JUDGMENT : IA NO: CAN/1/2020 (Old No:CAN/419/2020) The present CAN application is relatable to a prayer for condonation of delay of 20 days in filing the present appeal. 2. Upon perusal of the relevant averments contained in the pleadings, the Court is of the view that the appellants/petitioners have attempted to explain the delay most successfully as to what prevented the appellants from preferring the instant appeal beyond the period of limitation prescribed. 3. The delay being sufficiently explained, the delay caused in preferring the appeal stands condoned. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay being IA NO:CAN/1/2020 (Old No: CAN/419/2020) stands disposed of. 4. Department to furnish relevant FMA number after registering the case as FMA and accordingly, the same is taken as on day’s list on the prayer of both the parties. In Re: F.M.A.T.347 of 2015 5. The appeal has emerged out against the judgement and award dated 30th day of August, 2014 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track 2nd Court, Tamluk, Purba Burdwan in M.A.C. Case No.85 of 2013 granting award to the tune of Rs.16,84,508/- to dependents of the deceased, for the death of 32 years old man namely, Dilip Barman @ Dilip Kumar Barman in a road traffic accident, occurred on 22.01.2013 after being dashed by a vehicle/gas tanker bearing no.NL-01/9408. 6. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988. 7. At the very threshold of this case this may be put on record that facts involved in this case leading to the death of the deceased are not disputed. 8. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate representing the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has committed a grave error in law by not granting 40% additional income towards the future prospect, because the deceased suffered his death at the age of 32 years being an employed person under Kabita Construction and thereby putting his dependents family members to an utter financial distress. 9. Mr. Banerjee, also disputes in this appeal that learned Tribunal has not taken into account the settled proposition of law in granting general damages and only granted Rs.9,500/- towards the general damages instead of Rs.70,000/-. 10. The appeal is thus principally on two fold grounds as referred hereinabove. 11. Mr. 9. Mr. Banerjee, also disputes in this appeal that learned Tribunal has not taken into account the settled proposition of law in granting general damages and only granted Rs.9,500/- towards the general damages instead of Rs.70,000/-. 10. The appeal is thus principally on two fold grounds as referred hereinabove. 11. Mr. Sanjoy Pal, learned advocate representing the Insurance Company submits that there lies nothing to be interfered with in this appeal, as the learned Tribunal has considered every pros and cons of this case and decided the award, what is just and proper and as such there lies no scope for making any further interference by this Court. 12. Upon perusal of the judgement impugned and after hearing submission offered by both the parties and bearing in mind the decisions rendered in cases of Smt. Sarla Verma & ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , it appears that there is substance in the arguments advanced by the learned advocate for the appellants. 13. The learned Tribunal ought to have granted 40% additional income towards future prospect, since the deceased left this world, when he was 32 years old only and remaining employed under Kabita Construction. 14. Apart from this, the learned Tribunal should have granted Rs. 70,000/- towards the general damages under collective heads covering loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate. 15. There appears to be no controversy between the parties with regard to age of deceased, selection of multiplier and ascertainment of extent of dependency. 16. A modification is thus felt obligatory and such modification will make the award perfect, just and proper. 17. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified to the extent mentioned hereinbelow and recalculated in the manner referred hereinabove: Monthly Income Rs.11,632/ Annual income (Rs.11,632/- X 12) Rs.1,39,584/- Less:1/4th for personal expenses Rs.1,39,584/- X 1/4th = Rs.34,896/- Rs.1,04,688/ Add- 40% future prospect Rs.41,875/- Loss of annual dependency Rs.1,46,563/- Multiplier 16 (RS.1,46,563X16)Rs.23,45,008/- Add: General Damages Rs.70,000/- Total Rs.24,15,008/- Rs.16,84,508/- 18. The claimants acknowledges receipt of the awarded amount of Rs.16,84,508/- with interest in terms of the direction passed by the Tribunal. The claimants acknowledges receipt of the awarded amount of Rs.16,84,508/- with interest in terms of the direction passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the balance enhanced sum of Rs.7,30,500/- would become payable to the appellants by the Insurance Company together with interest assessed at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on and from the date of filing of the claim petition within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the bank account particulars of the appellants. 19. Learned advocate for the appellants will forward the bank account details of the appellants within a fortnight from date to the learned advocate for the Insurance Company. The payment shall be made in the same manner and proportion, as already decided by the learned court below. 20. The payment should be made directly to the bank accounts of the appellants/claimants through NEFT/RTGS. 21. With the aforesaid directions the instant appeal is disposed of. 22. In view of the disposal of this appeal, connected applications, if any, are also disposed of. 23. The concerned department is directed to tag the applications, if any, with the main appeal. 24. There shall be no further order as to costs. 25. L.C.R. if any, may be returned back to the learned court below. 26. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance of all formalities, on priority basis. 27. All parties shall act in terms of copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court.