JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act hereunder) by the Insurance Company against the award dated 17.09.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Court No.3) in Case No. TS(MAC) 40 of 2018 whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of compensation of Rs.15,20,000/- along with 9% annual interest thereon to the claimants on account of death of the Nripendra Debbarma in a road traffic accident on 23.03.2018. 2. The original claimants have also filed cross objection against the said award of the tribunal seeking enhancement of the compensation. Law and facts involved in the appeal as well as in the cross objection being common, they are taken up together for disposal by a common judgment. 3. The background facts of the case are as under: Sri Ramendra Debbarma of Bharat Sardar Para of Khowai district lodged a written ejahar with the Officer-in-Charge of Khowai police station on 23.03.2018 alleging, inter alia, that at about 5.30 p.m on the day his younger brother Nripendra Debbarma was speaking to some of his neighbours in front of the house of Nirmal Debbarma on his way back home from Padmabil Bazar. At that time, the offending truck bearing registration No.TR-01-F-1696 hit Nripendra Debbarma. As a result, he was thrown off the road and he sustained fatal injuries. The speeding vehicle also hit two other women who were there. All the injured persons including Nripendra Debbarma were rescued by the local residents and they were immediately taken to Khowai District Hospital where Nripendra Debbarma was declared brought dead. The injured women were admitted in hospital for treatment. After the accident, the agitated mob set the offending vehicle on fire. 4. Based on the FIR of the brother of the deceased, Khowai P.S Case No.044 of 2018 under Sections 279, 338 and 304A IPC was registered and investigation was taken up. 5. Soon after the accident was reported to the police station, the Officer-in-charge sent the accident information report to the jurisdictional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khowai. After conducting investigation, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the accused driver of the offending vehicle namely, Litan Das for having committed offence punishable under Sections 279, 338, 337 and 304A IPC read with Section 184 M. V. Act. After conducting investigation, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the accused driver of the offending vehicle namely, Litan Das for having committed offence punishable under Sections 279, 338, 337 and 304A IPC read with Section 184 M. V. Act. In the post mortem examination report (Exbt.3) the autopsy surgeon opined as under: 'Acute trauma and brain hemorrhage and hemorrhage from multiple sites with crush injuries at pelvic region and multiple fractures and shock arising out of the injuries is the cause of death. Time since death is in between 16 to 20 hours.' 6. Smt. Tarumala Debbarma, wife of the deceased and his two sons namely, Brajil Debbarma and Raj Debbarma filed a petition under Section 166 M. V. Act at the Tribunal claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- on account of the death of Nripendra Debbarma in the said road traffic accident. The claimants asserted in their claim petition that on the date of accident deceased was 45 years' old and he had a monthly income of about Rs.25,000/- from his poultry business. 7. The owner of the offending vehicle was impleaded as respondent No.1 and Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Agartala was impleaded as respondent No.2 in the claim petition. 8. The respondents filed separate written statement. In his written statement, the owner claimed that accident occurred due to mechanical fault in the vehicle which was beyond the control of the driver. The respondent asserted that despite regular checking of the vehicle the driver did not notice such mechanical fault in the vehicle as a result of which the accident took place. He claimed that his vehicle was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the policy was alive on the date of occurrence. The respondent owner, therefore, pleaded that liability arising out of the accident for paying compensation would be borne by the insurer. 9. The Insurance Company in the written statement filed on 24.09.2019 claimed that liability of the insurer would be subject to production of valid documents of the vehicle and an operative insurance policy. The respondent Insurance Company further claimed that compensation claimed by the claimants were exorbitant and disproportionate to the income of the deceased. 10. In the course of trial Smt. Tarumala Debbarma, wife of the deceased examined herself as PW-1. The respondent Insurance Company further claimed that compensation claimed by the claimants were exorbitant and disproportionate to the income of the deceased. 10. In the course of trial Smt. Tarumala Debbarma, wife of the deceased examined herself as PW-1. Smt. Swarani Debbarma who witnessed the accident was examined as PW-2 and one Prafullya Debbarma who issued the income certificate (Exbt.11) as the Vice Chairman of Bharat Sardar Para ADC village was examined as PW-3. 11. Besides adducing the oral evidence of the witnesses the claimants also submitted the essential documents including the FIR, certified copy of the post mortem certificate of the deceased, certified copy of the charge sheet, survival certificate, birth certificate of the deceased (Exbt.5), his Aadhar card and birth certificates of the children of the deceased. The said documents were also admitted into evidence on the side of the claimants. 12. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. However, the following documents were admitted into evidence on admission on respondents' side. (i) Registration certificate of the offending vehicle; (Exbt.A) (ii) Insurance policy of the offending vehicle; (Exbt.A(ii) (iii) Pollution Certificate; (Exbt.B) (iv) Fitness Certificate; (Exbt.D) (v) Route permit; (Exbt.E) (vi) Driving licence of the accused; (Exbt.F) 13. In view of the assertions and denials of the parties appearing from their pleadings and the documents adduced on their behalf the trial Court framed the following issues in the suit: (i) Whether the claim petition filed under Section 166 M. V. Act was maintainable. (ii) Whether Nripendra Debbarma died in a road traffic accident on 23.03.2018. (iii) Whether the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. (iv) Whether the claimant petitioners were entitled to compensation and if so, what would be a reasonable and fair amount of compensation. (v) Whether the parties were entitled to any other relief. 14. It was argued on behalf of the claimants that the eye witness version proved that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Counsel appearing for the claimants also argued before the Tribunal that involvement of the vehicle in the alleged accident was proved beyond reasonable shadow of doubt because after the accident, the vehicle was detained and the agitated mob set the vehicle on fire. Counsel of the petitioner also argued that income of the deceased was proved by documentary evidence (Exbt.11). Counsel appearing for the claimants also argued before the Tribunal that involvement of the vehicle in the alleged accident was proved beyond reasonable shadow of doubt because after the accident, the vehicle was detained and the agitated mob set the vehicle on fire. Counsel of the petitioner also argued that income of the deceased was proved by documentary evidence (Exbt.11). Therefore, the claim of compensation was well founded. 15. Counsel appearing for the respondents mainly argued before the Tribunal that negligence was not proved and moreover, the claim of compensation was unreasonable and exorbitant because the income of the deceased could not proved by the claimants by adducing convincing evidence. 16. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that the claim petition was perfectly in order which was maintainable in law. The Tribunal also held that the claimant succeeded in proving the fact that Nripendra Debbarma died in a road traffic accident on 23.03.2018 and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. 17. About the income of the deceased, tribunal did not accept the claim of the petitioner that the deceased had a monthly income of Rs.25,000/-. Tribunal guessed his monthly income at Rs.9,000/- as a skilled labourer. Since he was 45 years old at the time of his death as per his birth certificate (Exbt.5), the Tribunal in terms of the Constitutional Bench Judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others; reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 made an addition of 25% of his monthly income towards future prospect and worked out his annual income at Rs.9000/- + Rs.2250/- (25% of Rs.9,000/-) x 12 =Rs.1,35,000/-. Since the deceased was 45 years of age the Tribunal in terms of the table laid down by the Apex Court in its judgment in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another: reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 applied multiplier 14 and worked out the compensation for loss of income at Rs.1,35,000 X 14 =Rs.18,90,000/-. Since the number of dependant family members of the deceased at the time of his death was three, Tribunal in terms of the law enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) deducted 1/3rd from the said amount of (Rs.18,90,000 3) Rs.6,30,000/- and after such deduction total amount of compensation payable to the claimants for loss of income came to be Rs.18,90,000 - 6,30,000 = Rs. 12,60,000/-. 18. With this amount Tribunal added Rs.30,000/- for cost of medicines and transportation, Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium for the surviving wife, Rs.25,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.50,000/- for loss of care and guidance and Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of love and affection and, as such, Tribunal assessed total amount of compensation at Rs.15,20,000/-. The following table would demonstrate the various pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads under which compensation was granted by the Tribunal. Sl. No. Heads Amount 1. Loss of income Rs.12,60,000/- 2. Cost of medicines and transportation Rs. 30,000/- 3. Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- 4. Loss of consortium for wife Rs. 40,000/- 5. Funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/- 6. Loss of care and guidance Rs. 50,000/- 7. Loss of love and affection Rs. 1,00,000/- Total: Rs.15,20,000/- On this amount, Tribunal granted interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till disbursement. 19. After the present appeal was filed, the claimant petitioners also filed a cross-objection against the impugned award which has been registered as C.O(FA) No.01 of 2022. 20. I have also heard the counsel for the parties in the cross objection. They made similar submissions. 21. In MAC App. No.43 of 2021 the appellant insurance company has challenged the impugned award mainly on the following grounds: (i) Tribunal has worked out the compensation payable to the claimants against the settled principles of law. (ii) Tribunal did not appreciate the fact that the autopsy surgeon recorded the age of the deceased as 48 years. Ignoring the opinion of the autopsy surgeon, Tribunal erroneously relied on the birth certificate of the deceased and came to the conclusion that deceased was 45 years of age at the time of his death. (iii) Tribunal did not consider the fact that the claimants could not adduce any proof with regard to the income of the deceased. Ignoring the opinion of the autopsy surgeon, Tribunal erroneously relied on the birth certificate of the deceased and came to the conclusion that deceased was 45 years of age at the time of his death. (iii) Tribunal did not consider the fact that the claimants could not adduce any proof with regard to the income of the deceased. (iv) Tribunal did not also appreciate the fact that the offending vehicle committed breach of the insurance policy by carrying passengers in violation of the permit of the vehicle. (v) Tribunal did not consider the fact that negligence which is a sine qua non in proving a claim case could not be established by the claimant petitioners. 22. The cross objection has been filed by the claimant petitioners mainly on the following grounds: (i) Tribunal arbitrarily worked out the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- ignoring the evidence of the claimant-petitioners that deceased actually used to earn Rs.25,000/- per month. (ii) Tribunal did not award any amount towards loss of consortium to the children of the deceased. (iii) Tribunal awarded lesser amount for loss of love and affection which should have been Rs.3,00,000/- in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M.H. Uma Maheshwari and others v. United India Insurance Company Limited and Another; reported in (2020) 6 SCC 400 . 23. Heard Mr. Biswanath Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Company and Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee appearing along with Mr. Bijan Saha, learned counsel for the claimant-petitioners as well as for the cross-objectors. 24. In the course of his argument, Mr. Majumder, learned counsel has contended that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is absolutely unreasonable which is not founded on evidence. Counsel contends that the claimants could not adduce any evidence in support of the income of the deceased. According to Mr. Majumder, learned counsel the Tribunal erroneously assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- without evidence. Counsel has also contended that the negligence was not proved in the case and without proving of negligence Tribunal should not have awarded any amount of compensation for the death of the deceased. It is further argued by Mr. Majumder, learned counsel of the Insurance Company that Tribunal has awarded an exorbitant amount towards interest on the amount of compensation. Counsel urges the Court to reduce the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal. It is further argued by Mr. Majumder, learned counsel of the Insurance Company that Tribunal has awarded an exorbitant amount towards interest on the amount of compensation. Counsel urges the Court to reduce the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal. Mr. Majumder, learned counsel has further contended that the compensation worked out by the Tribunal should be revisited in appeal and it should be reduced to a reasonable sum. 25. Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the claimant petitioners on the other hand urges the Court to enhance the amount of compensation for loss of love and affection from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/- in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M. H. Uma Maheshwari (supra). Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the claimant respondents who are also the cross objectors in C.O(FA) No.01 of 2022 contends that no amount of compensation has been awarded to the children of the deceased towards loss of consortium. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Somwati and other; reported in (2020) 9 SCC 644 counsel contends that the children of the deceased are entitled to parental consortium which has been denied to them by the Tribunal. Counsel therefore, urges for allowing parental consortium to the children of the deceased. 26. In so far as the claim of the claimant-cross objectors for raising the compensation for loss of love and affection is concerned, it appears that in the case of M. H. Uma Maheshwari (supra) which has been relied on by the counsel of the petitioners as well as the cross objectors, the Apex Court held that since the appellant was given compensation of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of loss of consortium she was not entitled for another one lakh for loss of love and affection. Similarly, in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Somwati (supra) which has been relied on by the counsel of the claimants-cross objectors, the Apex Court while observing that children of the deceased are entitled to parental consortium held that loss of love and affection is comprehended in loss of consortium and hence there is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head (Para-33 of the said judgment). 27. 27. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel representing the parties and perused the entire record which has been made available before this court. 28. Submission of counsel of the appellant that no negligence was proved is not acceptable because standard of proof of negligence in a motor accident claim case is different from the standard of proof required in a criminal charge of negligence. Apparently, in this case police investigation was conducted and charge sheet was also laid against the accused driver of the offending vehicle for rash and negligent driving. Moreover, PW-2, Smt. Swarani Debbarma categorically stated in her examination-in-chief that at the material time when she was standing in front of the house of Nirmal Debbarma along with the deceased and others, the offending vehicle appeared in an excessive speed and hit her and others including the deceased. As a result, all of them sustained injuries and they were taken to hospital and on the way to hospital Nripendra Debbarma died. The PW was taken to GBP Hospital at Agartala where she received treatment as an indoor patient. In her cross-examination she reaffirmed the fact that accident occurred due to rash and negligence driving of the offending vehicle. She was cross examined on behalf of the appellant Insurance Company. But her evidence could not be impeached to any extent. Therefore, the contention of the counsel of the appellant that negligence was not established by the claimants does not gain ground. The submission of the counsel of the appellant that an exorbitant amount of compensation has been awarded in the case is also devoid of merit. Obviously, the Tribunal did not entertain the claim of the claimant-petitioners that deceased used to earn Rs.25,000/- per month since the claimants could not produce any convincing proof of income of the deceased. Rather, the Tribunal guessed his monthly income at Rs.9,000/- per month. Admittedly, the deceased was 45 years old at the time of his death. His wife as PW-1 claimed that her husband was the only earning member of their family and with his earning he used to maintain his wife and two school going children. She stated that her husband had a poultry business in Padmabil Bazar. During her cross examination, except giving a suggestion to the PW denying the income of the deceased, appellant Insurance Company could not embellish her evidence to any extent. She stated that her husband had a poultry business in Padmabil Bazar. During her cross examination, except giving a suggestion to the PW denying the income of the deceased, appellant Insurance Company could not embellish her evidence to any extent. In view of such evidence, Tribunal did not commit any error in working out the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/-. It would appear that the Tribunal applied the correct multiplier and also made deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). Tribunal had also made addition towards future prospect in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) to work out the loss of income. 29. But the tribunal should have granted compensation for the loss of consortium to the children of the deceased. Moreover, Tribunal seems to have awarded compensation of a sum of Rs.25,000/- for funeral expenses. In terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), claimants will be entitled to Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses. Since the children of the deceased are entitled to loss of consortium no amount of compensation can be given to them under the head of loss of love and affection because the Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Somwati (supra) has held that 'loss of love and affection' is comprehended in 'loss of consortium' and there is no justification to award compensation towards 'loss of love and affection' as a separate head. 30. For the foregoing reasons, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reassessed by this court as under: Sl. No. Heads Amount 1. Loss of income Rs.12,60,000/- 2. Cost of medicines and transportation Rs. 30,000/- 3. Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- 4. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- 5. Loss of consortium for the wife and two children@ Rs.40,000/- per head (Rs.40,000 x 3) = Rs.1,20,000/- Rs. 1,20,000/- Total: Rs.14,40,000/- 31. In view of the given facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal. 32. 15,000/- 4. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- 5. Loss of consortium for the wife and two children@ Rs.40,000/- per head (Rs.40,000 x 3) = Rs.1,20,000/- Rs. 1,20,000/- Total: Rs.14,40,000/- 31. In view of the given facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal. 32. The appellant insurance company is directed to deposit the whole amount of compensation of the sum of Rs.14,40,000/- (rupees fourteen lakhs forty thousand) along with interest accrued thereon at the rate awarded by the Tribunal within a period of 8(eight) weeks from today. Amount already paid, if any, including statutory deposit shall be adjusted. 33. Each of the claimants shall be entitled to equal share of the compensation awarded. 75% share of each of the claimants shall be invested in term deposit for a period of five years in any nationalised bank and the monthly interest generated from such investment shall be released in favour of the claimants by depositing the same in their individual bank accounts. 25% of each of their shares shall be released in their favour by transferring the same to their individual bank account. 34. In terms of the above, the appeal and the cross objection stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.