JUDGMENT : MARLI VANKUNG, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The instant appeal is against the judgment delivered on 23.12.2019 by the learned MACT Cachar, Silchar in MAC Case No. 978/2016, wherein the learned MAC Tribunal had awarded a compensation of Rs. 18,25,000/- with an interest @ 7% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the claimed petition i.e. 01.12.2016 till its realization in full in favour of the claimants/respondent Nos. 1-3. 3. Facts of the case in a nutshell is that on 12.09.2016, the offending Motor Cycle bearing No. AS-11G-8213 was proceeding from Kalain towards Silchar. The vehicle being driven in a rash and negligent manner at an excessive speed had knocked down the deceased, Siraj Uddin Barbhuiya who sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to his injuries while undergoing treatment as SMCH. The case was registered as Borkhola P.S. Case No. 314/2016 u/s 279/304(A) IPC. 4. The respondents claimant filed the claimed petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs. 27,84,000. The case of the claimant was that the deceased was 48 years old at the time of his death and being a fish seller earned Rs. 15,000/- per month. The respondents Insurance Company by filing their written statement held that the amount of compensation claimed was excessive and without any basis. 5. The learned MAC Tribunal had then framed the following issues: (i) Whether Late Siraj Uddin Barbhuiya, the deceased, died as a result of the motor vehicle accident occurred on 12-09-2016 at about 3:30 p.m. at Borjatrapur near Laskar Bazar under the jurisdiction of Borkhola Police Station? (ii) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the rider of the offending motorcycle bearing Registration No. AS-11G-8213? (iii) Whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation? If so, what is just and reasonable compensation and to what other relief/reliefs the claimants are entitled? (iv) By whom amongst the O.Ps the same is payable? 6. Both the parties adduced their evidence and on considering the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal decided all the issues in favour of the claimant. If so, what is just and reasonable compensation and to what other relief/reliefs the claimants are entitled? (iv) By whom amongst the O.Ps the same is payable? 6. Both the parties adduced their evidence and on considering the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal decided all the issues in favour of the claimant. The learned Tribunal however did not accept the income certificate issued y the President of Gaon Panchayat marked as Ext-7 wherein the income of the deceased being a fish seller was shown as Rs. 1500/- per month. The learned Tribunal held that the work of a fish seller must be higher than an unskilled worker and held Rs. 400 as reasonable daily income and calculated the monthly income as 400 x 30 = Rs. 12000/- Thereafter, calculated the award as follows: Annual income Rs. 1,44,000/- ¼ deducted towards personal expenses Rs. 1,08,000/- 25% is added as further prospects since the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years Rs. 1,35,000/- 13 was taken as the multiplier [1,35,000 x 13] Rs. 17,55,000/- Award under Conventional head calculated totaled = Rs. 70,000/- therefore, the total awarded amount = 17,55,000 + 70,000 = Rs. 18,25,000/- 7. The learned MAC Tribunal thus awarded a compensation of Rs. 18,25,000/- (Rupees eighteen lakhs twenty five thousand) only with an interest @ 7% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the claimed petition i.e. 01.12.2016 till its realization in full by the appellant Insurance Company in favour of the claimants/respondent Nos. 1-3. 8. Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the instant appeal he is pressing only on the quantum of the amount awarded by the learned MACT Tribunal and submitted that the learned MAC Tribunal had erred in deciding that the occupation of the deceased, as fish seller, must be higher than an Unskilled worker. And had erred in taking the income in case of a fish seller as Rs. 400/- per day and in taking the monthly income as Rs. 12,000/-. 9. And had erred in taking the income in case of a fish seller as Rs. 400/- per day and in taking the monthly income as Rs. 12,000/-. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that a person selling fish would come under the category of unskilled workmen and since there is no document to prove the income of the deceased, the notional income of the deceased, Siraj Uddin Barbhuiya should be calculated in terms of the notification dated 04.01.2016 issued by the Office of Labour Commissioner, Assam, Guwahati, wherein in the scheduled the rate of Unskilled workmen is held to be Rs. 250/- per day and therefore the earning of the deceased would be Rs. 7,500/- per month. 10. The learned counsel further submits that the learned MACT Tribunal had erred in imposing interest on future prospects wherein a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Malina Basumatary & Ors. in MAC Appeal No. 329/2017 had held that interest should not be awarded for future prospects. 11. Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the learned Tribunal had not erred in fixing the income of the deceased, Siraj Uddin Barbhuiya at Rs. 400/- per day, he further submits that the deceased being an fisherman and also a businessman selling fish, should be termed as Semi skilled instead of Unskilled and that the income fixed at Rs. 400/- per day should be considered as just and fair compensation since the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the families of the deceased victim. 12. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has cited the decision of the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa Vs. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. MANU/SC/0926/2011, Smt. Anjali & Ors. Vs. Lokendra Rathod & Ors. and Lakhi Das and Ors. Vs. Raju Sarmah and Ors. MANU/GH/0758/2013. 13. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties, this court finds that the only issue pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the quantum of the award passed by the learned Tribunal, on the grounds that the learned Tribunal had erroneously calculated the income of the deceased, Siraj Uddin Barbhuiya @ Rs. 400/- per day, wherein the notification dated 04.01.2016 issued by the Govt. 400/- per day, wherein the notification dated 04.01.2016 issued by the Govt. of Assam, Office of Labour Commissioner, Guwahati vide Notification No. ACL 43/2004/56 held that rate of wages per day for Unskilled workmen is Rs. 250/- i.e. Rs. 7,500/- per month. 14. This court finds that it is not a disputed fact that the deceased, Siraj Uddin Barbhuiya was earning his living by selling fish. From the nature of the work of the deceased, this court find it appropriate that he be categorized as an Unskilled workman and therefore since there is no valid document showing the income of the deceased Siraj Uddin Barbhuiya to be Rs. 400/- per day, this court is of the considered view that the income of the deceased, Siraj Uddin Barbhuiya should be calculated based on the Notification No. ACL 43/2004/56 dated 04.01.2016, issued by the Govt. of Assam, Office of Labour Commissioner, Guwahati wherein the rate of wages for Unskilled workmen is Rs. 250/-. 15. Accordingly, this court finds that the monthly income of the deceased should be calculated as Rs. 7,500/-. 16. Accordingly, the Judgment dated 23.12.2019 is interfered with to the extent of re-calculated the award entitled to the claimant as follows: Monthly income (Notional) Rs. 7,500/- (Plus) Future Prospect (25% of Rs. 7,5000/-) Rs. 1,875/- Total income Rs. 9,375/- (Rupees nine thousand three hundred seventy five) only (Deducted) Personal expenses (1/4th of Rs. 9,375) Rs. 2,344/- + Rs. 7,031/- Loss of dependency after Applying Multiplier (Rs. 7,031 x 12 x 13) Rs. 10,96,836/- (Plus) Conventional heads Rs. 70,000/- Total award Rs. 11,66,836/- (Rupees eleven lakhs sixty six thousand eight hundred thirty six) only Interest: 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition. 17. This court also finds that in view of a decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MAC Appeal No. 329/2017 there should be no interest payable on the future prospects which is calculated to be Rs. 1,875/-. 18. Accordingly, the judgment dated 23.12.2019 passed by the learned MACT Cachar, Silchar in MAC Case No. 978/2016,stands modified to the extend as recalculated, wherein, the awarded amount of Rs. 11,66,836/- with an interest @ 7% per annum, is to be paid to the claimants with effect from the date of filing of the claimed petition. The interest of 7% per annum shall not include the amount calculated for future prospects. 19. MAC. App. 11,66,836/- with an interest @ 7% per annum, is to be paid to the claimants with effect from the date of filing of the claimed petition. The interest of 7% per annum shall not include the amount calculated for future prospects. 19. MAC. App. No. 152 of 2020 thus stands disposed of as above.