JUDGMENT Kesang Doma Bhutia, J. - This appeal is directed against the award passed by the learned Motor accident Claims Tribunal, City Civil Court, 12th Bench in M.J.C. Case No. 428 of 2009 on 28th March 2012. The respondents being the legal heirs of the deceased victim Sabdar ali Mondal, who had lost his life in a road accident being hit by a lorry bearing Registration No.WB-25B/2581 and that took place on 02.01.2009 at about 22-30 hours in front of Chayghariya Gram Panchayat Office under Bangoan P.S. have filed the claim case under M.V.act. after considering both oral and documentary evidence adduce by the parties, the learned Motor accident Claims Tribunal fixing the monthly income of deceased at Rs. 9000/- awarded compensation of Rs. 8,01,500/- along with interest at the rate of 6 % per annum from the date of filing of the application till payment. Being aggrieved by such award the Insurance Company has come with the present appeal contending that learned Tribunal erred in law and facts in awarding excess compensation in favour of the claimants assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 9000/-when the claimants have failed to produce documents to prove the deceased had agricultural land and from where he used to earn income. The registration certificate of the Omni Bus owned by the deceased was for private use and not for commercial purpose and as such it cannot be said that deceased used to make earning from the said Omni Bus. Therefore, appellant has prayed for setting aside award passed by the Tribunal. Considering the arguments advance by the learned Counsel for the insurance company, the only issue that requires determination in the present appeal is whether the learned Tribunal below committed error in assessing the monthly income of the deceased victim at Rs 9000/-. apparently, from the judgement it is seen the learned Tribunal has observed that the claimants have failed to produce any documents relating to income of the deceased or relating to his source of income, but appears to have assessed the daily income of the deceased at Rs.300/- per day just because no contra evidence has been adduced from the side of the Insurance Company. It is settled principles of law the burden lies upon the person to prove the facts which he or she assert. It is settled principles of law the burden lies upon the person to prove the facts which he or she assert. Therefore, the burden lies upon the claimants to prove what the source of income was and what the monthly income of the deceased was at the time of his death in road accident. It is not the liability of the Insurance Company to prove the income of the deceased victim. The learned tribunal appears to have committed error in shifting the burden upon the Insurance Company to prove the income of the deceased. In the claim application the claimants have alleged that deceased had agricultural income and also used to run business and earn money from his Omni Bus. Indeed no documentary evidence whatsoever regarding the deceased having agricultural land or any trade or business have come to show that deceased during his life time he used to deal with the agricultural products from where he used to earn. It is true that deceased was owner of a private Omni Bus and not a commercial Omni Bus. Therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased used to make earning from the said private Omni Bus. Prima facie, nothing has come on record to prove the exact source of income of the deceased and what was his monthly income save and except that he was the owner of a private Omni Bus. Under such circumstances the safest method to calculate the income of the deceased is to take into consideration what was the minimum wages per day at the relevant time. In West Bengal minimum wages in respect of Highly-Skilled worker in 'a' Zone is Rs.11852/- per month as on today in 2022. For the sake of argument even if we assume the deceased was a highly skilled wage earner at the time of his death in 2009 his monthly income cannot be Rs.9000/- as assessed by the learned tribunal. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased whose source of income and actual income could not be proved by the claimants is hereby assessed at Rs.6000/- p.m. at the time of his death in 2009. No age proof document of the deceased has come on record save and except his voter card and death certificate which are not documents to prove his date of birth. No age proof document of the deceased has come on record save and except his voter card and death certificate which are not documents to prove his date of birth. However, in absence of certificate of birth, the age of the deceased appearing on his voter card and as well as in his death certificate, where his age has been recorded 53 years at the time of death is taken into consideration for selection of multiplier. That as per voter card he was 49 years old on 01.01.2006 and then he was aged about 52 years old when he died in the road accident occurred on 02.01.2009. In view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs Delhi Transport Coporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , in the present case the victim being more than 51 years old and less than 55 years old multiplier 11 is applicable. In view of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in National Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the victim who was alleged to be self-employed but which the claimants have failed to prove and he having died at the age in between 52-53 years, the claimants are entitled to get 10% on the assed monthly income towards future prospect. Further in the present case there having 4 claimants 1/4th of victim's assessed annual income is subject to deduction towards his personal expenses. In view of Pranay Sethi (supra) claimants are further entitled to get Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to get compensation as follows:- a) Monthly Income- Rs.6,000/- b) annual income- Rs.6,000 X 12= Rs.72,000/- c) Deduction towards personal expenses 1/4th of Rs.72,000 = Rs.18,000/-. Then his annual contribution towards family would be Rs.54,000/- per annum. d) Claimants are entitled to 10% of Rs.72,000 = Rs.7,200/-p.a. towards future prospects. Total annual income along with future prospects comes to Rs. 61,200/- (Rs.54,000 + Rs.7,200). Total annual income is multiplied by applicable multiplier 11 comes to Rs. 6,73,200 (Rs.61,200 X 11=Rs. 6,73,200). Claimants are entitled to loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses and which comes to Rs. 70,000/-. In total the claimants/respondents are entitled to Rs. 6,73,200 + Rs. 61,200/- (Rs.54,000 + Rs.7,200). Total annual income is multiplied by applicable multiplier 11 comes to Rs. 6,73,200 (Rs.61,200 X 11=Rs. 6,73,200). Claimants are entitled to loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses and which comes to Rs. 70,000/-. In total the claimants/respondents are entitled to Rs. 6,73,200 + Rs. 70,000 = Rs.7,43,200/- Therefore, the respondents/ claimants are entitled to get death compensation of Rs. 7,43,200/- (Seven Lakh Forty Three Thousand and Two Hundred Rupee) from the appellant along with interest @ of 6% per annum on the awarded compensation from the date of filing of the application till date of payment. accordingly, impugned order and judgment is modified. The respondents/claimants are entitled to withdraw the awarded compensation money along with interest lying in deposit with Registrar General of this High Court as per law and provided not withdrawn earlier. accordingly, FMa 1189 of 2012 is allowed. Connected application, if any, is disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands discharged. There will be no order as to costs. all parties are directed to act on a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.