JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. A. Acharya, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/insurance company under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and order dated 24.03.2021 passed by the ld. Member, MACT, Tinsukia in MAC Case No. 71/2017 awarding compensation amounting to Rs.24,40,844/-in favour of the claimants/respondents. 3. The brief facts of the case is that on 24.06.2017 at about 2 p.m. while the husband of claimant No. 1 was proceeding towards his house along with one Robin Patra by his bicycle and when they reached in front of Sukhan Pukhuri Raiway Gate, subsequently, a vehicle bearing registration No. AS-03-C-5394 coming from Tinsukia side towards Mukum, in a very rash and negligent manner, lost control over the vehicle and knocked down the husband of the claimant No. 1 from his back side as a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries on his person and on the way to hospital, he succumbed to his injuries and the other person also died on the spot. 4. In connection with the accident, one case was registered vide Tinsukia P.S. case No. 772/2017 under Sections 279/304(A)/427 IPC. At the relevant time of accident, the alleged offending vehicle was duly insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. 5. The claimant No. 1, who is the wife of the deceased filed a claim case before the Member, MACT, Tinsukia, claiming compensation for death of her husband and after completion of trial, the ld. Member, MACT, Tinsukia awarded compensation in favour of the claimant as aforesaid. 6. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award of the Tribunal, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the ld. Tribunal has considered the age of the deceased as 32 years and adopted the multiplier “17” instead of 16 as per judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma –vs-DTC. The adoption of multiplier “17” for calculating loss of dependency is not sustainable on the facts and law and as such, the judgment and award dated 24.03.2021 is liable to be set aside. 8. The adoption of multiplier “17” for calculating loss of dependency is not sustainable on the facts and law and as such, the judgment and award dated 24.03.2021 is liable to be set aside. 8. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that prevailing norms of awarding compensation under conventional heads of compensation of loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate taken together is Rs.70,000/-as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. –vs-Pranay Sethi & Others. But the ld. Member, MACT has awarded an amount of Rs.1,65,000/-under the conventional head which is liable to be set aside and modified. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the ld. Member, MACT came to a finding that the income of the deceased was Rs.12,589/-per month without the occupation and the income of the deceased being established or proved. It is also submitted that the ld. Member, MACT awarded 30% as future prospect without consideration of the facts that as per the settled law regarding future prospect in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. –vs-Pranay Sethi & Others, further prospect was awarded only on the established income. In this case, the occupation and the income of the deceased was not at all proved. So awarding of 30% as future prospect is not legally sustainable. 10. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a following case law-2020(2) GLT 161(Kamla Bibi–vs-Abdul Sk.(MD) & Others. 11. Notice was served to the respondents/claimants but none has appeared at the time of hearing of appeal. Hence, the appeal is disposed of without hearing the other side, on the basis of the evidence on record and the documents available thereon. 12. According to the claimant(CW1), her husband was a barber and he was the owner of a saloon namely “Tahkur Saloon” situated at Sukahpukhuri Birbal Line and he was earning Rs.15,000/-per month. In support of the income of her husband, CW1 has exhibited two documents vide Exhibit Nos. 11 and 12. The Ext. 11 was issued by one Shri Subodh Kr. Thakur, as the President of Assam Thakur Sangh and the Ext. 12 was issued by the Accountant of Itakhuli Anchalik Panchayat. 13. In Ext. 11, it was certified that deceased/Ramesh Thakur died on 24.06.2017 and he belonged to Napit Caste i.e. Thakur caste. 11 and 12. The Ext. 11 was issued by one Shri Subodh Kr. Thakur, as the President of Assam Thakur Sangh and the Ext. 12 was issued by the Accountant of Itakhuli Anchalik Panchayat. 13. In Ext. 11, it was certified that deceased/Ramesh Thakur died on 24.06.2017 and he belonged to Napit Caste i.e. Thakur caste. The person who issued the Ext. 11 was not examined before the ld. Trial Court. Apart from that, a caste certificate is available in the record which was issued by the President of Assam Tahakur Sangh who is not competent to issue the caste certificate rather District Magistrate is the right person to issue such certificate in favour of a person. So, the Ext. 11 cannot be considered in this case. 14. To prove the Ext. 12, one witness was examined as CW2, Herambo Sonowal. He deposed in his evidence that on 03.01.2017, he was working as Tax Collector of Itakhuli Anchalik Panchayat. When the deceased opened a saloon, he used to collect tax from the said saloon and issued receipt for the same. Ext. 12 is the said receipt issued by him and Ext. 14 is the certificate issued by the Executive Officer of Itakhoolli Anchalik Panchayat, who certified that he had been engaged to collect tax from the said Panchayat. 15. In his cross-examination, CW2 replied that nothing has been mentioned in Ext. 11 that at what purpose, the tax was collected. The tax was collected every year for the purpose of running a shop. 16. From Ext. 12, it cannot be ascertained that Rs.200/-was collected from the deceased for running his saloon at Sukahuukhuri, Birbal Line. So, Ext. 12 is also not considered in this case. But it is not disputed that the deceased died in an accident on the date as stated in the claim petition. So, the income of the deceased be considered on the basis of Minimum Wages Act, fixed by the State Government as per notification dated 07.11.2020 issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Labour Welfare Department. The income of the deceased should be considered as an unskilled worker. Therefore, the wages per month is considered to be Rs.8631/-per month as per notification, as mentioned above. 17. Regarding future prospect, in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. –vs-Pooja & Ors. The income of the deceased should be considered as an unskilled worker. Therefore, the wages per month is considered to be Rs.8631/-per month as per notification, as mentioned above. 17. Regarding future prospect, in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. –vs-Pooja & Ors. in MAC Appeal No. 798/2011 dated 02.11.2017, it was held that the benefit of future prospect shall also be applicable where the income of the deceased is ascertained on the basis of minimum wages. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced as under- “The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant (insurer) is that the Constitution Bench in its decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) has laid stress on income which is established by evidence. She submitted that the benefit of future prospect, therefore, cannot apply to cases where there is no clear proof of the avocation of the victim or as to his income, particularly where the income has to be notionally assessed with the help of minimum wages. This court is not impressed with the above submissions. It may be noted here that in earlier portion of the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken note of the fact that the category of self-employed persons may include even an unskilled labourer. The court has gone by the expression ‘income’ and has not drawn a distinction between the income earned in the form of ‘salary’ or one earned by any other mode. The income may accrue as profits from business, fee or remuneration (by whatever name called) from the professional services or wages earned by services rendered, even such services as are rendered through manual labour. The standardization for purposes of factoring in the future prospects has been adopted as the fair principle to determine ‘just compensation’ taking into account various factors including not only the ‘competing attitude in the private sector to get better efficiency’ but also others such as a self-employed person garnering his resources to raise his charges/fees to life with dynamism and move and change with the time, as indeed, and more particularly, taking into account the effect of price rise or purchasing capacity having a bearing on the efforts made to enhance one’s income for sustenance. All the above consideration apply in equal measure, if not with greater force, to the marginalized sections of society dependent on minimum wages, a right which is guaranteed by the Constitution and by the law through enactments such as Minimum Wages Act, 1948. In these circumstances, it is most unfair on the part of the insurer to seek to draw a new distinction by attempting to interpret the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra) on above lines and deny to the poorest of the poor the benefit of future prospect, a factor intended to apply universally The submission of the counsel for the insurer that such benefit of future prospect be granted only if there is a proven income ignores the ground realities. If this argument were to be accepted, the marginal sections of the society who are unable to muster formal proof as to the nature of avocation or their earnings will always be denied just compensation. To illustrate the point, a rickshaw puller or a cobbler, hawker, porter or similar other daily earner) can perhaps never bring on record proof of the earnings he brings home to the family for their sustenance at the end of each working day. Such labour do not have the resources to earn sufficiently to make the two ends meet and more often than not cannot even dream of saving any money from the rainy day. They generally would not have access to a bank to collect (or invest) the savings from which they would be able to arrange proof from the authorities, should be unfortunate need arise, as to the level of their earnings.” 18. In the case in hand, the income of the deceased is considered as Rs.8631/-per month and he is entitled for future prospect. 19. According to the claimants, the deceased was around 32 years of age when the accident took place. The PAN card vide Exhibit No. 10, also proves that the age of the deceased was around 32 years at the time of accident. 20. In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors. 19. According to the claimants, the deceased was around 32 years of age when the accident took place. The PAN card vide Exhibit No. 10, also proves that the age of the deceased was around 32 years at the time of accident. 20. In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in SLP (Civil) No. 25590/2014, it was observed that while determining the income of the deceased in case of 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 40-50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50-60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. 21. In the instant case, it appears that the deceased was around 32 years of age at the time of the accident. As such, 40% should be added with his established income of Rs.8631/-. Hence, monthly income of the deceased is considered as Rs.8631/-+Rs.3452/-(40%)=Rs.12,083/- 22. As per the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC,(supra), the multiplier would be 16. 23. In the present case, it appears that the deceased had left behind his wife and two children as such, the standardized deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased is applicable as stated in the case of SarlaVerma(supra). Considering the aforesaid mandate in the instant case, one-third of the income of the deceased is required to be deducted with a presumption that had the deceased been alive, he could have spent two-third for his personal and living expenses. 24. As per SLP(Civil) No. 25590 of 2014 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs-Pranay Shethi & Ors.) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has fixed compensation in case of death reasonable figures on conventional heads namely-Loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs.15,000/-and Rs. 40,000/-respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. 25. Regarding interest, since interest @9% per annum was awarded by the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi –vs-Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ48(SC), it is held that the claimants shall be entitled to the interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 26. 25. Regarding interest, since interest @9% per annum was awarded by the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi –vs-Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ48(SC), it is held that the claimants shall be entitled to the interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 26. In view of the above discussion, the computation of compensation is awarded as follows- (a) Annual income of the deceased=Rs.12,083/-X12=1,44,996/- (b) After deducting 1/3 of the income of the deceased the amount comes to =Rs.96,664/- (c) After multiplied with multiplier the amount comes to =Rs. 96,664/-X16=15,46,624/- (d) Funeral expenses=Rs. 16,500/- (e) Spousal consortium= Rs.44,000/- (f) Loss of Estate= Rs. 16,500/- Total = Rs.16,23,624/-(Rupees Sixteen Lacs Twenty Three Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Four) only. 27. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The compensation and award is modified as described above. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. is directed to deposit Rs. 16,23,624/-to the wife of the deceased in her savings account in any nationalized bank through NEFT. The claimant No.1 is directed to furnish her bank details of any nationalized bank to the Insurance Company for necessary payment. The compensation so awarded shall carry an interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the case till full and final realization. Any amount, if paid earlier, be adjusted accordingly. 28. The insurance company is at liberty to recover the excess amount, if any. 29. Statutory amount in deposit be refunded to the Insurance Company. 30. With the above observation, the appeal stands disposed of. 31. Send down the LCR.