JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. Against the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 15.3.2013, two appeals have been filed, one by the claimants [FAO (MVA) No. 143 of 2014] seeking enhancement and the other by the insurer [FAO (MVA) No. 49 of 2014] seeking to reduce the awarded compensation amount. Arising out of the same award, these appeals are taken up together for adjudication. 2. The case On 23.3.2010, one Shri Tulsi Ram was travelling in vehicle bearing Registration No. HP 63-0236. Due to rash and negligent driving of its driver, the vehicle met with an accident causing Tulsi Ram’s death. The driver of the vehicle also lost his life in the accident. Tulsi Ram’s wife-Nirmla Devi filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/-. She pleaded that Tulsi Ram was working as a skilled mason at the time of his death. He was earning Rs. 9,000/- per month at the rate of Rs. 300/- per day. He was aged about 55 years at the time of accident. Learned Tribunal held that Tulsi Ram died as a result of accident caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question. His age at the time of death was determined as 55 years. His income was ascertained at Rs. 9,000/- per month. 1/3rd from this income was deducted towards personal and living expenses of Tulsi Ram. The total contribution to the family (dependent wife) was assessed as Rs. 75,600/- per annum. Having regard to the age of deceased Tulsi Ram at the time of death, multiplier of ‘11’ was applied. Total loss of dependency was worked out as Rs. 75600 x 11 = Rs. 8,31,600/-. In addition, Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral charges, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium were also awarded to the claimant. Thus in all, compensation of Rs. 8,56,600/- was held payable to the claimant. The claimant was also held entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation amount from the date of filing of petition till the deposit of amount in the learned Tribunal. The vehicle was insured with respondent-insurer (appellant in FAO No. 49/2014). The plea of insurer that Tulsi Ram was travelling in the vehicle as gratuitous passenger was turned down by the Tribunal. The vehicle was insured with respondent-insurer (appellant in FAO No. 49/2014). The plea of insurer that Tulsi Ram was travelling in the vehicle as gratuitous passenger was turned down by the Tribunal. The driver of vehicle in question was held to be having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, hence liability to pay the compensation was fastened upon the insurer. 3. Submissions 3 (i). Learned Senior Counsel for the claimant has raised following points for enhancing the compensation:- (a) Funeral charges and loss of estate are to be granted in accordance with law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in (2017) 16 SCC 680 (National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others). (b) Loss of consortium is also required to be paid to the claimant as per the law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, and the compensation amount needs to be reworked on that basis. (c) Loss of future prospects in the income of the deceased is also required to be taken into consideration as per the law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case, supra. 3 (ii). Learned counsel for the Insurance Company (appellant in FAO No. 49/2014) contended that :- (a) The income of the deceased Tulsi Ram was incorrectly assessed by the learned Tribunal at Rs. 9,000/- per month. The assessment of the income was on the higher side and needs to be scaled down in the given facts of the case. (b) There was only one claimant, hence half (½) deduction in the income of deceased towards his personal and living expenses was required to be made instead of one-third (1/3rd) made by the learned Tribunal. (c) Higher interest at the rate of 9% per annum was awarded by the learned Tribunal, which ought to be reduced to 6% per annum. 4. For the sake of convenience, the above points are being separately discussed hereinafter :- 4(i). Income of the deceased. 4(i)(a). The claimant had pleaded that her husband was earning Rs. 300/- daily i.e. about Rs. 9,000/- per month. She also pleaded that her husband Tulsi Ram was deployed with a contractor as a skilled mason. He was working as such at the time of his death. Claimant Nirmala Devi stepped into the witness box as PW-3. She stated that her husband was working as a skilled mason and earned Rs. 300 daily. 9,000/- per month. She also pleaded that her husband Tulsi Ram was deployed with a contractor as a skilled mason. He was working as such at the time of his death. Claimant Nirmala Devi stepped into the witness box as PW-3. She stated that her husband was working as a skilled mason and earned Rs. 300 daily. At times he worked overtime, for which he was paid additionally. She denied the suggestion given to her during the course of cross-examination that her husband worked as mason only intermittently and not regularly. She denied the suggestion that her husband did not earn Rs. 300 daily. She admitted in her cross examination that she had not produced any certificate to prove her late husband’s income. 4(i)(b). One Hari Dass appeared as PW-4. He claimed himself to be a contractor and stated that previously he was a Government contractor but thereafter had been working in his private capacity. He also stated that he had engaged Tulsi Ram as skilled mason and paid him Rs. 300 per day. He also stated that Tulsi Ram also used to work overtime with him, for which he was paid additional remuneration. According to this witness, he deployed his labour, masons etc. and paid them without maintaining any formal ledgers. He also stated that he used to pay Rs. 57,000/- per month in all to his workforce i.e. five labourers and three masons. He denied filing Income Tax returns. During cross-examination by the insurer, this witness reiterated that Tulsi Ram used to work with him the whole month and for that his attendance was marked in semiformal registers maintained by him. Further that he paid his workforce in cash. 4(i)(c). The contention raised by learned counsel for the insurer is that claimants did not lead any documentary evidence to prove that deceased used to earn Rs. 300/- per day or Rs. 9,000/- per month, hence according to learned counsel for the insurer, the income of deceased should be determined as per the Notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act. The accident occurred in the year 2010. For the year 2011, Rs.150/- was notified as minimum wages for the skilled worker in the respondent-State, therefore, income of the deceased was required to be assessed at the rate of Rs. 150/- per day and not Rs. 300/- per day. The accident occurred in the year 2010. For the year 2011, Rs.150/- was notified as minimum wages for the skilled worker in the respondent-State, therefore, income of the deceased was required to be assessed at the rate of Rs. 150/- per day and not Rs. 300/- per day. In support of such contention, learned counsel for the insurer also relied upon a judgment passed by High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Misc. First Appeal No. 7404 of 2014 decided on 6.12.2022 (Mariyamma and others Vs. Suyambulingam V. and others). :- “xx xx xx 25. Further, in the case of Jakir Hussein V. Sabir, the Apex Court had an occasion to consider as to whether the minimum wages fixed can be considered as guidelines. In para 14, it was held as below: "14. We have carefully examined the facts of the case and material evidence on record in the light of the rival legal contentions urged before us by both the learned counsel on behalf of the parties to find out as to whether the appellant is entitled for further enhancement of compensation. We have perused the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and the award of the Tribunal. After careful examination of the facts and legal evidence on record, it is not in dispute that the appellant was working as a driver at the time of the accident and no doubt, he could be earning Rs 4500 per month. As per the notification issued by the State Government of Madhya Pradesh under Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, a person employed as a driver earns Rs 128 per day, however the wage rate as per the minimum wage notification is only a yardstick and not an absolute factor to be taken to determine the compensation under the future loss of income. Minimum wage, as per the State Government notification alone may at times fail to meet the requirements that are needed to maintain the basic quality of life since it is not inclusive of factors of cost of living index. Therefore, we are of the view that it would be just and reasonable to consider the appellant's daily wage at Rs 150 per day (Rs 4500 per month i.e. Rs 54,000 per annum) as he was a driver of the motor vehicle which is a skilled job. Therefore, we are of the view that it would be just and reasonable to consider the appellant's daily wage at Rs 150 per day (Rs 4500 per month i.e. Rs 54,000 per annum) as he was a driver of the motor vehicle which is a skilled job. Further, the Tribunal has wrongly determined the loss of income during the course of his treatment at Rs 51,000 for a period of one year and five months. We have to enhance the same to Rs 76,500 (Rs 4500 × 17 months)." (emphasis by us) 26. Again, in the case of Smt. Neeta and others V. Divisional Manager MSRTC Kolhapur, it was held that "minimum wages prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act, may be considered" and accordingly, the compensation was assessed by the court. 27. Further, the decision in the case of the Kala Devi and others V. Bhagwan Das Chouhan and others also lays down that the minimum wages may be considered to be the guidelines in assessing the compensation by adopting the notional income when there is no specific proof of the income. 28. In another decision in the case of Sonobanu Nazirbhai Mirza Vs. Ahmadabad Municipal Transport Service, again it was held that the minimum wages may be considered to be the guidelines in assessing the notional income. 29. In the case of Pushkar Mehra V. Brij Mohan Kushwaha and others it was held that "the minimum wages prescribed for unskilled worker could be considered for assessing the compensation to a victim of an accident". 30. In the case of Govind Yadav V. The New India Insurance Company Limited and another, again the Apex Court has reiterated the importance of the Minimum Wages Act in assessing the notional income of the deceased, who had no proof of income. 31. Further, in yet another decision in the case of Ningamma and another V United India insurance Company Limited, the Apex Court has referred to the Minimum Wages Act, in assessing the notional income of the deceased and to arrive at a just compensation when the petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 32. 31. Further, in yet another decision in the case of Ningamma and another V United India insurance Company Limited, the Apex Court has referred to the Minimum Wages Act, in assessing the notional income of the deceased and to arrive at a just compensation when the petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 32. Thus, it is evident from the above decisions that the Apex Court has shown a continuous and consistent trend that the Minimum Wages Act, provide for a source by which the notional income of the deceased, who had no valid proof of income could be assessed. It is worth to note that the Minimum Wages Act prescribed a method under which the income of a skilled, unskilled, semiskilled and skilled worker can be considered. It acts as a basis for various other purposes and even under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Therefore, the notional income of a deceased who did not have a valid proof of income can very well be guided by the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act and it is for the Tribunal to consider whether he was a skilled, unskilled, semiskilled or unskilled labourer. The range of the wages between highly skilled and unskilled labourer may have to be considered by the Tribunal while assessing the income of the deceased. The wages under the Minimum Wages Act serve as the guidance and depending on the educational, economic conditions and age, the tribunals have to consider the notional income. xx xx xx” 4(i)(d). It is true that in case the evidence adduced by the claimant concerning income of the deceased is lacking, then for determining the deceased’s income, minimum wages may be considered to be the guidelines for assessment of his notional income. However, in the instant case the evidence was not lacking. The claimant had specifically pleaded that her husband earned Rs. 300/- per day and Rs. 9,000/- per month by working as a skilled mason under a contractor. She reiterated this pleading even in her statement as PW-3. The claimant had also produced the contractor during evidence in support of her stand. This contractor while appearing in the witness box as PW-4, unequivocally admitted having engaged deceased Tulsi Ram as skilled mason. He stated that deceased was part of his workforce and he was being paid Rs. 300/- per day and Rs. The claimant had also produced the contractor during evidence in support of her stand. This contractor while appearing in the witness box as PW-4, unequivocally admitted having engaged deceased Tulsi Ram as skilled mason. He stated that deceased was part of his workforce and he was being paid Rs. 300/- per day and Rs. 9,000/- per month on that basis. In fact, the contractor also stated paying additional remuneration to the deceased for the overtime work done by him. Strangely, no suggestion was given to this contractor on behalf of Insurance Company about having not paid Rs. 300/- per day to the deceased. There is no suggestion or question put to the contractor about his alleged false deposition of paying Rs. 9,000/- per month to the deceased. At this stage, it would be relevant to consider the ratio of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in (2013) 4 SCC 97 (Laxmibai (dead) through LRs. and another vs. Bhagwantbuva (dead) through LRs and others), wherein it was held that unchallenged part of the statement of the witness is to be relied upon for the reason that it is impossible for the witness to explain or elaborate upon any doubts as regard the same, in absence of question put to him with respect to the circumstances which indicate that version of events provided by him is not to be believed and the witness is unworthy of credit. The part of the judgment relevant to the context reads as under :- “xx xx xx 40. Furthermore, there cannot be any dispute with respect to the settled legal proposition, that if a party wishes to raise any doubt as regards the correctness of the statement of a witness, the said witness must be given an opportunity to explain his statement by drawing his attention to that part of it, which has been objected to by the other party, as being untrue. Without this, it is not possible to impeach his credibility. Without this, it is not possible to impeach his credibility. Such a law has been advanced in view of the statutory provisions enshrined in Section 138 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which enable the opposite party to cross-examine a witness as regards information tendered in evidence by him during his initial examination in chief, and the scope of this provision stands enlarged by Section 146 of the Evidence Act, which permits a witness to be questioned, inter-alia, in order to test his veracity. Thereafter, the unchallenged part of his evidence is to be relied upon, for the reason that it is impossible for the witness to explain or elaborate upon any doubts as regards the same, in the absence of questions put to him with respect to the circumstances which indicate that the version of events provided by him, is not fit to be believed, and the witness himself, is unworthy of credit. Thus, if a party intends to impeach a witness, he must provide adequate opportunity to the witness in the witness box, to give a full and proper explanation. The same is essential to ensure fair play and fairness in dealing with witnesses. (See Khem Chand v. State of HP., State of U.P. v. Nahar Singh, Rajinder Pershad v. Darshana Devi and Sunil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan. xx xx xx” In the instant case, the claimant while appearing as PW-3 and employer of the deceased while appearing as PW-4 have corroborated each other’s version about the employment and income of the deceased. The contractor while appearing as PW-4 stated that deceased was working under him and he was being paid Rs. 300/- per day or Rs. 9,000/- per month. He was not cross-examined by the insurer with respect to his statement regarding monthly payment made to the deceased. The testimony of the contractor has gone unimpeached in this regard. The income of the deceased had to be determined at Rs. 9,000/- per month. The assessment of monthly income of the deceased by the learned Tribunal was, therefore, justified. The contention of learned counsel for the insurer that salary certificate of the deceased had not been filed is not sufficient to thwart the version of the claimant about deceased’s earning Rs. 9000/- per month. 9,000/- per month. The assessment of monthly income of the deceased by the learned Tribunal was, therefore, justified. The contention of learned counsel for the insurer that salary certificate of the deceased had not been filed is not sufficient to thwart the version of the claimant about deceased’s earning Rs. 9000/- per month. In this regard, it would be prudent to rely upon a decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in (2022) 1 SCC 198 Chandra alias Chanda alias Chandraram and another Vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav and others. Pleading in that case was that deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. An objection was raised that salary certificate of the deceased had not been filed. The learned Tribunal fixed monthly income of the deceased by adopting minimum wage, notified for skilled labour in the relevant year. Hon’ble Apex Court held that in absence of salary certificate the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased. In absence of documentary evidence on record some amount of guesswork is required to be done but at the same time the guesswork for assessing the income of the deceased should not be totally detached from reality. The claimants were unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of the deceased, the same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while computing the income. Hon’ble Apex Court also held that there was no reason in the given facts of the case to discard the oral evidence of the wife of the deceased who had deposed that her husband was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. In the given facts of the instant case, the pleadings & evidence on record, learned Tribunal correctly determined the income of the deceased as Rs. 9,000/- per month. Point is answered accordingly. 4(ii). Deduction on account of personal expenses According to learned counsel for the insurer, the deceased had one dependent i.e. his wife, therefore, (half) ½ of his assessed income was to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses, whereas according to learned counsel for the claimant, deduction to work out dependency had to be only one-third (1/3rd). Some reference to the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court is essential. In (2009) 6 SCC 121 [Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Vs. Some reference to the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court is essential. In (2009) 6 SCC 121 [Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another], it was held that where the deceased was married, deduction towards his personal and living expenses should be one-third (1/3rd) and half (½) of the income if he was bachelor. Where the number of dependent family members of married deceased is between 2 and 3, deduction from the income will remain one-third (1/3rd), one fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is between 4 and 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six. The relevant paragraphs from Sarla Verma’s case (supra) read as under: xx xx xx 25. We have already noticed that the personal and living expenses of the deceased should be deducted from the income, to arrive at the contribution to the dependents. No evidence need be led to show the actual expenses of the deceased. In fact, any evidence in that behalf will be wholly unverifiable and likely to be unreliable. Claimants will obviously tend to claim that the deceased was very frugal and did not have any expensive habits and was spending virtually the entire income on the family. In some cases, it may be so. No claimant would admit that the deceased was a spendthrift, even if he was one. 26. It is also very difficult for the respondents in a claim petition to produce evidence to show that the deceased was spending a considerable part of the income on himself or that he was contributing only a small part of the income on his family. Therefore, it became necessary to standardize the deductions to be made under the head of personal and living expenses of the deceased. This lead to the practice of deducting towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, one third of the income if the deceased was a married, and one-half (50%) of the income if the deceased was a bachelor. This practice was evolved out of experience, logic and convenience. In fact one-third deduction, got statutory recognition under Second Schedule to the Act, in respect of claims under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the MV Act”, for short). But, such percentage of deduction is not an inflexible rule and offers merely a guideline. 30. This practice was evolved out of experience, logic and convenience. In fact one-third deduction, got statutory recognition under Second Schedule to the Act, in respect of claims under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the MV Act”, for short). But, such percentage of deduction is not an inflexible rule and offers merely a guideline. 30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceed six. 31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependent and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. 32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependent, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. 32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependent, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third. xx xx xx” The above view was affirmed in 2017 (16) SCC 680 (National Insurance Corporation Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others) and also in the decision dated 06.12.2022 rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.9014 of 2022 (Smt. Anjali & Ors. Vs. Lokendra Rathod & Ors). It is thus evident that if the deceased was married, deduction towards his personal and living expenses should be one-third (1/3rd). Deduction would remain the same in case of married deceased, where the number of dependent family members is between 2 to 3. The deduction will be one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is between 4 to 6. The deduction will be one-fifth (1/5th) in case dependent family members exceeds 6. In the instant case deceased was married and was survived by his wife, therefore, deduction towards personal and living expenses will be one-third (1/3rd) and not one-half (½), as contended by learned counsel for the insurer. The point is answered accordingly. 4(iii). Future Prospects: Concerning loss of future prospects in income of deceased, following conclusion was drawn in Pranay Sethi’s case supra:- “xx xx xx 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. xx xx xx” In view of above and considering age of the decease, 10% increase in his assessed income is liable to be given for future prospects. 4(iv)(a). The established income means the income minus the tax component. xx xx xx” In view of above and considering age of the decease, 10% increase in his assessed income is liable to be given for future prospects. 4(iv)(a). Funeral expenses and loss of estate. Learned counsel on both sides are ad idem that compensation towards funeral expenses and loss of estate is required to be awarded in light of law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case, supra. Hence, it will be appropriate to extract following relevant part from the judgment:- “xx xx xx 59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. xx xx xx” In view of above, the claimant is held entitled to Rs. 15,000/- + Rs. 15,000/- = Rs. 30,000/- + 3,000 = 33,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses with 10% increase in every three years. Points are answered accordingly. 4(iv)(b). Loss of consortium Both sides are ad idem that in accordance with law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, claimant is entitled to Rs. 40,000/- + Rs. 4,000/- (10% increase with passage of number of years) = Rs. 44,000/- towards loss of consortium. Point is answered accordingly. 4(v). Rate of Interest: In view of above, considering the age of the deceased, 10% of the assessed income was required to be added towards future prospects. Point is answered accordingly. Learned counsel for the insurer has contended that 9% rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the higher side and needs to be reduced to 6% per annum, whereas learned counsel for the claimant has submitted that award of interest at the rate of 9% per annum is just and proper in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act pertains to award of interest where any claim is allowed. The Section reads as under: “171. Award of interest where any claim is allowed. Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act pertains to award of interest where any claim is allowed. The Section reads as under: “171. Award of interest where any claim is allowed. - Where any Claims Tribunal allows a claim for compensation made under this Act, such Tribunal may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as it may specify in this behalf.” In 2003 (1) SCR 1229 ( Abati Bezbaruah vs. Director General, Geological Survey of India and anr.), it was held that the question as to what should be the rate of interest would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Award of interest would normally depend upon the bank rate prevailing at the relevant time. After referring to its previous authoritative pronouncements interest at the rate of 9% was awarded in the said case. In AIR 2005 SC 2985 , (Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. vs. S. Rajapriya Manu) taking note of the then prevailing rate of interest on bank deposits 9% interest per annum fixed by the learned Tribunal was altered to 7.5% per annum. While deciding FAO No.472 of 2012 (National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Darshana Devi & Others) a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held as under regarding awarding rate of interest. “8. Learned counsel for claimants has referred judgment of the Apex court in case Puttamma and others vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another 2014 ACJ 526 , wherein it has been held that awarding of rate of interest is option for Tribunals and Courts after taking into consideration the rate of interest allowed by the Apex Court in similar cases and other factors such as inflation, change in economy, policy adopted by Reserve Bank of India from time to time and period since when the case is pending and thus, it is contended that rate of interest in banks is not sole criteria for determining the rate of interest to be awarded by the MACT. Learned counsel has also referred the judgments of the Apex Court rendered in Neerupam Mohan Mathur vs. New India Assurance Co. Learned counsel has also referred the judgments of the Apex Court rendered in Neerupam Mohan Mathur vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2013 ACJ 2122 (SC), Jiju Kuruvila and others vs. Kunjujamma Mohan and others 2013 ACJ 2141 (SC) and Puttamma and others vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another 2014 ACJ 526 (SC) wherein interest at the rate of 12% for accidents occurred in 1987, 1990 and 1999 has been awarded. Based on these pronouncements, grant of interest at the rate of 12% per annum has been pleaded. The Apex Court in V. Mekala vs. M. Malathi and another reported in 2014 ACJ 1441 and Anjani Singh and others vs. Salauddin and others reported in 2014 ACJ 1565 has awarded interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of petition. In present case accident had occurred in the year 2008. Petition was filed in the year 2009 and was decided on 30.6.2012. Where after present appeal has been preferred by appellant Insurance Company and now we are in 2017. Keeping in view submissions of learned counsel for parties and case law referred by them and also the time span from date of accident till date, I am of considered view that rate of interest awarded by the MACT does not warrant any interference.” In the instant case accident had occurred in the year 2010. The award was announced on 15.03.2013 and we are now in the year 2023. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, award of interest at the rate of 9% per annum by the learned Tribunal does not require any interference. 5. In view of above discussion, payable compensation is worked out as under:- Income taken Rs.9,000/- P.M. Future Prospects (in terms of para 59.4 of judgment rendered in Pranay Sethi’s case) Rs. 900/- Total Income Rs.9,900/- 1/3rd deduction towards living expenses. 9900 – 3300 = 6600/- Annual Dependency 6600 x 12= 79,200/- Multiplier of 11 79,200 x11= 8,71,200/- Loss of consortium 44,000/- Loss of estate and funeral expenses 33,000/- Total compensation Rs.9,48,200/- 6. No other point was urged. 7. In view of above, FAO No.143/2014 is allowed to the extent indicated above. FAO No.49/2014 is dismissed. The impugned award passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Shimla, H.P. in case titled as Smt. Nirmla Devi Vs. Sh. No other point was urged. 7. In view of above, FAO No.143/2014 is allowed to the extent indicated above. FAO No.49/2014 is dismissed. The impugned award passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Shimla, H.P. in case titled as Smt. Nirmla Devi Vs. Sh. Kuldeep Kumar and another dated 15.03.2013 is modified to the extent indicated above. The remaining terms and conditions of the impugned award including the interest component shall remain the same. The appeals stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.