JUDGMENT 1. This appeal by the insurance company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the award dated 29.01.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sipahijala District, Bishalgarh in TS(MAC) 182 of 2016 whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.12,86,600/- in favour of claimant-respondent, Smt. Shanti alias Santi Bala Nama for the death of her 23 years' old son Narayan Nama in a road traffic accident which occurred at Batanmura, Bishalgarh on 04.08.2013. 2. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the tribunal alleging that on 04.08.2013 at about 9.30 p.m when her son Narayan was riding a motor bike bearing registration No. TR01-M-8927 (Hero Honda CBZ) from Sikuria Bazar to the house of the claimant, the vehicle met with an accident at Batanmura and as a result of the injuries sustained by him, he expired in G.B.P and AGMC Hospital at Agartala after few hours. 3. On 30.08.2013 the claimant mother of the deceased filed a written FIR with the Officer-in-Charge of Bishalgarh police station alleging, inter alia, that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motor bike on which his son was travelling from Sikuria Bazar to his house at Karaimura. Based on her FIR, BLG P.S Case No.188 of 2013 under Section 279/304A IPC was registered and after investigation police submitted charge sheet against Ajit Das for offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A IPC for driving the offending motor bike rashly and negligently. 4. By filing written statement, at the claims tribunal, respondent No.2, the owner of the offending motor bike admitted the accident. But he denied that the accident took take place due to rash and negligent driving of the motor bike. He claimed that the documents of the vehicle were operative on the date of accident and asserted that since the vehicle was insured with the appellant insurance company and the policy was operative, the liabilities arising from the accident would be borne by the insurance company. 5. The appellant insurance company by filing separate written statement at the Tribunal claimed that the claim petition was filed in collusion with the owner of the offending motor bike to facilitate payment of compensation and cause loss to the insurance company. 5. The appellant insurance company by filing separate written statement at the Tribunal claimed that the claim petition was filed in collusion with the owner of the offending motor bike to facilitate payment of compensation and cause loss to the insurance company. It was pleaded by the appellant insurance company that the insurance company was not liable to pay any compensation in the instant case and moreover, the claimant sought for an exorbitant amount of compensation. The insurance company therefore, urged for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. The Tribunal, in the course of trial framed the following issues for determination: (i) Whether deceased Narayan Nama sustained injuries in a vehicular accident on 04.08.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of TR-01-M-8927 (Hero Honda CBZ) and succumbed to the injuries in hospital? (ii) Whether the claimant was entitled to any compensation for the death of her son and if so what should be the amount of compensation and who would be held liable to pay such compensation? In order to establish her claim, claimant examined herself as PW-1 and submitted copy of the FIR ( Exbt.1), copy of the seizure list (Exbt.2), post mortem examination report of her son(Exbt.3) and the charge sheet(Exbt.4). 7. On the other side, Mihir Debnath, owner of the offending motor bike examined himself as OPW-1. He submitted driving licence (Exbt.-1) of Ajit Das who was driving the motor vehicle at the time of accident, insurance policy(Exbt.-B), registration certificate(Exbt.-C) and the tax token of the offending vehicle(Exbt.-D). 8. On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending motor bike on 04.08.2013 as a result of which son of the claimant received fetal injuries and succumbed to such injuries in hospital on the same day. Tribunal thus answered the first issue in the affirmative in favour of the claimant. 9. While dwelling on the second issue, Tribunal proceeded to assess the compensation payable to the claimant mother of the deceased. Since there was no proof of income, Tribunal resorted to guess work. Daily wages of the deceased was worked out at Rs.400/- which was multiplied by 20 assuming that the deceased, a Mason, would not get work more than 20 days in a month. Tribunal thus worked out his monthly income at Rs.8,000/-. Since there was no proof of income, Tribunal resorted to guess work. Daily wages of the deceased was worked out at Rs.400/- which was multiplied by 20 assuming that the deceased, a Mason, would not get work more than 20 days in a month. Tribunal thus worked out his monthly income at Rs.8,000/-. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others: reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 Tribunal made an addition of 40% of the said income towards future prospect. Since the deceased was a self employed person and he was below the age of 40 years by such addition of 40% his monthly income was worked out at Rs.11,200/- (Rs.8000 + Rs.3200 (40% of Rs.8,000). To determine the loss of dependency, the Tribunal in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another: reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 deducted 50% of the said amount towards personal and living expenses of the deceased since he was a bachelor at the time of the accident and the loss of dependency was worked out to be Rs.11,200 - Rs.5600(50% of Rs.11,200/-) = Rs.5600/-. Thus the annual loss of dependency came to be Rs.5600 x 12 = Rs.67,200/-. Tribunal then applied multiplier of 18 in terms of the schedule laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). By applying the said multiplier total loss of dependency was worked out at Rs.67,200 x 18 = Rs.12,09,600/-. For loss of estate, Tribunal awarded Rs.16,500/- and for funeral expenses Tribunal awarded Rs.16500/-. For loss of filial consortium Rs.44,000/- was awarded to the claimant mother and as such total compensation awarded by the Tribunal was as under: Sl. No. Heads Amount 01. For Loss of dependency Rs.12,09,600/- 02. Funeral expenses Rs. 16,500/- 03. Loss of estate Rs. 16,500/- 04. Filial consortium Rs. 44,000/- Total : Rs.12,86,600/- On the said amount Tribunal awarded simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 10. With regard to the liability in payment of compensation, the Tribunal held that the accused driver of the offending motor bike had a valid driving licence which was operative on the date of accident. 16,500/- 04. Filial consortium Rs. 44,000/- Total : Rs.12,86,600/- On the said amount Tribunal awarded simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 10. With regard to the liability in payment of compensation, the Tribunal held that the accused driver of the offending motor bike had a valid driving licence which was operative on the date of accident. Similarly, Tribunal held that the vehicle was under insurance coverage and the insurance policy issued by the appellant insurance company was alive on the date of accident. Tribunal also held that even the police investigation revealed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. Tribunal therefore, held the insurance company liable to pay compensation arising out of the said accident in terms of the insurance policy (Exbt.B) and directed the insurance company to pay the whole amount of compensation along with 6% annual interest thereon from the date of filing of the claim petition till disbursement. 11. Regarding the mode of payment Tribunal directed that on realization of compensation, 30% of the same would be disbursed in favour of the claimant and rest would be invested in a term deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of 10 years with a provision of monthly interest and the monthly interest generated from the said investment would be disbursed in favour of the claimant by depositing the same in her savings bank account. 12. Heard Mr. A. K. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company who submits that the claimant lodged the FIR about a month after the date of occurrence. Counsel contends that in her FIR he suppressed the name of the actual person who was driving the offending bike at the time of accident. Counsel also contended that the accident actually occurred due to contributory negligence of the deceased and, therefore, the insurance company could not be held liable for paying compensation. Mr. Deb, learned Counsel of the insurance company also contended that there was a clear breach of the insurance policy because the driver was not authorized to drive a motor bike. Counsel has contended that the award of the Tribunal is completely erroneous which is liable to be set aside. 13. Mr. Saugat Datta, learned advocate representing the claimant along with Ms. Counsel has contended that the award of the Tribunal is completely erroneous which is liable to be set aside. 13. Mr. Saugat Datta, learned advocate representing the claimant along with Ms. S. Nandy, learned advocate has contended that the award is founded on sound evidence and reasoning and, therefore, it does not call for any interference in appeal. 14. Having perused the evidence available on record and having appreciated the submissions made at the bar, this court is of the view that the Tribunal has worked out the compensation payable to the claimant following the settled principles laid down in this regard. Claim of the insurance company that there was breach of the insurance policy is not acceptable because the insurance company despite having opportunity could not lead any evidence to establish such plea. Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal and, accordingly, the same stands dismissed. The insurance company is directed to deposit the whole amount of compensation within a period of six weeks from today with the Registry of this Court. The amount already deposited be deducted therefrom and on deposit of the whole amount of compensation, the Registry shall release 30% of the amount to the claimant petitioner by transferring the same to her individual bank account on verification of her identity. Rest of the amount shall be invested in a term deposit in any nationalized bank in the name of the claimant for a period of five years with a provision of monthly income. The monthly income generated from such investment shall be transferred to the individual bank account of the claimant for meeting her day to day expenses. 15. In terms of the above, the appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Send down the L.C record.