized sector, the deceased having employed one carpenter @ Rs. 600/- per day and two Helpers @ Rs. 300/- per day, the finding of the learned Tribunal with regard to the monthly income of the deceased should be accepted. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of (i) Ramachandrappa Vs. 600/- per day and two Helpers @ Rs. 300/- per day, the finding of the learned Tribunal with regard to the monthly income of the deceased should be accepted. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of (i) Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, reposed in 2011 (4) TAC (1) SC (ii) Smt. Lakhi Das & Ors. Vs. Raju Sarmah & Anr., reported in 2014 (3) TAC 941 (Gau) (iii) Rokeya Bewa & Ors. Vs. Ranu Das & Ors., reported in 2018 (3) TAC 644 (Gau) & (iv) Syed Sadiq, etc. Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co., reported in 2014 (1) TAC 369 (SC). 13. The counsel for the claimants also submits that the interest of 9% per annum awarded by the learned Tribunal is justified in view of the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Kishan Gopal & Anr. Vs. Lala & Ors., reported in (2014) 1 SCC 244 and in the case of S. Thangaraj Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Rep. By the Branch Manager, reported in 2018 (2) TAC 10 (SC). 14. The counsel for the claimants also submits that the age of the deceased was correctly taken by the learned Tribunal to be 40 years at the time of his death, as the Birth Certificate of the deceased proved the same. He accordingly submits that the appellant cannot challenge the date of birth of the deceased in this appeal. In this aspect, he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar & etc. Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. etc. reported in 2016 (3) TAC 337 (SC). 15. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 16. The learned Tribunal had awarded compensation to the Claimants as follows:- “(Annual Income Rs.30,000x12=3,60,000/- (2) Addition of 25% of established income Rs.3,60,000x25=Rs.90,000/- (as per para No.61 (iv) Pranay Sethi (Supra) 100 (3) Loss of Income Rs.(3,60,000+90,000)x15x2 = 45,00,000/- 3 as per para 32 of (Sarla Verma) (4) Funeral Expenses Rs.16,500/-(with10% increase after every 3 years.) (5) Loss of Estate Rs.16,500/- (with 10% increase after every 3 years) Total Compensation Awarded Rs.45,33,000 (Rupees Forty five lakh thirty three thousand) only 17. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Meena Variyal & Ors. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Meena Variyal & Ors. (supra), the Apex Court has held that the principles stated by the Apex Court in the case of Minu B. Mehta & Anr. Vs. Balkrishna. Ramchandra Nayan & Anr., reported in 1977 2 SCC 441 would apply in respect of a claim under Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988, i.e., proof of negligent driving on the part of the driver is necessary before the owner or the Insurance Company can be held liable for payment of compensation in a motor accident claim case. In the present case, the police report dated 23.03.2016, which was made by S.I. Lalrinhlua, does not give specific details as to how the truck had come into contact with the deceased. The police report only speaks of an accident involving the truck and the deceased. The operative portion of the police report dated 23.03.2016, which has been made in respect of an accident that occurred on 11.11.2020 states as follows: "During investigation, PME report in respect of the deceased Lalthianghlima (46) s/o. R. Vanlalchhuanga of Kawngthar Vairengte was received from CHC, Vairengte. The Medical Officer who conducted PME opined that the cause of death was due to massive blood loss due to splenic injury caused by blunt trauma, over the abdomen leading to Hemorrhagic shock causing Respiratory failure caused by road traffic accident. From investigation, it is clearly found that the cause of accident is due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the truck driver Md. Nur Ahmed (27) s/o. Md. Johur Uddin of Berabak village Pt-I, P.O. Narsingpur, PS-Sonai, Dist. Cachar, Assam and hence, a prima facie case U/S. 279/304A IPC is found well established against the driver. In this regard, Charge Sheet is already being submitted against the offending truck driver Md. Nur Ahmed (27) s/o. Md. Johur Uddin of Berabak village Pt-I, P.O. Narsingpur, PS-Sonai, Dist. Cachar, Assam vide CS No. 59/15 Dt. 28.12.2015" 18. Interestingly, the author of the police enquiry report i.e., S.I. Lalrinhlua has not been examined by the learned Tribunal. The police enquiry report does not state as to whether the deceased was hit while he was on the road or whether the truck had hit the deceased within the confines of the road perimeter or beyond the confines of the road. The police enquiry report does not state as to whether the deceased was hit while he was on the road or whether the truck had hit the deceased within the confines of the road perimeter or beyond the confines of the road. Further, the police enquiry report does not specify as to whether the deceased was hit or run over by the truck. As such, it is very difficult for this Court to come to a finding as to whether there was rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the truck solely on the basis of the police enquiry report, especially when the author of the police enquiry report has not been examined. Whether the truck went beyond the confines of the road could also have a bearing as to whether there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. In any event, the police enquiry report states that VRTE Case No. 28/2015 dated 25.04.2015 under Section 279/304A IPC was registered against the driver of the truck for rash & negligent driving. In the case of N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. Vs. M. Karumai Ahmed & Ors. reported in (1983) 3 SCC 457, the Apex Court held that even though the criminal case had ended in an acquittal against the driver of the state carriage who had been charged with rash and negligent driving, the Civil Suit that followed was not required to follow the finding of acquittal made in the criminal case, as the requirement for culpable rashness under section 304A IPC was more drastic than negligence sufficient under the law of tort to create liability. Further, in view of the fact that the respondent No. 7 had admitted to rash and negligent driving before the criminal court and had been convicted and sentenced therein, this Court finds that the submission of the appellant's counsel that there was no rash and negligent act on the part of the truck driver, which caused the death of the deceased, is not sustainable. 19. The respondent No. 1, who is the mother of the deceased gave her evidence stating that the claimants were all dependent upon the income of the deceased Sh. 19. The respondent No. 1, who is the mother of the deceased gave her evidence stating that the claimants were all dependent upon the income of the deceased Sh. Lalthianghlima, who was a Carpenter and running "LT Furniture Works" at Kawngthar Veng, Vairengte, having certificate of Registration No. 15 02 1100151 issued by the Sub-Divisional Industries Officer, District Industries Centre, Kolasib District, Government of Mizoram She stated that the deceased employed one Carpenter and two helpers in his furniture workshop and his monthly income was Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 40,000/-. 20. Besides the respondent No. 1, the evidence of SI Lalrinhlua of Vairengte Police Station was recorded. He deposed that spot enquiry on the accident site was conducted by SI Thantumliana, who submitted his enquiry report on 25.04.2015, holding that the truck driven by the respondent No. 7 hit and ran over the deceased. 21. The evidence of the claimant/respondent No. 1 who is the mother of the deceased, i.e., Lalngaihchami (CW-1) is to the effect that her son was running a furniture workshop and he was employing one carpenter and 2 helpers. The deceased son was earning Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- per month. No document was exhibited showing the income of the deceased. Also, no document with regard to the payment of salary to employees, sale and purchase of timber or finished products was exhibited. 22. The evidence of Tlangthianghlima, CW-3 is basically to the effect that the deceased was a Carpenter running LT Furniture Works in Vairengte and that the deceased employed him as a Carpenter @ Rs. 600/- per day and two helpers @ Rs. 300/- per day, while the income of the deceased was Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 40,000/-. 23. In the case of Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sunidaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited (supra), the Apex Court held that one could not expect a person who was working as coolie to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim of earning Rs. 4500/- per month. Similarly, this Court in Smt. Lakhi Das & Ors. v. Raju Sarmah & Another (supra) held that it was not possible to get a certificate of the deceased fisherman from any competent authority certifying his monthly and annual income and accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased fisherman was taken by the court to be Rs. 5000/-. 4500/- per month. Similarly, this Court in Smt. Lakhi Das & Ors. v. Raju Sarmah & Another (supra) held that it was not possible to get a certificate of the deceased fisherman from any competent authority certifying his monthly and annual income and accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased fisherman was taken by the court to be Rs. 5000/-. In the case of Rokeya Bewa & Others v. Ranu Das & Others (supra), this Court accepted the income of the deceased daily wage laborer to be Rs. 150/- per month or Rs. 4500/- per month as there was no rebuttal to the evidence adduced in that respect. In the case of Syed Sadiq, etc v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. (supra) the Apex Court has held that it was not possible for a person doing vegetable vending work "labor" involved in an unorganized sector doing his own business to produce documents to prove his monthly income. 24. The thrust of the respondent/claimants counsel's submission is to the effect that the deceased carpenter was working in the unorganized sector, doing his own business and as such, it could not be expected that documents to prove the monthly income could be produced for a person working in the unorganized sector. This argument of the respondent/claimants counsel is not acceptable to this Court, inasmuch as, the deceased was purportedly having a furniture workshop and was also registered with the Industries Department. The place of business is in a small border village, the deceased having apparently engaged employees, there should have been some records of his business transaction and payments made, if any. The claim of the Claimants is that the deceased was earning Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- per month and that the deceased was paying one carpenter @ Rs. 600/- per day plus two labourers @ Rs. 300/- per day. If the furniture workshop was open for 25 days in a month, then the salary payable to the three employees would be approximately Rs. 1200 x 25 = Rs. 30,000/-. Added to the above would be the income of the deceased plus the money required to run his furniture business. If the deceased and his two employees were earning Rs. If the furniture workshop was open for 25 days in a month, then the salary payable to the three employees would be approximately Rs. 1200 x 25 = Rs. 30,000/-. Added to the above would be the income of the deceased plus the money required to run his furniture business. If the deceased and his two employees were earning Rs. 60,000/- to 70,000/- a month, it would be safe to assume that the minimum expenditure incurred by the deceased for procuring wood and other materials for running the business would involve another Rs. 30,000/-. Thus, there would have been a minimum involvement of approximately round Rs. 1,00,000/- per month. It is quite difficult for this Court to comprehend that there is no document/register to show the expenditure involved, payment of salary, sale receipts etc. for a business involved in the sale of furniture. Further, the business is registered with the Industries Department, Government of Mizoram. The two labourers who allegedly worked for the deceased have not been called to give their evidence by the claimants and as such, it can be conclusively stated that two labourers were employed on a regular basis by the deceased, if at all they were employed. The income of the deceased as claimed by the Claimants is not a small amount. Keeping in view the fact that the business was in the small village of Vairengte, this Court is of the view that some kind of document should have been produced as the business of the deceased cannot be compared to the work of a coolie, fisherman or a daily wage labourer. In the case of Ramchandrappa Vs. Manager, Yoyal Sundaram Alliance Company Limited, 2011 13 SCC 236 , the Apex Court has held that the Tribunal did not accept the claim of the claimant in the absence of supporting material in all cases and in all circumstances, as it would depend upon the facts of this case. The Apex Court further held that if the claim made is contrary to ground realities, the Tribunal may not accept the claim and money proceed to determine the possible income by resorting to some guesswork. The Apex Court further held that if the claim made is contrary to ground realities, the Tribunal may not accept the claim and money proceed to determine the possible income by resorting to some guesswork. On considering the fact that the money involved in respect of the claim made by the claimant respondents is quite high, this Court has to resort to some guesswork as the claim made by the claimant cannot be said to be proof amount. On considering the above facts, this Court is of the view that the respondent claimants have not been able to prove that the income of the deceased was between Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- per month. Keeping in view that fact that the deceased was a carpenter doing the business of furniture works, this Court is of the view that it would be safe to accept the income of the deceased to be around Rs. 20,000/- per month. 25. In the case of Kishan Gopal & Anr. Vs. Lata & Ors., reported in (2014) 1 SCC 244 , the Apex Court granted interest @ 9% per annum on a claim petition involving a motor accident in 19.07.1992. In the case of Kishan Gopal & Anr. Vs. Lala & Others (supra), the Apex Court granted interest @ 9% per annum, for the reason that the Insurance company had been contesting the claim from 1992 to 2013, without settling the legitimate claim for 21 years, thereby denying the claimants high earnings if the amount had been kept in a fixed deposit. In the case of S. Thangaraj v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Rep by the Branch Manager (supra), the Apex Court granted interest @ 9% per annum on a claim petition made by an injured person involved in a motor accident on 01.08.2004. The judgment was passed by the Apex Court on 06.03.2018. Thus, in the above two cases, it should be noted mat the time taken in litigation was quite huge. However, in the present case, the accident occurred on 24.04.2015. To answer the question whether the learned Tribunal has awarded a higher interest rate on the compensation amount than is permissible by law, it would be fruitful to refer to the judgment of this Court in MAC App. No. 24 of 2019 and in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sh. To answer the question whether the learned Tribunal has awarded a higher interest rate on the compensation amount than is permissible by law, it would be fruitful to refer to the judgment of this Court in MAC App. No. 24 of 2019 and in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sh. S. Muana & Anr., reported in 2018 (2) GLT 856, wherein the law laid down by the Apex Court has been discussed. In the above case, this Court had referred to the judgments of the Apex Court in Abati Bezbaruah Vs. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India & Anr., reported in 2003 3 SCC 148 and Kaushnuma Begum (SMT) & Ors. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2001 2 SCC 9 , wherein the Apex Court had granted interest as per the prevailing bank rate. In the present case, the judgment of the learned Tribunal was passed on 26.04.2019, when the interest prevailing as per the bank rates on fixed deposits was approximately 6% per annum. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the interest to be awarded on the compensation amount should be @ 6% per annum. 26. With respect to whether there should be interest on future prospects, this Court finds that in the case of The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sh. Champabati Ray & Ors., MAC Appl No. 378/2017, it was held by this Court (Principal Seat) that no interest could be given on future prospects, as the same relates to an income to be given in the future. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that no interest should be given on future prospects. 27. In view of above, this Court holds that interest would have to be given in terms of the prevailing bank rates applicable at the relevant time and as such, the interest payable on the compensation amount would be 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till final payment date of filing the claim petition till final payment. 28. The question with regard to whether the learned Tribunal had applied the correct multiplier for calculating the compensation payable to the claimants/respondents required the learned Tribunal to come to a finding with regard to the age of the deceased at the time of this death. 28. The question with regard to whether the learned Tribunal had applied the correct multiplier for calculating the compensation payable to the claimants/respondents required the learned Tribunal to come to a finding with regard to the age of the deceased at the time of this death. The claim petition states that the deceased was 40 years old at the time of his death and the same has been made on the basis of the Birth Certificate of the deceased issued by the Assistant District Registrar, Births & Deaths, Kolasib on 20.04.2016, wherein it is stated that he was born on 18.01.1975. Surprisingly, the Death Certificate of the deceased was issued on 08.05.2015 by another person i.e., the Registrar of Births & Deaths, Vairengte-II. It may be pertinent to mention that the deceased died due to an accident that occurred on 24.04.2015 while his Death Certificate was issued one month later. The police enquiry report dt. 23.3.2016 (Ext. C-2) shows the age of the deceased as 46 years at the time of his death. Also, the accident information report (Ext.C-3) made by the Vairengte Police Station under Form No. 54 shows the age of the deceased as 46 years. The Dead Body receipt (Ext.C-4) issued by one Zalawta, Kawngthar Veng dated 25.04.2015 shows the age of the deceased as 47 years. 29. As per Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, an entry made in any public or other official book/register is required to be proved by a public servant who made the entry in the discharge of his official duty or by any other person in the performance of his duty, especially enjoined by law. As per Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 969, any birth or death which has not been registered within one year of its occurrence, can be registered only on an order made by a Magistrate of a first class or a Presidency Magistrate after verifying the correctness of the birth or death and on payment of the prescribed fee. A birth certificate being a part of a record, the issuance of the same after the death of the person concerned, required that the above provisions of law had to be followed. A birth certificate being a part of a record, the issuance of the same after the death of the person concerned, required that the above provisions of law had to be followed. However, it is nobody's case that Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 had been followed, prior to issuance of the birth certificate of the deceased. On considering the above documents, this Court is of the view that as the Birth Certificate of deceased has been issued subsequent to the death of the deceased and the author of the same not having been examined, the contents of the same cannot be accepted in evidence. This Court is accordingly of the view that in terms of Ext. C-2, Ext. C-3 and Ext. C-4, the age of the deceased would have to be taken to be 46 years. 30. In view of the above reasons, the compensation to be awarded to the Claimants would be on the income of the deceased @ Rs. 20,000/- per month and the age of the deceased will be taken to be 46 years at the time of his death. The multiplier of 13 will accordingly be applied and' the interest to be awarded on the compensation would be 6% per annum. Further, there would be no interest on future prospects. 31. Accordingly, the compensation payable will be as follows: “(1) Annual Income Rs.20,000x12=2,40,000/- (2) Addition of 25% of establish income Rs.2,40,000x25=Rs.60,000/- (as per para No.6) (iv) Pranay Sethi (Supra) 100 (3) Loss of Income Rs .(2,40,000+60,000)x13x2 =26,00,000/- 3 (as per para 32 of (Sarla Verma) (4) Funeral Expenses Rs.16,500/-(with 10% increase after every 3 years) (5) Loss of Estate Rs.16,500/- (with 10% increase after every 3 years) Total Compensation Awarded Rs.26,33,000/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand) Only” 32. The appellant is accordingly directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 26,33,000/- to the claimants. Out of the total compensation amount of Rs. 26,33,000/-, interest of 6% per annum will be payable on the amount of Rs. 21,13,000/- from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e., 05.04.2018 till the final payment before the learned Tribunal. No interest will be payable on the balance compensation amount of Rs. 5,20,000/-, as there can be no interest on future prospects. Any amount already paid shall be adjusted against the total amount. The statutory deposit of Rs. 21,13,000/- from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e., 05.04.2018 till the final payment before the learned Tribunal. No interest will be payable on the balance compensation amount of Rs. 5,20,000/-, as there can be no interest on future prospects. Any amount already paid shall be adjusted against the total amount. The statutory deposit of Rs. 20,000/- should be released back to the appellant along with interest, if any. 33. The impugned Judgment & Award dated 11.11.2020 passed by the learned Tribunal in MACT Case No. 18/2018 is accordingly modified to the extent indicated above. Send back the LCR.