JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI , J. Heard Mr. Aditya Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in M.A. No. 694 of 2017 and for the claimant, who is respondent No. 1 in M.A. No. 46 of 2018 and Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company in M.A. No. 46 of 2018 and for the respondent-insurance company (respondent No. 3) in M.A. No. 694 of 2017. 2. It transpires that the owner has been noticed in both these appeals and he has refused to accept the notice, as such, the notice upon him has been deemed to be validly served in light of the order dated 29.08.2024, passed by the co-ordinate bench in both these appeals, however, till date appearance has been made on his behalf in both the appeals. 3. On repeated calls, nobody has responded on behalf of the owner of the vehicle in question, as such, both these appeals are being heard in absence of the owner of the vehicle in question. 4. M.A. No. 46 of 2018 has been preferred by the appellant- Insurance company challenging the award dated 05.08.2017 passed in T. M.V. No. 70 of 2013, by the learned District Judge-I-cum-M.A.C.T., Bokaro. 5. M.A. No. 694 of 2017 has been preferred by the claimants challenging the same award and prayer has been made for enhancement of the awarded amount. 6. Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company submits that on the date of accident dated 14.07.2013, the driver was not having the valid driving license, in spite of that the right of recovery has not been provided to the insurance company by the learned tribunal, in view of that the award to that effect may kindly be modified. He submits that deceased himself was not having the valid driving license, in view of that there is contributory negligence, as such, the entire amount cannot be fastened upon insurance company. On these grounds, he submits that the said appeal may kindly be allowed. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants in M.A. No. 694 of 2017 submits that by the cogent evidence, it has been proved that the deceased was working as Shuttering Mechanic. He submits that however the learned tribunal has calculated the income as unskilled labourer in light of the Government Gazette notification in light of the MINIMUM WAGES ACT . 7. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants in M.A. No. 694 of 2017 submits that by the cogent evidence, it has been proved that the deceased was working as Shuttering Mechanic. He submits that however the learned tribunal has calculated the income as unskilled labourer in light of the Government Gazette notification in light of the MINIMUM WAGES ACT . He further submits that it has been proved that the deceased was skilled labourer, in view of that the amount fixed by the learned tribunal in view of the MINIMUM WAGES ACT is required to be considered by this court. He then submits that so far as future prospect is concerned, that has not been provided by the learned tribunal and the interest has been paid on the lesser side of 6% per annum instead of 7.5%. On these grounds, he submits that the award may kindly be enhanced. 8. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, it transpires that the learned tribunal has clearly held that Exhibit-X/2 was the photo copy of the driving license of Nirmal Singh, driver of the truck and considering Exhibit-B, the learned court has found that the driver was having the driving license, issue on 19.03.2008 by the RTO Mokokchung, Nagaland. The contention herein has been made by the learned counsel appearing for appellant-insurance company that the driving license was not valid, however, the driving license, which has been received in the Trial Court Records, reveals that RTO has certified that the driving license of the driver was valid with effect from 19.03.2008 to 11.03.2011 and further the driving license, which was marked, clearly suggests that it was renewed with effect from 20.05.2011, which further suggests that after expiry of the period, the driver has applied for renewal, which has been renewed on 20.05.2011, as such, the grace period of 30 days of renewal goes in favour of the driver. As such, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company is not accepted by the court. Further it was also argued on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company that the father of the deceased has stated that his son was not having the driving license, however, the documents are on different footing. 9. As such, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company is not accepted by the court. Further it was also argued on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company that the father of the deceased has stated that his son was not having the driving license, however, the documents are on different footing. 9. From the award, it transpires that the insurance company has not produced any document to exhibit the same to prove the said plea, taken by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company. 10. A.W.-2 Pradeep Kumar was the informant of the case and brother of the deceased, who was with the deceased at the time of accident and he was the eyewitness to the accident. He in his cross- examination, has stated that the motorcycle was registered in his name and his brother was having a driving license, who was driving the motorcycle, but after the accident, the license was thrown away on the road, which they could not get. In para-11, the witness has stated that the truck hit the motorcycle on its back, when they were crossing the road and the truck roll over the head of his brother. In para-13, the witness has stated that his brother was not having any bank account and in para-16, he has further stated that there is no document to show the income of the brother. 11. In view of the above, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company with regard to not having the driving license by the deceased is not being accepted by the court. As such, the appeal preferred by the appellant-insurance company being M.A. No. 46 of 2018, is hereby, dismissed. 12. So far as M.A. No. 694 of 2017 is concerned, the court finds that the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the deceased to the tune of Rs. 6,000/- per month relying on the minimum wages. Thus, the argument of not calculating the proper income of the deceased was not accepted by the court. 12. So far as M.A. No. 694 of 2017 is concerned, the court finds that the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the deceased to the tune of Rs. 6,000/- per month relying on the minimum wages. Thus, the argument of not calculating the proper income of the deceased was not accepted by the court. The court finds force in the argument of learned counsel appearing for the claimants with regard to future prospect and the learned tribunal has not awarded any amount in that head and in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , particularly in para-59.4, the claimants are entitled for the 40% amount on the established income. The court further finds that it is held the interest at least required @ 7.5% and that has been decided in many cases, as such, the interest is also modified to @ 7.5% per annum in place of 6% per annum. 13. On the aforementioned two heads, the M.A. No. 694 of 2017 succeeds and accordingly, the award dated 05.08.2017 passed in T. M.V. No. 70 of 2013, by the learned District Judge-I-cum-M.A.C.T., Bokaro, is modified to the effect that the future prospect in light of the above observation and the interest @ 7.5% per annum will be added in the said award. The rest of the finding of the learned tribunal is kept intact, as such, M.A. No. 694 of 2017 is allowed in part in above terms and disposed of. 14. The statutory amount, deposited before this court be transferred to the learned tribunal, which will be utilized in satisfying the award of the claimants. 15. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the learned tribunal forthwith.