JUDGMENT : PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Both aforesaid miscellaneous appeals are arising out of the common award dated 31.10.2017 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Ranchi in Motor Accident Claim case No. 158 of 2014, as such both are taken together for hearing and adjudication. 3. The appellants of Miscellaneous Appeal i.e. M.A. No.52 of 2018 happens to be claimants before the learned Tribunal who have challenged the impugned award for enhancement of compensation amount in view of the facts that 40% of monthly income of the deceased has not been added to the future prospect while computing the compensation amount. 4. Miscellaneous Appeal No.83 of 2018 has been filed by the Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited (Insurer of offending vehicle bearing Registration No.RJ-04GA-4500 especially on the following grounds: (i) There was head on collision between two vehicles in this case and the deceased was also driving rashly and negligently his swift car bearing Reg. No. BR-01AL-0238, therefore, the case comes within the ambit of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T.O. Anthony Vs. Karvarnan and Ors. reported in (2008) 3 SCC 748 . (ii) admittedly, the deceased was unemployed on the date of accident hence, taking into account the earlier income of the deceased from another job has wrongly been taken into account by the learned Tribunal fixing the income of the deceased of Rs.8,76,964/- (iii) Charge of interest @ 9 % is exorbitant. (iv) The D.L. of drier of offending vehicle has been proved to be fake and never issued, hence, insurance company is absolutely absolved from liability to indemnify the insured. FACTUAL MATRIX 5. Factual matrix of the case is that on 23.07.2012, the deceased namely Rajesh Kumar Sharma proceeded from his house at Ranchi to go to Purnea (Bihar) by his Maruti Swift car bearing Reg. No. BR-01AL-0238 and reached near Magahar village under Barachatti police station limits in Gaya District of Bihar at about 11:30 pm, meanwhile a truck bearing Reg. No. RJ-04GA-4500 being driven very rashly and negligently by its driver dashed into the said swift car resulting in death of Rajesh Kumar Sharma. In this regard, Barachatti P.S. Case No.338 of 2012 dated 24.07.2012 was registered for the offence under Sections 279, 304A and 427 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown driver of the said truck bearing Reg. No. RJ-04GA-4500 being driven very rashly and negligently by its driver dashed into the said swift car resulting in death of Rajesh Kumar Sharma. In this regard, Barachatti P.S. Case No.338 of 2012 dated 24.07.2012 was registered for the offence under Sections 279, 304A and 427 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown driver of the said truck bearing Reg. No.RJ-04GA-4500. After conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against one Dilsad Khan, the driver of the offending vehicle for the aforesaid offence (Ext-2). The post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased was conducted at A.N. Medical College, Gaya and the post-mortem report was submitted on 24.07.2012 (Ext.-3). The offending vehicle bearing Reg. No.RJ-04GA-4500 was insured with O.P. No.2 under policy no.2012-V1731154-FCV w.e.f 30.03.2012 to midnight of 29.03.2013. The wife, sons and mother of the deceased have filed the above claim case under section 166 of M.V. Act, 1988 stating inter alia that the age of the deceased was 39 years and he was earning about Rs.67,000/-per month from his salary as he was highly educated person having M.B.A. decree and working in different companies since 2001. On the date of accident also the deceased was going to join his new post as Branch Manager in G.P.S. Financial Services, Purnea (a certified corporate agent of SBI Life Insurance) with a handsome salary approx of Rs.8 lakhs per annum. The deceased was only earning member of his family and the claimants have lost monetary support and guardianship and the children became orphan. 6. In spite of valid service of summons, the owner of the offending truck bearing Reg. No.RJ-04GA-4500 namely Hanuman Ram Bishnoi did not turn up before the learned Tribunal and the case was proceeded for ex-party hearing vide order dated 19.05.2015. No appeal has been filed by the said owner challenging the impugned award. 7. The present appellant of M.A. No.83 of 2018 (opposite party No.2 in M.A. No.52 of 2018) appeared and filed its written statement before the learned Tribunal denying the factum of the occurrence but pleaded additionally that as per FIR, it is a case of head on collision between two vehicles and the alleged accident occurred due to contributory negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles involved in this accident but the applicants have not impleaded the insurer of Swift Car bearing Reg. No.BR-01AL-0238. No.BR-01AL-0238. It was also pleaded that the applicants should be directed to produce and prove road permit, valid license, fitness certificate registration and other relevant papers and documents and in case of violation of statutory condition as contemplated under section 149 of the M.V. Act, 1988., the opposite party will not be liable to indemnify the insured/owner. The income of the deceased was also denied which requires to be strictly proved by the claimants. 8. On the basis of pleadings of the both parties following issues were settled for adjudication: I.Whether the claim application as filed is maintainable? II. Whether applicants have valid cause of action for the case? III. Whether death of the deceased namely Rajesh Kumar Sharma resulted to the alleged vehicular accident caused due to driving the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.RJ-04GA-4500 rashly and negligently? IV. Whether it is case of composite negligence of the deceased involving Maruti swift Car in the accident, if yes to what extent? V. Whether the insured/owner of the offending vehicle Truck Registration No.RJ-04GA-4500 has violated terms and conditions of the Insurance policy? VI. Whether applicants are entitled for compensation as claimed, if yes, against whom and to what extent? VII. To what relief or reliefs, if any, the claimants are entitled to? 9. Learned Tribunal has taken issue Nos.3 and 4 together for adjudication and also considering the oral as well as documentary evidence arrived at conclusion that the deceased died in vehicular accident due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing Reg. No.RJ-04GA-4500 by its driver. There was no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Accordingly, both the above issues were decided in favour of the applicants and against the opposite party No.2. 10. As regards, issue No.5, it was held that admittedly the offending vehicle truck bearing Reg. No.RJ-04GA-4500 was registered in the name of Hanuman Ram Bishnoi (opposite party No.1) and it was insured at the relevant time of accident under valid insurance policy with opposite party No.2-Future Generali India Corporation Limited. It was further observed that the driver Dilsad Khan of offending vehicle was alleged to have possessing the driving license vide D.L. No.6428/97, Ranchi professional to Drive LMV/HMV renewed up to 30.07.2012 (Ext.6). The said Ext. It was further observed that the driver Dilsad Khan of offending vehicle was alleged to have possessing the driving license vide D.L. No.6428/97, Ranchi professional to Drive LMV/HMV renewed up to 30.07.2012 (Ext.6). The said Ext. 6 was verified by the opposite party No.2 (Insurance Company) from the concerned DTO Officer and in this regard O.P.W. 1 Lalan Prasad Singh, the clerk in DTO Office, Ranchi and O.P.W. No.2 Amar Kumar, Assistant Manager, Legal Claims (Generali Insurance Corp. Ltd.) have been examined. It is observed by learned Tribunal that both the professional and private driving license register regarding license No.6428/97 were produced before the learned Tribunal for examination and marked as Ext. A/1 and A 2. It was found that license No.6428/97, private was issued in the name of Praveen Kumar Jain (Ext.A/1) and driving license No.6428/97 professional has been issued in the name of Amit Kumar Chik Baraik (Ext.A/2) and no license has been issued in the name of Dilsad Khan, charge-sheeted driver in this case. Therefore, the alleged driving license which was produced in this case bearing D.L. No.6428/97 professional marked as Ext.-6 is forged and fabricated document. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal arrived at conclusion that on the date of accident, driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving license to ply the vehicle on public place. As such the insured has violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. 11. As regards issue No.6, the learned Tribunal found the age of deceased to be 39 years on the date of accident and considering his Income Tax Returns for assessment year 2009/10, 2010/11, 2011/12 and 2012/13, pay slip for the month January, 2012 issued from the Tata Life Insurance (Ext. 8, 8a, 8b and 8c respectively) and also offer letter of joining in GPS Finance Service, salary slip etc., (Ext-10, 11, 11/a and 11/b), and also taking into consideration the oral evidence of the witnesses, learned Tribunal has arrived at conclusion that the annual income of the deceased minus the income tax comes to Rs.8,76,964/-per annum. The learned Tribunal applying the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (smt) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport and Anr. The learned Tribunal applying the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (smt) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 deducted 1/4th of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased and available multiplier of 15 calculated the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.98,65,845/-as loss of the dependency and beside this general damages have also been provided as Rs.25,000/-towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/-; under the head of loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/-for loss of estate, as such total amount of compensation was calculated to the tune of Rs.99,10,845/-and also directed the payment @ 9 % interest on the awarded amount from the date of admission of claim application i.e. 24.06.2014. 12. From respective submissions of learned counsel for both parties following points emerged for adjudication of appeal:- (i) whether there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in the happening of the accident? (ii) Whether calculation/assessment of compensation amount and interest awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and reasonable or requires any modification? (iii) whether the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal regarding violation of terms and conditions of policy and right of recovery of awarded amount from the owner of the vehicle are justified under law? ANALYSIS, DECISIONS AND REASONS 13. Point No.1-This point corresponds to issue No.4 settled by the learned Tribunal for adjudication. The appellant has assailed the findings on issue No.4 on the ground that as per evidence of eye-witness A.W. 2 Akhilesh Kumar Mahata, who has been examined as an eyewitness of the accident, there was head on collision between two vehicles therefore, contributory negligence on the part of the deceased may also be presumed in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.O. Anthony Vs. Karvarnan (supra) wherein it was observed as under at para 8:- “8. It is not in dispute that the mahazar, Ext. P-2 showed that the accident spot was at a distance of 2.26 metres from the southern edge of the tarred road and 4.79 metres from the northern edge of the tarred road. Karvarnan (supra) wherein it was observed as under at para 8:- “8. It is not in dispute that the mahazar, Ext. P-2 showed that the accident spot was at a distance of 2.26 metres from the southern edge of the tarred road and 4.79 metres from the northern edge of the tarred road. If the appellant was proceeding from Palakkad to Trichur (from east to west) and the accident occurred at a distance of 2.2 metres from the southern edge of the road and 4.79 metres from the northern edge of the road, the inference is that the appellant was on the right side of the road and the private bus came partly to the wrong side of the road. But the fact that there was a head-on collision could not be ignored. The evidence shows that the appellant was not diligent, as he neither slowed down the bus nor swerved to his left, on seeing the oncoming bus. On the facts and circumstances we are of the view that the appellant was also partly responsible for the accident and we fix the responsibility at 25% on the appellant and 75% on the first respondent.” 14. The above plea of the appellant cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the factual background under which the accident took place in the case of T.O. Anthony (supra), where the appellant was on right side of the road, the private bus came partly to the wrong side of the road. The evidence led in that case also shows that the appellant was not diligent, as he neither slowed down the bus nor swerved to his left on seeing the bus, hence on the facts and circumstances, the appellant was also held responsible 25 % in the happening of the accident. But in the instant case, no evidence has been brought on record either by examining the Investigating Officer of the criminal case lodged in connection with this accident or any site plan or the manner under which the accident took place. The eye-witness A.W. 2 is consistent in his testimony to the extent that the said accident took place wholly due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck bearing Reg. No.RJ-04GA-4500 and in the charge-sheet, there is no whisper about the negligent driving on the part of the deceased driver of the Swift Car. The eye-witness A.W. 2 is consistent in his testimony to the extent that the said accident took place wholly due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck bearing Reg. No.RJ-04GA-4500 and in the charge-sheet, there is no whisper about the negligent driving on the part of the deceased driver of the Swift Car. It is also trite that there is no presumption of law about contributory negligence merely on the ground of head on collision. There may be circumstances wherein the vehicle came from the opposite direction may collide due to driving of wrong side in a sudden manner. 15. In view of the above discussions and reasons, I do not find any legal substance in the plea raised by the appellant-Insurance Company about the contributory negligence of the deceased rather the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal does not require any interference. Accordingly, this point is decided against the appellant-Insurance Company. 16. Point No.2-The claimant/appellant in M.A. No.52 of 2018 has assailed the impugned award of compensation to be inadequate based on non-consideration of every aspect and guidelines propounded by the Apex Court for calculation of the compensation amount particularly future prospect in this case. 17. On the other hand, the Insurance Company (appellant in M.A. No.83 of 2018) has controverted the assessment of compensation amount on the following grounds: (i) Admittedly, the deceased was not in any job on the date of occurrence rather he was possessing a mere joining letter. (ii) Learned Tribunal has wrongly placed reliance upon the income of the deceased through his earlier employment in Tata AIG Genrali Insurance Company Limited till January, 2012 and thereafter in Birla Sun Life Insurance from 20.02.2012 till 18.06.2012. 18. The true facts is that offer letter dated 22.06.2012 for appointment of the deceased at the salary of Rs.7,97,592/-per annum issued by the GPS Financial Services, where he has not joined and died on 23.07.2012. The reliance has been placed upon the reported judgment in the case of Meena Pawaia and Ors. v. Ashraf Ali and Ors. reported in (2021) 17 SCC 148 , wherein it was held that in case, the deceased was not employed on the date of accident, the amount about to be determined by guess work. The reliance has been placed upon the reported judgment in the case of Meena Pawaia and Ors. v. Ashraf Ali and Ors. reported in (2021) 17 SCC 148 , wherein it was held that in case, the deceased was not employed on the date of accident, the amount about to be determined by guess work. The Hon’ble Supreme Court took income of Rs.10,000/-per month of the deceased in the year 2012, as such taking of income on the basis of previous year of income tax return was not tenable and income of Rs.10,000/-per month of the deceased ought to have been taken. 19. The award of interest @ 9 % per annum is also exorbitant which should be @ 7.5 % per annum generally awarded by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal. Reliance has been placed upon in reported judgment in the case of Dharampal and Ors. vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation reported in 2008 12 SCC 208 20. The assessment of just and reasonable amount of compensation is bounden duty of the learned Tribunal. It is not a bonanza to the claimants on account of accidental death arising out of use of motor vehicle of his kith and kin but endeavor should be to put the bereaved family in the same position as if the deceased has not died. So far monetary assistance is concerned in strict sense, there may be no valuation of the life of the person. In the instant case, the deceased was merely 39 years old and was highly educated person and working in different companies since 2001. For the financial year 2010-11, he submitted form-16 (Ext.-8b) showing his annual income to be Rs.8,76,964/-after deducting the income tax. For financial year 2011-12, he had worked only up to 28.01.2012 in Tata AIG. Thereafter, he switched over his job and joined in Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and could not file the TDS for whole assessment year. It is also admitted facts that just prior to accidental death the appointment letter was issued in favour of the deceased by GPS Financial Services at annual salary of Rs.7,97,592/-. Thereafter, he switched over his job and joined in Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and could not file the TDS for whole assessment year. It is also admitted facts that just prior to accidental death the appointment letter was issued in favour of the deceased by GPS Financial Services at annual salary of Rs.7,97,592/-. In the such circumstances, the reliance placed by the learned Tribunal on Ext.8(b) showing annual income of the deceased after deducting the income tax to the tune of Rs.8,76,964/-per annum does not appear to be arbitrary whimsical or beyond the evidence on record merely because the deceased sit idle for 3-4 months and was offered a lesser salary job to join at GPS Financial Services which he could not join due to death in the accident, the same cannot itself the basis to deplete his salary from earlier income. There is no question of any guess work regarding the determination of annual income of the deceased as per citation relied upon by the appellant-Insurance Company in the case of Meena Pawaia (Supra) 21. It is obvious from perusal of the impugned award that for calculating income multiplier is rightly applied while assessing the compensation amount but the learned Tribunal has committed material illegality in not awarding towards loss of future prospect and meager amount of loss of consortium. Regarding the additions to be made for future prospects of the deceased, in Sarla Verma (Supra), Hon’ble Apex Court has held that while calculating the compensation, the courts should take into consideration not only the actual income at the time of the death but should also make additions by taking note of future prospects. It was further held that though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid disparate yardsticks being applied or disparate methods of calculation being adopted. 22. In Pranay Sethi (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not only approved the aforesaid observations made in Sarla Verma (Supra), but also held as under: “59.3. 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. 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. 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.” Thus, the Tribunal erred by not making any additions to future prospects of the deceased, according to the principle laid down in Sarla Verma (Supra) and Pranay Sethi (Supra) as the deceased was under 40 years of age and was employed, therefore, he would be entitled to addition of future prospects of 40% of his established income. 23. Point No.3-The appellant Insurance Company has strenuously argued that in the instant case the driver of the offending vehicle namely Md. Dilshad on behalf of the claimants has filed driving license D.L. No.6428/97, which was verified by very concerned D.T.O. office and has been proved by competent witnesses producing the original registers as such driving license was never issued in favour of the said Md. Dilshad rather in favour of other persons. The owner of the offending vehicle did not appear to contest the claim case and inspite of judgment for right of recovery in favour of the appellant-Insurance Company failed to opt preferring the appeal against this award. Therefore, it was within the knowledge of the owner of the offending vehicle that as the driver was having no valid and effective driving license and the said owner permitted an unauthorized person to drive the vehicle, hence, the Insurance Company is absolutely absolved from satisfying the awarded compensation amount by way of indemnifying the insured. 24. Therefore, it was within the knowledge of the owner of the offending vehicle that as the driver was having no valid and effective driving license and the said owner permitted an unauthorized person to drive the vehicle, hence, the Insurance Company is absolutely absolved from satisfying the awarded compensation amount by way of indemnifying the insured. 24. Per contra, the owner of the offending vehicle did not appear in spite of valid service of summons at his native place, then notice was issued against him through the Superintendent of Police to be served by the concerned police station. Thereafter, appearance in this case was filed through advocate, Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha. In course of argument, he has submitted that the owner of the vehicle is not expected to verify the driving license of his driver from the concerned DTO office, however, he has to see the skill of driving and driving license produced before the owner, prima facie appears to be genuine. In this case, there is no evidence at all to prove the foundational facts that the insured has deliberately employed a person who had no driving license or driving skill, hence, the owner cannot be saddled with liability. In this connection, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of Rishi Pal Singh Vs. New India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2022 Live Law SC 646 and Pappu & Ors. Vs. Vinod Lamba & Ors. reported in (2018) 3 SCC 208 . 25. In order to decide the above issues, some relevant judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court must be taken into consideration. In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Lehru and Ors. reported in (2003) 3 SCC 338 as also National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and Ors. reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 it was propounded by Hon’ble Apex Court that the owner has no means to verify the genuineness of driving license produced before him, provided that the owner finds the driver is competent to drive the vehicle. Hence, once the appellant has deposed that he had taken the test of the driver before employ him, he has taken sufficient pre-caution before employment. Therefore, there could not be any direction to recover the amount from the appellant. 26. Hence, once the appellant has deposed that he had taken the test of the driver before employ him, he has taken sufficient pre-caution before employment. Therefore, there could not be any direction to recover the amount from the appellant. 26. In the case of Lehru (supra), it was held that when an owner is hiring a driver he will, therefore have to check whether the driver has a driving license. If the driver producing a driving license which on the face of it looks genuine, the owner is not expected to find out whether the license has in fact been issued by a competent authority or not, if he finds that the owner would then take a test of the driver. If the driver is competent to drive the vehicle, he should hire the driver. If the above conditions are satisfied, there was no breach of section 149(2) (a) (ii). The Insurance Company would not then be absolved of liability. If it ultimately turns duty that the license was fake, the insurance company would continue to remain liable unless the proof that the owner/insured was aware or had noticed that the license was fake and still permitted that a person drives more importantly even in the such case, the insurance company would remain liable to the innocent third party but it may be able to recover from the insured. 27. In the case of Pappu (supra), it was held that onus would shift on the insurance company if the owner of the offending vehicle pleads and proves the basic facts within his knowledge that the driver of the offending vehicle was authorized by him to drive the vehicle and was having a valid driving license at the relevant time. The valid driving license is the license which is produced before he owner. 28. In the instant case the owner of the offending vehicle bearing Reg. No.RJ-04GL-4500 has never appeared before the learned Tribunal to contest the complaint case on merits and failed to lay before it the basic facts required to be pleaded and proved by him as regards test of skill of the driver and production of driving license which prima facie appeared to be genuine. The owner of the offending vehicle has not discharged his obligation. Not only this, no appeal has been filed by him challenging the impugned award. The owner of the offending vehicle has not discharged his obligation. Not only this, no appeal has been filed by him challenging the impugned award. Therefore, in the context of above settled principle of law as laid down in the aforesaid discussed cases, there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy on the part of the insured and as per mandate of law in respect of third party risk, the insurer is liable to discharge/satisfy the awarded amount then to recovery the same from the owner of the vehicle/insured. 29. Thus, the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 gives paramount importance to the concept of “just and fair” compensation. It is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object providing relief to the victims or their families which ought to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability. Although, such determination can never be arithmetically exact or perfect, and endeavor should be made by the court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the amount claim by the applicants. In Sharla Verma (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down as under: “16…… “just compensation” is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principle.” 30. It also appears that the Tribunal has awarded meager sums towards the general/conventional damages i.e., Rs.25,000/-towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/-under loss of estate and Rs.10,000/-for the loss of consortium. Although, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has held as under: - “52. …. The conventional and traditional head, needless to say, can not be determined on percentage basis because that would not be acceptable criteria. Unlike determination of the income, the said heads had to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can not be dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rate in many a field have to be noticed. The Court can not remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this respect. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can not be dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rate in many a field have to be noticed. The Court can not remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this respect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variations lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the Tribunal and the court are likely to be unguided. Therefore, it seems 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. Which should be enhanced @ 10 % in a span of three years. The Hon’ble apex court has awarded spousal consortium, parental consortium to each child and filial consortium to mother/father at the same rate of Rs.40,000/-each with increment of 10 % after lapse of each three years from the date of judgment of Pranay Sethi Case (supra). 31. On the basis of above discussion about age, income, occupation and dependency of the deceased, the amount of the compensation is calculated herein under in tabular chart:- Sl. No. Head Compensation Awarded 1. Annual Income(as per income tax return of the deceased) Rs.8,76,964/- 2. Future Prospect (40% of Rs.8,76,964/-) Rs.3,50,785.60 3. Total annual income including future prospect Rs.8,76,964+Rs.3,50,785.60 =12,27,749.60 4. Deduction Towards personal expenses 1/4th as per Sarla Verma case 1/4th of Rs.12,27,749.60 =Rs.3,06,937.40, (Rs.12,27,749.60- Rs.3,06,937.40 =Rs.9,20,812.2) 5. Multiplier 15xRs.9,20,812.20=1,38,12,183/- 6. Loss of Dependency Rs.1,38,12,183/- 7. Loss of Consortium to mother and wife of the deceased Rs.44,000/- each= (Rs.44,000 x2)=88,000/-) 8 Loss of parental consortium to each child of the deceased Rs.44,000/- each= (Rs.44,000 x2=88,000/-) 9. Funeral expenses Rs.18,000/- 10. Loss of Estate Rs.18,000/- 11. Total Rs.1,40,24,183/- 32. So far interest point is concerned recently the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Smt Anjali and Ors. vs. Lokendar Rathod and Ors. reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1683 has held that @ 9 per cent per annum interest to be just and proper. 33. Accordingly, the appellants (M.A. No.52 of 2018) are entitled for Rs.1,40,24,183/-as compensation along with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of accident till the date of realization. vs. Lokendar Rathod and Ors. reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1683 has held that @ 9 per cent per annum interest to be just and proper. 33. Accordingly, the appellants (M.A. No.52 of 2018) are entitled for Rs.1,40,24,183/-as compensation along with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of accident till the date of realization. The amount already paid to the appellants shall be deducted and rest of the amount with interest shall be paid to the appellants as per direction of the learned Tribunal. 34. In view of above discussion and reasons, the appeal filed by the claimants/appellants is hereby, allowed and appeal filed by Insurance Company is disposed off subject to aforesaid findings recorded herein above. Accordingly, the Insurance Company is directed to pay the amount of compensation assessed herein above deducting the amount already paid to the claimants along with interest @ 9 % per annum from 24.06.2014 as directed by the learned Tribunal till its payment. The awarded amount shall be deposited within six weeks from the date of this order before the learned Tribunal, which shall be disbursed to the claimants/appellants as per share decided by the learned Tribunal. 35. In view of aforesaid discussions and reasons and modification in award, both the appeals are disposed off. 36. Learned Registrar General of this Court is directed to remit the statutory amount deposited, while preferring an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act at the time of filing the Miscellaneous Appeal being M.A. No.83 of 2018 before this Court, to the Claim Tribunal within a period of six weeks from today so as to pay the same to the claimants after due notice and verification.