JUDGMENT T. Amarnath Goud, J. - This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Section 168 of the Act, against the impugned judgment and award dated 18.06.2019, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-02, Gomati Tripura, Udaipur, in Case No. TS(MAC) 112 of 2014. 2. The claim petition discloses the fact that on 01.04.2013 at about 6.30 hours the deceased Rupak Chandra Das along with one Dipayan Majumder was coming from Pitra towards Udaipur boarding the motorbike bearing No. TR-03D-8765 with a moderate speed and on the way reaching near Sitalabari Bar Tilla, Rajnagar, on call by Upa Pradhan, Rajnagar Panchayat, namely Indrajit Das, the motorbike was stopped and kept in stationery mode and the deceased got down from the motorbike and was talking with the aforesaid Indrajit Das by the side of the road and suddenly one Canter Truck bearing No. TR-03C-1785 came from Udaipur side with abnormal high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased Rupak Chandra Das and as a result he sustained fatal injuries on his head and other vital parts of his body resulting to his death and soon after the accident he was taken to TSD Hospital and considering his condition he was referred to GBP Hospital after declaring him dead and postmortem examinations was done at GBP Hospital and thereafter the dead body was handed over to his relatives. 3. It was also stated that the deceased Rupak Chandra Das was a young energetic and healthy man of 40 years of age and he used to work as a Government Contractor and also had a shop of grocery items with Trade License and was also an agent of Rose Vally Chain Marketing System and used to carry fishery business and out of which he used to earn Rs. 30,000/- per month and was an Income Tax payee. 4. It was again stated that the accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid Canter Truck bearing No. TR-03C1785. 5. OP No. 1, the owner of the Canter Truck bearing No. TR03C-1785, in his written statement denied all the averments of the claim petition and pleaded that his Canter Truck bearing No. TR-03C-1785 was duly insured with the Oriental Insurance Co. 5. OP No. 1, the owner of the Canter Truck bearing No. TR03C-1785, in his written statement denied all the averments of the claim petition and pleaded that his Canter Truck bearing No. TR-03C-1785 was duly insured with the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. having policy bearing No. 322700/31/2013/54 with validity from 29.04.2012 to 28.04.2013 and the same was being driven by Nanda Kumar Jamatia having valid driving license bearing No. TR0320010025279 and his vehicle was also fit for plying on the road. It was also pleaded that the accident did not occur because of any of his fault and so he denied his liability. 6. OP No. 2, the alleged insurer of the aforesaid Canter Truck bearing No. TR-03C-1785, it its WS denied all the averments of the claim petition and disputed the age, income, avocation, injuries and also pleaded that the matter of alleged accident was not reported by the owner and in absence of policy particulars and other details, OP No. 2 could not be made liable to pay compensation and so denied having insured the aforesaid Canter Truck. 7. It was also pleaded that in case of head-on-collision the drivers of both the vehicles be made equally responsible for the alleged accident and the rider of motorbike bearing No. TR-03B-8765 was solely responsible for the alleged accident and so, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 8. On the basis of pleadings of parties following issues were framed by order dated 09.08.2018:- 1. Whether Rupak Chandra Das, S/o. Shri Dulal Chandra Das received injuries in a road traffic accident on 01.04.2013 at about 6.30 hours at Rajnagar Bartilla near Sitalabari on Pitra-Udaipur Road under RK Pur PS and same day succumbed to his injuries at GBP Hospital due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle bearing No. TR-03C-1785(Canter Truck)? 2. Are the claimants entitled to be compensated under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. If so, to what extent and who shall be liable to pay such compensation? 9. While deciding Issue No. 1, the tribunal court has observed that it is evident that the deceased met with an accident on 01.04.2013 because of rash and negligent driving of driver of Canter Truck vehicle bearing No. TR-03C-1785 resulting to his fatal injuries and consequent death. 9. While deciding Issue No. 1, the tribunal court has observed that it is evident that the deceased met with an accident on 01.04.2013 because of rash and negligent driving of driver of Canter Truck vehicle bearing No. TR-03C-1785 resulting to his fatal injuries and consequent death. Accordingly it is held that the deceased met an accident on 01.04.2013 at around 6.30 hours because of rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid Canter Truck resulting to the fatal injuries causing the death of deceased Rupak Chandra Das. Thus, issue No. 1 is decided in affirmative in favour of the claimant-petitioners. 10. While deciding the issue No. 2, the tribunal court has observed in the following manner: 8.8 In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, AIR 2017 SC 5157 it was held that in case of deceased who was self employed or having fixed salary, 25% of income should be added as future prospect where the deceased was between 40 to 50 years and as per the Judgment of Smt. Sarla erma & ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & anr, 1/4th of income is to be deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased where the number of dependent family members is 4-6, and again Multiplier is 14 in case of age group between 41 to 45 years, and so, basing on the aforesaid Judgments I now proceed to determine the loss of dependency which are as follows:- (a) Monthly income Rs. 10,000.00. (b) Rs. 10,000.00 (monthly income) + Rs. 2500.00(25% future prospect) = Rs. 12,500.00. (c) Now after deduction of Rs. 3125.00, being 1/4th, towards the personal and living expenses from Rs. 12,500.00, the same stands at Rs. 9,375.00 and thus yearly income stands at Rs. 1,12,500.00 and (d) After multiplying the same (Rs. 1,12,500.00) by multiplier 14(in case of age between 41 to 45 years, as per Sarla Verma (Supra), the loss of dependency stands at Rs. 15,75,000.00. 8.9 In addition to the aforesaid amount the claimant-petitioners are also entitled to Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate and another amount of Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses, as per the Judgment passed in NIC v. Pranay Sethi (Supra).' 11. The tribunal had also discussed elaborately with regard to determining the liability of insurance company to pay compensation to the claimant-petitioners. 15,000/- for loss of estate and another amount of Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses, as per the Judgment passed in NIC v. Pranay Sethi (Supra).' 11. The tribunal had also discussed elaborately with regard to determining the liability of insurance company to pay compensation to the claimant-petitioners. 8.14 Now to determine the question of liability I find from the evidence of CW. 2 that the aforesaid Canter Truck vehicle bearing No. TR-03C1785 was newly registered on 30.05.2011 and as per rule the fitness was initially issued for two years from the date of registration. Again from the evidence of CW.1 it appears that the aforesaid Canter Truck had permit for five years from 27.07.2011. In support of such evidence the vehicle history report and screen report issued by the DTO., Gomati Tripura has been submitted and the same were marked as exhibits. Thus; there is no doubt in holding that the aforesaid Canter Truck vehicle had valid fitness and permit on the date of accident, i.e., on 01.04.2013. From the CW.2 it also appears that the driving license bearing No. TR-0320010025279 was issued in favour of Nanda Kumar Jamatia on 01.02.2001 and was renewed on 30.11.2011 with validity up-to 29.11.2016 for non transport vehicle and up-to 18.11.2014 for transport vehicle and was authorized to drive LMV/NT, TRANS and LMV/GV. In support of such evidence extract copy of driving license authenticated by the DTO., Gomati Tripura has been produced and was marked as exhibit. 8.15 In this case the owner, i.e., the OP No. 1, has produced the original certificate of insurance wherefrom I find that the Canter Truck vehicle bearing No. TR-03C- 1785 had valid insurance coverage from 29.04.2012 to 28.04.2013 under Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. with policy bearing No. 322700/31/2013/54. 8.16. As the vehicle was insured with OP No. 2 on the date of accident so the liability of the owner to pay compensation is shifted upon the insurer, i.e., the OP No. 2. Thus; the OP No. 2, being the insurer of the Canter Truck vehicle bearing No. TR-03C-1785, is liable to pay the whole amount of compensation to the claimant-petitioners. 12. Finally by the order dated 18.06.2019, the tribunal has observed in the following manner: 9. The instant application under Section-166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 filed by the claimant-petitioners is hereby partly allowed and a sum of Rs. 12. Finally by the order dated 18.06.2019, the tribunal has observed in the following manner: 9. The instant application under Section-166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 filed by the claimant-petitioners is hereby partly allowed and a sum of Rs. 17,65,000.00 (Rupees Seventeen Lakh Sixty Five thousand) only along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim-petition, i.e., from 08.07.2014 till the date of payment, is awarded in favour of claimant - petitioners as compensation for the death of late Rupak Chandra Das, in a Road Traffic Accident, as aforesaid, and this amount of compensation shall be paid by OP No. 2, the insurer of the Canter Truck vehicle bearing No. TR-03C1785, within a period of one month. 10. Out of the said amount i.e., 17,65,000.00, a sum of Rs. 3,00,000.00 shall be paid each to claimant-petitioner No. 3 and 4, the parents of the deceased (as Rs. 3,00,000.00 + Rs. 3,00,000.00). An amount of Rs. 5,00,000.00 shall be paid to the minor daughter of the deceased, i.e., claimant petitioner No. 2. The rest amount of Rs. 6,65,000.00 shall be paid to the spouse of the deceased, i.e., claimant-petitioner No. 1. 11. In the event of deposit of the Awarded amount, Rs. 50,000.00 shall be released in favour of each of the claimant-petitioner No. 1, 3 and 4 out of their respective shares, in their respective bank accounts for enabling them to meet necessary expenses and the rest amount shall be kept in fixed deposit schemes in any Nationalized Bank for five years in the name of the claimant-petitioner No. 1, 3 and 4 separately as per their respective shares. However as claimant-petitioner No. 2 is minor so her entire share along with interest, shall be kept in a fixed deposit scheme in a Nationalized Bank for a period of five years or for the period till attainment of her majority, whichever is later. 12. No loan or withdrawal shall be permitted in the fixed deposit account nor joint name shall be allowed nor any cheque book, ATM card can be issued against fixed deposit account. However the interest to be credited in the fixed deposit may be released in favour of the claim-petitioners, except minor, as per Bank's norms.' 13. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 18.06.2019 of the tribunal, the appellant herein has preferred the instant appeal. 14. However the interest to be credited in the fixed deposit may be released in favour of the claim-petitioners, except minor, as per Bank's norms.' 13. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 18.06.2019 of the tribunal, the appellant herein has preferred the instant appeal. 14. Heard counsel for the parties. 15. It is a case of the appellant-insurance company that the amount which has been considered as notional income is Rs. 10,000/- in the absence of the income and income tax return of the deceased. The deceased being a government contractor, though no evidence has been placed before the tribunal to that effect and also with regard to the dependency of the father upon the compensation award has been disputed. 16. During the course of argument counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company has submitted as against Rs. 10,000/- fixing a nominal amount of Rs. 6,000/- could have been reasonable amount of earning per month. Counsel for the appellant has also relied on a judgment of the apex court in Syed Basheer Ahamed and Others v. Mohammed Jameel and Another reported in (2009) 2 SCC 225 , where the apex court has observed with regard to the monthly income of the deceased in the following manner: '21. In the instant case, the main grievance of the appellant is that the High Court erred in reducing the monthly income of the deceased from Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 4,000/-. More so, when the claim of the appellants was that the deceased was earning about Rs. 20,000/- per month. It needs little emphasis that insofar as the question of earnings of the deceased is concerned, the onus lies on the claimants to prove this fact by leading reliable and cogent evidence before the Tribunal. A bare assertion in the claim petition in that behalf is not sufficient to discharge that onus.' 17. Counsel for the respondent-claimants submitted that during the course of the judicial proceeding, the mother of the deceased also died and accordingly her share of dependency has been transferred in favour of the widow and child of the deceased. The father can also be treated as depended and his right of dependency cannot be denied. And with regard to the fixing of Rs. 10,000/- for consideration basing on the notification bearing No. F.87(1)-LAB/ENF/MW/89/2970-83 dated 04.06.2019 issued by the Dept. of Labour of Govt. The father can also be treated as depended and his right of dependency cannot be denied. And with regard to the fixing of Rs. 10,000/- for consideration basing on the notification bearing No. F.87(1)-LAB/ENF/MW/89/2970-83 dated 04.06.2019 issued by the Dept. of Labour of Govt. of Tripura, even minimum wages of a Safai Karmachari is Rs. 223.00 per day i.e. Rs. 6690.00 per month is reasonable according to the counsel for the claimant-respondents and he also submitted that awarding them Rs. 6000/- per month would be in lower side considering the income of the deceased person. Moreover, the suggestion made by the appellant counsel that Rs. 6000/- could be reasonable is also a guess work without any basis. 18. In view of the above observation, this court feels that the judgment relied by the counsel for the appellant-insurance company is not relevant. Therefore, this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and award dated 18.06.2019, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-02, Gomati Tripura, Udaipur, in Case No. TS(MAC) 112 of 2014 and confirms the same. 19. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.