JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. Though notice has validly been served upon the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 yet not one turns up on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in spite of repeated calls, hence, this appeal is heard ex-parte against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 3. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Award dated 27.07.2013 passed by Learned District Judge-VII-cum-M.A.C.T. Judge, Dhanbad, passed in Title (M.V.) Suit No. 125 of 2009 dated 27.07.2013 whereby and where under the learned tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 4,64,200/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the case till the date of its realization. 4. The brief facts of the case is that on 08.08.2008 at about 8:25 p.m. while the deceased- Anand Kumar was returning from Career Point Coaching Institute, Bokaro where he was employed as a Manager; along with his brother-in-law on a TVS Victor motorcycle as a pillion rider, the offending truck being rashly and negligently driven dashed the motorcycle from behind, as a result of which the deceased was thrown on the road and was ran over by the offending truck resulting in death of the said Anand Kumar. It is further stated that the deceased was 28 years old at the time of his accidental death. 5. The defendant No. 1-owner of the offending truck challenged the maintainability of the claim petition on various technical grounds and asserted that the driver of the offending truck was holding a valid and effective driving license and pleaded that the offending vehicle was insured with the defendant No. 2 and the insurance was valid and effective at the time of accident and the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation, if any. 6. The defendant No. 2-Insurance Company in Para-5 of its written statement stated that the offending truck was under a contract of insurance with the said Insurance Company from 24.12.2007 to 23.12.2008. 7. On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned tribunal framed the following eight issues: (I) Whether the case is maintainable in its present form? (II) Whether the claimants got cause of action for the same? 7. On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned tribunal framed the following eight issues: (I) Whether the case is maintainable in its present form? (II) Whether the claimants got cause of action for the same? (III) Whether the deceased Anand Kumar died on 08.08.2008 caused by road-traffic accident caused by rash and negligent driving of the driver of Truck No. JH-02J-8256? (IV) Whether the driver of offending Truck No. JH-02J-8256 had valid & effective driving license with valid permit? (V) Whether the truck was insured at the time of accident? (VI) Whether the terms and condition of insurance been violated to extent that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation? (VII) Whether the claimants are legal heirs of deceased and accordingly they are entitled for compensation sought for? (VIII) Whether the claimants entitled to any other relief or reliefs? 8. The tribunal considered the evidence in the record i.e. six witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants and the documents which have been marked Ext.1 to 12. The tribunal first took up issue Nos. (I), (II), (III), (V) and (VII) together and after considering the evidence in the record came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle and there was no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in the accident. The tribunal also came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs/claimants being the legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to seek compensation under Section 166 of the M.V. Act and they have a valid cause of action for the claim petition. Hence, the claim petition is maintainable. 9. Thereafter, the tribunal took up issue No. (VI) and came to the conclusion that there is no breach of any terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the defendant-owner of the vehicle. 10. Hence, the claim petition is maintainable. 9. Thereafter, the tribunal took up issue No. (VI) and came to the conclusion that there is no breach of any terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the defendant-owner of the vehicle. 10. The tribunal next took up issue No. (VIII) and came to the conclusion that though PW-5 Namrata Kumari Anand the wife of the deceased, PW-3 Manish Kumar, PW-1 Sadan Prasad the father of the deceased, PW-2 Shanti Devi the mother of the deceased, PW-4 Sandip Poddar who was the director of Career Point (Kota) Coaching Institute, Bokaro, all have stated that the deceased was working as a Manager in the Career Point (Kota) Coaching Institute, Bokaro and PW-4 Sandip Poddar has also proved the salary certificate of the deceased which shows that the deceased was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month and the salary certificate was proved and marked Ext.1 issued under the signature of the PW-4 Sandip Poddar, who deposed that he used to pay the salary to the Manager (deceased) in cash and no register was maintained by him in this regard therefore, in the absence of any reliable evidence in the opinion of the tribunal, the tribunal assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 3,000/- per month in the existing socio-economic condition at a place like Bokaro. The tribunal assessed the age of the deceased to be 30 years on the basis of his date of birth having been mentioned as 15.01.1978 in the Ext.5 which is the matriculation certificate issued by the C.B.S.E. and applied the multiplier of 16 and arrived at the compensation of Rs. 5,14,200/- but it deducted Rs. 50,000/- which was already paid to the claimants under Section 140 of the M.V. Act and directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation of Rs. 4,64,200/- with interest. 11. Mr. Birendra Kumar learned counsel for the appellants submits that the tribunal committed an error by not relying upon the Ext.1 salary certificate duly proved by the employer of the deceased being the PW-4 Sandip Poddar. Mr. Birendra Kumar next submits that there is absolutely no cross-examination of the PWs. 1 and 2 regarding the portion of their testimony wherein they have stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month as a Manager in Career Point (Kota) Coaching Institute, Bokaro. Mr. Mr. Birendra Kumar next submits that there is absolutely no cross-examination of the PWs. 1 and 2 regarding the portion of their testimony wherein they have stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month as a Manager in Career Point (Kota) Coaching Institute, Bokaro. Mr. Kumar relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Param Pal Sharda and Others vs. Dhani Ram and Others, (2022) SCC Online SC 1245 wherein in paragraph-16 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that in view of the Salary Certificate being duly proved, we are of the view that the Tribunal and the High Court have erred in not giving due weightage to the same and in that case also the tribunal committed grave error in not considering the same and arbitrarily assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 3,000/- per month. 12. Mr. Kumar next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 paragraphs-59.4 and 59.8 of which read as under: “59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. 59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, 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 amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.” Submits that the tribunal ought to have added 40% income of the deceased towards future prospects and ought to have awarded the amount of Rs. 70,000/- under the conventional heads. It is next submitted that since the age of the deceased was assessed as 30 years and in view of the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph-42 of the case of National Insurance Co. 70,000/- under the conventional heads. It is next submitted that since the age of the deceased was assessed as 30 years and in view of the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph-42 of the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others (supra), the tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 17. Hence, it is submitted that the amount of compensation be enhanced accordingly. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1-Insurance Company on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for enhancement of the compensation amount and defends the impugned judgment and award and submits that as the claimants have failed to produce any document apart from the Ext.1 to show that in fact the deceased was the Manager of Career Point (Kota) Coaching Institute, Bokaro, hence, the tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 3,000/- per month and any amount in excess of the compensation awarded to the claimants will be a windfall, which is not the objective of granting compensation in terms of Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and award being proper and this appeal, being without any merit, be dismissed. 14. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through the material in the record, the sole point for determination which crop up for determination in this appeal is: “Whether the amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal is to be enhanced?” 15. Now, coming to the facts of the case as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is absolutely no cross-examination of the PWs. 1 and 2 regarding the portion of their testimony where they have categorically stated that the deceased was working as a Manager in Career Point (Kota) Coaching Institute, Bokaro and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 8,000/-. Their testimony is corroborated by the documentary evidence in shape of Ext.1 which is the salary certificate issued by the employer of the deceased and the employer of the deceased being the PW-4 has also been examined as a witness and he has supported that the deceased was employed as a Manager in his coaching institute of which the PW-4 was the Director. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the tribunal erred in not giving due weightage to the Ext.1. Hence, this Court assesses the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 8,000/-. 16. In view of Para-59.4 of the judgment of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others (supra), the tribunal certainly erred by not adding 40% of the income towards future prospects and in view of Para-42 of the judgment of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others (supra), the tribunal certainly erred in applying the multiplier of 16 instead of 17. 17. Accordingly, the annual income of the deceased comes out to Rs. 96,000/-. Adding 40% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects, the total amount comes out to Rs. 1,34,400/- deducting one-third towards his personal expenses, the net amount comes to Rs. 89,600/- and applying the multiplier of 17, the total amount comes out to Rs. 15,23,200/- and adding Rs. 70,000/- towards conventional heads, the total amount comes out to Rs. 15,93,000/- deducting Rs. 50,000/- which has already been paid to the claimants/appellants under Section 140 of the M.V. Act, the net compensation amount comes out to Rs. 15,43,200/- less the amount of compensation of Rs. 4,64,200/- which has already been received by the appellants as submitted by Mr. Birendra Kumar-learned counsel for the appellants, the appellants are to get the further amount of Rs. 10,79,000/-. 18. In view of the discussions made above, the sole point for determination is answered by holding that the appellants are to get total compensation of Rs. 15,93,000/- with interest as awarded by the tribunal. The sole point for determination is answered accordingly. 19. In view of the discussions made above, the impugned judgment and award is modified by directing the respondent No. 1-Insurance Company to pay the total compensation of Rs. 15,93,200/- less the amount paid under Section 140 of the M.V. Act and less the amount of compensation awarded by the impugned judgment and award, which has already been paid by the insurance company as admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, and interest on the remaining amount as awarded by the tribunal, within three months from the date of this judgment. 20. The appeal is allowed by modifying the impugned judgment and award to the aforesaid extent but under the circumstances without any costs. 21. 20. The appeal is allowed by modifying the impugned judgment and award to the aforesaid extent but under the circumstances without any costs. 21. Let a copy of this judgment along with the lower court records be sent back to the tribunal concerned forthwith.