JUDGMENT : Nupur Bhati, J. 1. The instant misc. appeal, seeking reduction of the awarded compensation, has been preferred by the Appellant/insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 23.02.2016 whereby the MACT, Rajasamand has awarded Rs.17,01,000/-(after rounding off the amount of Rs.17,00,615/-) to the claimants. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 03.09.2014 the deceased-Kailash Chandra was standing on a road in front of a hotel and at around 11:00 PM, a bus bearing registration no. RJ18 PA 5858(hereinafter as ‘the offending vehicle), which was driven by the respondent no.5/driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased and as a result the deceased died on spot. The claim petition(Claim Case no. 274/2014) was filed before the MACT, Rajsamand(hereinafter as ‘learned tribunal’) by the respondent no.(s) 1 to 4 claiming compensation on account of the death of the deceased. 3. The respondent no. 5 and 6 were proceeded against ex-parte. And the appellant/insurance company filed its reply to the claim petition alleged that the deceased was unemployed and his mental state was not right, and he suddenly came in front of the bus and got hit, thus, there there was no negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Further, it was alleged by the appellant/insurance company before the learned tribunal that the it is not liable to pay the compensation as the there was violation of the conditions of the policy. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties two issues were framed. And the respondent no. 1 to 4(claimants) examined two witness (AD1 and AD2) and produced 9 documentary evidences. However, no oral or documentary evidence was produced by the appellant/insurance company before the learned tribunal. 5. After hearing the parties, the learned tribunal vide judgment and order dated 23.02.2016(hereinafter as ‘impugned award’) awarded Rs.17,01,000/-(after rounding off the amount of Rs.17,00,615/-) along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of the filing of the claim petition to the claimants(respondent no. 1 to 4) and held Respondent no. 5 & 6 and appellant/insurance company jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 6. Aggrieved by the impugned award, the instant misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellant/insurance company. 7. 1 to 4) and held Respondent no. 5 & 6 and appellant/insurance company jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 6. Aggrieved by the impugned award, the instant misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellant/insurance company. 7. While admitting the instant appeal a coordinate bench of this court vide order dated 01.06.2016 stayed the execution of the impugned award qua the appellant/insurance company provided that appellant/insurance company shall deposit 70% of the awarded sum along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of the filing of the claim petition. It was further directed that upon deposition of the aforesaid 70% sum of the awarded compensation, the same was to be disbursed to the claimant in terms of the learned tribunal’s directions subject to their furnishing of an undertaking that in case the appeal filed by the appellant/insurance company is allowed, they will refund back the said amount along with interest @6% p.a.. 8. Since there is no dispute as to the factual matrix of the case, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/insurance company has challenged only the quantum of the compensation that is awarded by the learned tribunal. He submits that the tribunal has come to the conclusion that the income of the deceased has to be assessed in accordance with the Minimum Wages Notification that was prevalent at the time of the accident(i.e., 03.09.2014) considering the deceased as Semi-skilled workman, however, the learned tribunal erroneously assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5970/- per month instead of Rs.5174/- per month. He further submits that the learned tribunal has erred in awarding the future prospects @50%, which should be @40% in accordance with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi [ 2017 (16) SCC 680 ]. He also submits that the learned tribunal has erred in awarding compensation under the head of loss of consortium to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- to the wife of the deceased and Rs.2,00,000/- as lump-sum to the two sons and mother of the deceased. He further submits that the tribunal has erred in awarding Rs.25,000/- as funeral expenses. He also submits that the learned tribunal has erred in determining the rate of interest @9% p.a., and the same should be @6% p.a.. 9. Per contra, It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. He further submits that the tribunal has erred in awarding Rs.25,000/- as funeral expenses. He also submits that the learned tribunal has erred in determining the rate of interest @9% p.a., and the same should be @6% p.a.. 9. Per contra, It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 to 4(claimants), while placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ranjana Prakash v. Divl. Manager, (2011) 14 SCC 639 (paragraphs 6 to 8) and Chandra v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav, (2022) 1 SCC 198 (para 9), that even in an appeal preferred by the owner/insurer the court has to determine the just compensation looking to the facts of the case. He further submits since, no rebuttal evidence was produced by the appellant/insurance company with respect to the salary certificate(Ex.9), the learned tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.5970/- as per Minimum Wages prevalent at the time of the accident while considering the deceased as semi-skilled workman. He also submits that the learned tribunal has awarded only Rs.2,500/- under the head of loss of estate. He also submits that the contention of the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant/insurance company with respect to the rate of interest awarded cannot be sustained as this court in Kailash Kunwar and Ors. vs. Nawal Singh and Ors.[S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 746/2017, dated: 03.09.2024] has also not interfered with the rate of interest as awarded by the learned tribunal. 10. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. This court finds that in Chandra v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav, (2022) 1 SCC 198 held that in absence of proof with respect to the income of the deceased/claimant some guesswork has to be done by the court in order to assess the income of the deceased/claimant. However, this guesswork cannot be detached from the reality. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is reproduced as under : “9. It is the specific case of the claimants that the deceased was possessing heavy vehicle driving licence and was earning Rs.15,000 per month. Possessing such licence and driving of heavy vehicle on the date of accident is proved from the evidence on record. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is reproduced as under : “9. It is the specific case of the claimants that the deceased was possessing heavy vehicle driving licence and was earning Rs.15,000 per month. Possessing such licence and driving of heavy vehicle on the date of accident is proved from the evidence on record. Though the wife of the deceased has categorically deposed as AW 1 that her husband Shivpal was earning Rs.15,000 per month, same was not considered only on the ground that salary certificate was not filed. The Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased by adopting minimum wage notified for the skilled labour in the year 2016. 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. Merely because the claimants were unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of Shivpal, same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while computing the income. There is no reason to discard the oral evidence of the wife of the deceased who has deposed that late Shivpal was earning around Rs. 15,000 per month.” 12. This court also finds that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ranjana Prakash v. Divl. Manager, (2011) 14 SCC 639 has held that even in an appeal filed by the insurer/owner the court has to determine the just compensation after examining the facts and by applying relevant legal principle. However, in an appeal by owner/insurer seeking reduction in the awarded compensation, enhancement cannot be made. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is reproduced as under : “8. Where an appeal is filed challenging the quantum of compensation, irrespective of who files the appeal, the appropriate course for the High Court is to examine the facts and by applying the relevant principles, determine the just compensation. If the compensation determined by it is higher than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will allow the appeal, if it is by the claimants and dismiss the appeal, if it is by the owner/insurer. If the compensation determined by it is higher than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will allow the appeal, if it is by the claimants and dismiss the appeal, if it is by the owner/insurer. Similarly, if the compensation determined by the High Court is lesser than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will dismiss any appeal by the claimants for enhancement, but allow any appeal by the owner/insurer for reduction. The High Court cannot obviously increase the compensation in an appeal by the owner/insurer for reducing the compensation, nor can it reduce the compensation in an appeal by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.” 13. This court is of the view that admittedly the position of law as laid down in the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandra (Supra) and Ranjana Prakash (Supra) is that while assessing the income of the deceased/claimant some guesswork has to be done by the court, however, such guesswork cannot be detached from reality. However, this court finds that in the instant case the learned tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as per the Minimum Wages which was applicable at the time of the accident (03.09.2014) and as per the wages prescribed during the said period the minimum wages for an unskilled workman was Rs.5174/-(as per the Minimum wages notification dated 29.01.2015, made applicable with effect from 01.01.2014) as the salary certificate(Ex.9) of the deceased was not proved by examining the person who issued it. The relevant paragraph of the impugned award is reproduced as under : Thus, the learned tribunal has not done any guesswork while assessing the income of the deceased but in clear terms has given a finding that since, the salary certificate(Ex.9) was not proved by examining the person who has issued it, the same cannot be considered for assessing the income of the deceased and the assessment of the income should be done as per the Minimum Wages prevalent at the time of the accident(03.09.2014). Thus, the contention of the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent no. 1 to 4(claimants) with respect to the income does not have any force. However, this court finds that the learned tribunal while considering the deceased as semi-skilled workman assessed his income as per the Minimum Wages Notification(dated 29.01.2015, applicable from 01.01.2014) as Rs.5970/- instead of Rs.5174/-per month. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent no. 1 to 4(claimants) with respect to the income does not have any force. However, this court finds that the learned tribunal while considering the deceased as semi-skilled workman assessed his income as per the Minimum Wages Notification(dated 29.01.2015, applicable from 01.01.2014) as Rs.5970/- instead of Rs.5174/-per month. Thus, the finding of the learned tribunal with respect to the income of the deceased deserves to be modified as Rs.5174/- per month. 14. Further, the learned counsel appearing on behalf appellant/insurance company has also challenged the rate of interest@9% as awarded by the learned tribunal as the prevalent rate of interest at that time was 6%p.a.. However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 to 4(claimants) has objected to the same while placing reliance on the judgment of this court in Kailash Kunwar and Ors. vs. Nawal Singh and Ors.[S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 746/2017]. This court does not find any force in the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no 1 to 4(claimants) as in the said judgment this court was dealing with an appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement and moreover, there was no objection raised by the opposite party with respect to the rate of interest, therefore, the finding with respect to the rate of interest was not disturbed. Accordingly, the rate of interest also deserves to be modified as @6% p.a., which was the prevalent at the time of the accident(01.01.2014). 15. This court also finds that the learned tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- to the wife of the deceased and Rs.2,00,000/- as lump-sum to the two sons and mother of the deceased under the head of loss of consortium. And the same deserves to be modified as Rs.48,000/- each in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi [ 2017 (16) SCC 680 ]. Also, the learned tribunal has awarded future prospects @50%, however, the same deserves to be modified to @40% as per the judgment of the hon’ble court in Pranay Sethi(Supra) looking to the fact that the deceased was not in a permanent job and was below 40 years of age. Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi [ 2017 (16) SCC 680 ]. Also, the learned tribunal has awarded future prospects @50%, however, the same deserves to be modified to @40% as per the judgment of the hon’ble court in Pranay Sethi(Supra) looking to the fact that the deceased was not in a permanent job and was below 40 years of age. Further, the amount awarded by the learned tribunal under the head of funeral expense i.e., Rs.25,000/- also deserves to be modified to Rs.18,000/- in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi(Supra). This court also finds that the learned tribunal has awarded Rs.2,500/- under the head of loss of estate and Rs.3000/- as transportation charges. 16. Thus, in view of the discussion in the above paragraphs, this court is of view that the compensation as awarded by the learned tribunal deserves to be modified as under : S. No. Particulars Amount as awarded by the learned tribunal Amount as modified by this court 1. (add)Compensation towards loss of dependency while adding 40% towards Future Prospects: 5174(Minimum wages per month) + 2070 (40% future prospects) – 1811 (1/4 deduction on account of personal expenses) x 12 x 17(Multiplier) = Rs.11,08,332/- Rs.13,70,115/- Rs.11,08,332/- 2. (add)Loss of Consortium 48,000 x 4= /- Rs.3,00,000/- Rs.1,92,000/- 3. (add)Loss of Estate Rs.2,500/- Rs.18,000/- 4. (add)Funeral Expenses Rs.25,000 /- Rs.18,000/- 5. (add)Transportation charges incurred for taking body of deceased Rs.3000/- Rs.3000/- Gross Total Rs.17,01,000/- (after rounding off the amount of Rs.17,00,615/-) Rs.13,39,332/- Reduced amount (after deducting from the amount as awarded by the learned tribunal) Rs.3,61,668/- 17. Accordingly, in view of the discussion in the above paragraphs the instant misc. appeal stands partly allowed. The respondent no. 1 to 4(claimants) are thus held entitled to get compensation of Rs.13,39,332/- instead of Rs.17,01,000/- along with interest @6% p.a. instead of @9% p.a., as awarded by the learned tribunal from the date of filing of the claim petition. The impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal stands modified accordingly. The amount of compensation if any paid or disbursed shall be adjusted. 18. No order as to the cost. 19. Record be returned forthwith.