JUDGMENT : MITALI THAKURIA, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. H. Buraguhain, learned Counsel appeared on behalf of the respondents. 2. This is an application under section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act of 1988, filed by claimants/appellants against the judgment and order dated 06.08.2015, passed in MAC Case No. 146/2009, by the learned Member MACT, Bongaigaon, whereby no assessment on transportation cost, pain and suffering, love and affection were calculated and interest was also not given from the date of filing of the claim petition. 3. Brief facts of the case is that on 29.11.2018, at about 3.45 pm, the deceased son of the claimants namely, Imran Khan, was standing by the side of the Bogibil North Bank (Bogibeel project) and was supervising the works as a Supervisor of the project and at that time, the offending vehicle No. AS/01/PC/2923 (Tipper), coming in a rash and negligent manner knocked down the deceased and as a result, he sustained grievous injuries on his person. He was immediately brought to Silapathar P.H.C. but doctors declared him dead. Hence the case. 4. On receipt of notice, the opposite party no. 1, United Insurance Company Limited for the offending vehicle, opposite party No. 2, the owner of the said vehicle and opposite party no. 3, the driver of the offending vehicle contested the case by filing their written statement. All these opposite party have denied the facts that the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. The opposite party no. 3, the driver of the offending vehicle also took the plea that the accident took place due to mechanical defects. The learned Member of the Tribunal accordingly framed four issues and the claimants also examined four numbers of witnesses in support of the case. The claimant no. 1 adduces his evidence as PW-1 and the other witnesses also supported the case of the claimant. The learned Member, MACT also discussed the issues as per convenience and accordingly, the claim petition was disposed of awarding Rs. 8,69,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs sixty nine thousand) and the opposite party no. 1 was directed to make payment all the awarded amount through account pay cheque and interest was granted @ Rupees 6% per annum from the date of passing the judgment till realisation. 8,69,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs sixty nine thousand) and the opposite party no. 1 was directed to make payment all the awarded amount through account pay cheque and interest was granted @ Rupees 6% per annum from the date of passing the judgment till realisation. While calculating the award the learned Member, MACT, Bongaigaon took the multiplier of 18, considering the age of the deceased and accordingly, the total loss of dependency came to Rs. 8,64,000/- and apart from that another amount of Rs.5,000/- was awarded towards funeral expense of the deceased. And thus, the total awarded amount is Rs. 8,69,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs sixty nine thousand), with interest @ of Rs. 6% per annum from the date of judgment till realisation. 5. On being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Member, MACT Bongaigaon in MAC Case No. 146/2009, the present appeal has been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of the awarded amount and the ground taken by the appellant is that the learned Member, MACT did not assessed the non pecuniary damages i.e. loss of love and affection and other pecuniary damages i.e. the transportation, religious performance, religious ceremony and loss of dependency. The learned Tribunal has made the assessment of pecuniary damages but did not assess the non-pecuniary damages i.e. the loss of pain and suffering, loss of love and affection and transportation. 6. The appellants also took the ground that the learned Member of MACT calculated the interest @ 6% per annum only from the date of judgment and not from the date of filing the case and hence, the award passed by the learned Member, MACT is unjustified, inappropriate and liable to be interfered/modified and interest should be calculated @ of 9% from the date of filing the claim. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in a case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Upahar Tragedy Victims Association and Others, (2011) 14 SCC 481 , wherein the interest on the awarded amount was considered @ of Rs. 9% per annum. So, considering the view of the Hon’ble Apex Court the interest should be calculated @ rate of Rs. 9% per annum, from the date of filing the petition. 8. 9% per annum. So, considering the view of the Hon’ble Apex Court the interest should be calculated @ rate of Rs. 9% per annum, from the date of filing the petition. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants also relied on decision of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Shetty and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 wherein it is held that “reasonable figures on conventional head, namely loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amount should be enhanced @ 10% in every three years.” In this context, the learned counsel appeared on behalf respondents/ Insurance Company submitted that it is the admitted position that the learned MACT did not assessed the conventional head while passing the award. He admitted that the claimant is entitled to compensation for loss of estate, funeral expenses and also for the loss of consortium. However, he has submitted that the loss of pain and suffering will not come in a case of death as claimed by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the Company is ready to pay Rs. 44,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 16,500/- including the enhancement of Rs. 10% per annum as per view of the Hon’ble Apex Court and also ready to pay another amount of Rs. 16,500/- towards funeral expenses including the enhanced amount. But he submitted in regards to the payment of interest, the claimant is not entitled for interest @ rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing. He submitted that the record reveals that the delay is caused only due to fault on the part of the claimant and hence, claimants are not entitled to receive the interest @ rate of Rs. 9% per annum. 9. After considering the submission put forwarded by the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents and on perusal of the entire case record, it is seen that there is no dispute in regards to amount calculated towards the loss of dependency and only ground taken in the appeal is that the learned Member, MACT did not assess any amount for non conventional head and the learned member also failed to calculate the interest from the date of filing the petition @ of Rs. 9% per annum. 10. 9% per annum. 10. In regards to the claim for non conventional head as discussed above, the respondent is agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 44,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 16,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 16,500/- for funeral expense. Thus, total enhanced amount comes to Rs. 77,000/-. The facts and circumstances of Uphar Tragedy (supra) case, where Rs. 9% interest rate is allowed from the date of filing of the writ petition is different from the present case in hand. 11. So, considering all aspects of the case, I find that the rate of interest 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition and @ 9% per annum from the date of judgment till realisation will be justified. Thus, the compensation to be paid to the claimant will be as follows: 1. Loss of Dependency Rs. 8,64,000/- 2. Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/- 3. Funarel Expense Rs. 16,500/- 4. Loss of consortium Rs. 44,000/- Total Rs. 9,41,000/- The Insurance Company is accordingly directed to pay the claimant the total compensation amount of Rs. 9, 41,000/- along with interest @ of Rs. 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition and @ rate of Rs. 9% per annum from the date of judgment till final realisation of the awarded amount. The Insurance Company shall deposit the above referred amount minus, if any amount is already paid by the Insurance Company, within the period of next 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 12. The impugned judgment and order dated 06.08.2015, passed in MAC Case No. 146/2009, by the learned Member MACT, Bongaigaon, is accordingly modified to the extent as indicated above. Appeal is accordingly allowed and disposed of.