JUDGMENT : SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J. 1. Both the appeals were preferred against the judgment and award dated 17th day of September 2018 passed by Learned Judge Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jalpaiguri in MAC Case No. 101 of 2016. Learned Tribunal awarded a Sum of Rs. 3,93,500/- to the claimants in response to a Motor Accident Claim Case filed by the claimants and legal heirs of a deceased u/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Tribunal while awarding the compensation has directed that the compensation has to be paid by the owner of the vehicle in question. 2. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with that award the owner of the vehicle preferred one appeal i.e. FMA No. 21 of 2022. The claimants also preferred another appeal being FMAT No. 41 of 2021 for encashment of the award. 3. As both the appeals are preferred against the same award, it is prudent to dispose of both the appeals by a common judgment. 4. During the course of argument some points are raised by the Learned Advocates and they argued at length. The points are: (i) who has the liability to pay the compensation whether Insurance Company or the owner. (ii) whether Insurance Company may be directed to pay the compensation and thereafter they may recovered the same from the owner. (iii) Whether the award is sufficient regarding the future prospects of the deceased and general damages. Point No. 1 and 2: 5. For the purpose of brevity of discussion and for just decision, both the points are taken up together. 6. Learned Advocate for the claimants submits that the Tribunal directed the owner to pay the compensation. The recovery of compensation from the owner is a lengthy process and it is not easily recoverable thus the Insurance Company may be directed to pay the award and thereafter the recovered the same from the owner. In support of his submission he cited a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanjappa and Others, 2004 ACJ 721 . 7. Learned Advocate for the Insurance Company submits that the award passed by the Learned Tribunal is crystal clear. In support of his submission he cited a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanjappa and Others, 2004 ACJ 721 . 7. Learned Advocate for the Insurance Company submits that the award passed by the Learned Tribunal is crystal clear. In passing the award the Learned Tribunal is of view that the deceased was a passenger at the offending vehicle which met an accident thus the terms of the policy was violated by the owner in carrying the passenger for which the Insurance Company cannot be liable to pay. He further argued that according to the direction of Learned Tribunal there is no hindrance to recover the award amount from the owner. 8. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the owner submits that the award passed by the Learned Tribunal is not at all proper. The owner has not violated in terms of the policy. The deceased was not a passenger to the vehicle which met an accident. He again argued that the deceased was a tea garden labour who returning home just sitting beside the driver from the tea garden after his days work. No material or evidences was abducted by the Insurance Company to show that the deceased was the gratuitous passenger over the vehicle in question. He argued that the award may be directed to be paid by the Insurance Company. 9. Heard, the Learned Advocates. In the case of Nanjappa Hon’ble Supreme Court is of view for the interest of justice it would be necessary for the insurer to pay the compensation and thereafter it may be recovered from the owner of the vehicle. 10. On a plain reading of the facts of Nanjappa case it appears that the deceased was a passenger who was riding in a goods vehicle and sustained injuries when the vehicle met the accident. In this case it is argued that the deceased was not a gratuitous passenger. In perusing the papers it appears that it was claimed in the FIR that the deceased was a tea garden labour. PW-2 during the cross examination has stated that the vehicle i.e. the tractor was belonged to a Tea Garden Company and the deceased was sitting beside the driver while it met with an accident. In perusing the papers it appears that it was claimed in the FIR that the deceased was a tea garden labour. PW-2 during the cross examination has stated that the vehicle i.e. the tractor was belonged to a Tea Garden Company and the deceased was sitting beside the driver while it met with an accident. Other evidences disclosed that the vehicle that is the tractor was used by the owner who is Principal Officer of M/s Goodwill Tea and Industries Limited. Not a single evidence was adduced or put forward before the Tribunal to show that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger who travel through the tractor. It is also not in the evidence that the offending tractor was carrying other passenger at the time of accident. Considering the circumstances it can be safely hold that the view of the Learned Tribunal considering the deceased to be a gratuitous passenger is not proper. Circumstances shows the victim may be the labour of the Tea Company who accompanied the driver to load or unload the tea products from the offending tractor. 11. Moreover, the offending vehicle was covered under the policy of the Insurance Company at the time of the accident. The policy was marker as Exhibit by the Learned Tribunal. In perusing the policy it appears that the policy is total as-Miscellaneous and Special Type of vehicles - Package Policy. 12. Considering the terms and limitation of the policy it appears that the vehicle cannot be used for carriage of passengers for hire and reward. In this particular case no evidence on behalf of the Insurance Company was produced to show that the vehicle was used for carriage of passenger in hire and reward. The written statement filed by the Insurance Company is general and omnibus; no single witness was adduced by them to show that at the relevant point of time tractors was carrying the passengers in lieu of money. 13. Considering the circumstances I am of a view that the award of compensation passed by the Learned Tribunal fixing the liability upon owner is erroneous. In absence of any particular evidence or cogent materials on record it is highly improbable to hold that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger over the vehicle in question. Thus I am of a view that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. 14. In absence of any particular evidence or cogent materials on record it is highly improbable to hold that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger over the vehicle in question. Thus I am of a view that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. 14. In that score further discussion regarding of Point, 2 appears to be unnecessary. Point No. 3 15. Learned Advocate for the claimants submitted before this court that while passing the award Learned Tribunal has not considered the view of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 ACJ 2700 . 16. He argued that the general damages and future prospects was not considered by the Learned Tribunal in paying the compensation. It is the guideline of the Hon’ble Apex Court that in all cases while the victim died in a fateful accident the future prospects as well as the general damages has to be considered. 17. Learned Advocate for the Complainant/Appellant submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case has specifically formulated the principle for granting future prospects to the deceased who was self employed or on fix salary. In this case the deceased was below the age of 40 years so addition of 50% income should be made in this case under the head of future prospects. He pointed out that the general damages should be Rs.15000/- Rs. 40000/- and Rs.15000/- on conventional heads namely loss of estate, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses respectively. Learned Advocates for the Insurance Company and the owner has consented to the ratio of Pranay Sethi’s judgment. 18. Heard, the Learned Advocate perused the citation of Pranay Sethi in Paragraph 54 the Hon’ble Apex court has held that: 54. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh. It has granted Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.1,00,000/- loss of consortium and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to Santosh Devi, it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to Santosh Devi, it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistence as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the Tribunals and Courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that 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 principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should beat the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads. 19. After going to the said Paragraph it is crystal clear that the Hon’ble Apex court has formulated the reasonable figures on conventional heads namely loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses to be Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. 20. In considering the facts and circumstances of this particular case in my view the ratio of Pranay Sethi is very much applicable in this case. Learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 9,500/- (In Total) for conventional heads; which, in any view should be enhanced according to the direction of Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi case. 21. 15,000/- respectively. 20. In considering the facts and circumstances of this particular case in my view the ratio of Pranay Sethi is very much applicable in this case. Learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 9,500/- (In Total) for conventional heads; which, in any view should be enhanced according to the direction of Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi case. 21. In Paragraph 61 (iii and iv) of Pranay Sethi, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that: (iii) while determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. (iv) 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. 22. In view of the above dictum of the Hon’ble Apex court, it appears to me that sudden and untimely death of the deceased, i.e. the sole bread earner of family, put the family in extreme financial hardship. To compensate the bereaved family the legislature has enacted the instant statute of Motor Vehicles Act, the legislature is a public beneficial legislature. The person who uses to earn an amount with his reasonable capacity and capability, working prospects must have earned more at time to time to face the escalation of price hike in the essential commodities. Thus the family of a deceased may have expectation that the deceased will have earned more time to time in future. 23. In considering the above notion in my view the ratio laid down in Pranay Sethi case regarding the assessment of future prospects is justifiable in the present facts and circumstances of this case. 24. Thus the family of a deceased may have expectation that the deceased will have earned more time to time in future. 23. In considering the above notion in my view the ratio laid down in Pranay Sethi case regarding the assessment of future prospects is justifiable in the present facts and circumstances of this case. 24. On the basis of the discussion made above it appears to me that the submission made by the Learned Advocate for the appellant has a substance in the instant appeal and the appeal is appears to be the meritorious one. 25. In considering the entire aspect the victim was below the age of 40 years at the time of accident. In view of the direction of the Hon’ble Apex court in Pranay Sethi’s case the 50% of his income would be added as future prospects. In my view the following heads would be added with the award. 26. Victim was below the age of 40 years at the time of accident thus the 50% of his yearly income would be added as future prospects: Yearly Income assessed as Rs . 36,000/- Future prospects (50%) Rs . 18,000/- Add General Damages [40,000+15,000+ 15,000] Rs . 70,000/- Less already awarded [2000+5,000+2500] Rs . 9,500/- Total Rs . 60,500/- The total amount to be added with the award: Future prospects Rs . 18,000/- General Damages Rs . 60,500/- G. Toal Rs . 78,500/- 27. It appears that learned Tribunal has directed that the award shall carry interest of 7.5% per annum from the date of filling of Court Fees. The payment of Court Fee is a procedural matter which should not be confused with the merit of the claim case. Moreover, considering the purpose of the legislature in enacting the public beneficial as legislature for payment of compensation to the poor claimant, I am of a view that the award shall carry interest of 9% per annum since the date of filing of the case. 28. Thus, both the appeals are allowed and disposed of according to the view hereinabove. 29. The award passed by the Learned Tribunal is modified and enhanced to (Rs. 3,93,500+Rs.78,500) = Rs.4,72,000/- 30. Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation to the claimants along with the interest of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case. 31. 29. The award passed by the Learned Tribunal is modified and enhanced to (Rs. 3,93,500+Rs.78,500) = Rs.4,72,000/- 30. Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation to the claimants along with the interest of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case. 31. Other directions of the Learned Tribunal regarding the mode of payment to the claimants would be unaltered. 32. Accordingly both the appeals along with connected CRAN Applications if any, is disposed of. 33. Let a copy of this Order be transmitted to the Learned Tribunal for compliance. 34. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance of all formalities, on priority basis. All parties shall act in terms of copy of this order downloaded from the official website.