JUDGMENT : ROBIN PHUKAN, J. Heard Mr. N. M. Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. B. Prashad, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 2. In this appeal, under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, the appellant, the National Insurance Company Limited, has challenged the correctness or otherwise of the judgment and award dated 07.07.2018, passed in MAC Case No. 2308/2014, by the learned Additional District Judge No.3 cum Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Kamrup (M) at Guwahati (‘Tribunal’, for short). It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and award, dated 07.07.2018, the learned Tribunal has directed the appellant - National Insurance Company Limited to pay a sum of Rs. 6,05,000/- to the claimants/respondents Nos. 1 – 4 herein, with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of filing of claim petition and in the event of failing to pay the same, then the amount shall carry additional interest @ 8% per annum. 3. The back grounds facts leading to filing of the present appeal is briefly stated as under:- “On 31/12/2013, at about 3.00 pm, when Girish Kalita, since deceased, was waiting for a bus, along with his friend Shri Krishna Bishwakarma at Dolabari, on National Highway 37, then all of a sudden, one Tata Indica vehicle, bearing Registration No. ML-09-5290, which was coming from Nagaon side, knocked down Girish Kalita from back side. At that time the vehicle was driven in rash and negligent manner by the driver. Then Girish Kalita sustained grievous injuries on his persons. He was immediately taken to G.M.C.H. Hospital, Guwahati, but he succumbed to the injuries at hospital on 04.01.2014. The deceased was 42 years old at the relevant point of time. His post-mortem was done at G.M.C.H. Guwahati. He was a Mason by profession and his monthly income was Rs. 8000/- per month. During the course of his treatment the claimant, Smti. Shiju Kalita had incurred an expenditure of Rs.30,000/- for medical treatment of her deceased husband. Due to his sudden death the whole family of claimants suffered a lot. He left behind his wife, the claimant and three minor sons. The claimants then filed a claim petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the M.V. Act seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/ lacs, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. Due to his sudden death the whole family of claimants suffered a lot. He left behind his wife, the claimant and three minor sons. The claimants then filed a claim petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the M.V. Act seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/ lacs, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. Then on receipt of notice, the appellant being O.P. No. 1, i.e. National Insurance Company, the insurer of offending vehicle, had entered appearance and contested the case by filing written statement on the ground that the claim petition is not maintainable in law as well as in fact, no cause of action arose for filing the claim petition against, the insurance company and the claim petition is false, frivolous and speculative. The O.P. No. 3/appellant herein, has denied almost all contents of the claim petition and also prayed for strict proof of the contents of the claim petition. No report was received by O.P. No.4, by way of Form -54 as per provision of Section 158(6) M.V. Act. And the accident took place due to negligence of the deceased himself. So, insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. Hence the O.P. No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. The O.P. No.3 has also objected the prayer of the claimants for interim compensation on the provision of No Fault Liability. The O.P. Nos. 1 & 2/respondent Nos. 5 & 6 herein, owner and driver have not contested the case. So, the case proceeded against them ex-parte. Then upon pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal had framed following issues:- 1. Whether the victim Late Girish Kalita died in the alleged road accident dated 31.12.2013 involving vehicle No. ML -09- 52904037 and whether the said accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle? 2. Whether the claimant (s) are entitled to get any compensation and if yes, to what extent and by whom amongst the opposite parties, the said compensation amount will be payable ? During the course of hearing, the claimants had examined one PW (claimant No.1 herself) in support of their case and exhibited following six documents:- (i) Exhibit No.1: The Form-54 (Accident Information report) (ii) Exhibit No. 2: Certified copy of Post-Mortem report of Late Girish Kalita. (iii) Exhibit No. 3: The Pan Card of Sri Shiju Kalita. During the course of hearing, the claimants had examined one PW (claimant No.1 herself) in support of their case and exhibited following six documents:- (i) Exhibit No.1: The Form-54 (Accident Information report) (ii) Exhibit No. 2: Certified copy of Post-Mortem report of Late Girish Kalita. (iii) Exhibit No. 3: The Pan Card of Sri Shiju Kalita. (iv) Exhibit No.4: The School Certificate of Sri Jyotirmoy Kalita. (v) Exhibit No. 5: The Certified copies of FIR of Tezpur P.S. Case No. 631/14 u/s 279/304(A) I.P.C. (vi) Exhibit No. 6: The Certified copies of Charge Sheet of Tezpur P.S. Case No. 631/14 u/s 279/304(A). The appellant/opposite party had not adduced any evidence. Thereafter, considering the evidence so adduced and hearing learned counsel for both the parties, the learned Tribunal had decided both the issues in affirmative and thereafter, assessed the compensation, the claimants entitled to as under:- (i) For death Rs. 4,80,000/- (ii) For loss of consortium Rs. 50,000/- (iii) For loss of love and affection from minor child Rs. 75,000/- Total Rs. 6,05,000/- Thereafter, the learned Tribunal had directed the appellant - National Insurance Company Limited to pay the said amount with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of filing of claim petition and in the event of failing to pay the same then the amount shall carry additional interest @ 8% per annum. 4. Then being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal, challenging the correctness or otherwise of the impugned judgment and award on the following grounds:- (a) The learned Tribunal had failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances in the instant case and proceeded on wrong misconception of facts and law in delivering the impugned judgment and award which resulted in miscarriage of justice and also causing irreparable damage and harm to the appellant. (b) The driver of the offending vehicle i.e. present respondent No.6 was holding a fake driving licence on the date of the accident i.e. 31.12.2013, in view of the investigation carried out by the appellant insurance company through its Investigator obtained a D/L verification report from the D.T.O. Mon, Nagaland. (b) The driver of the offending vehicle i.e. present respondent No.6 was holding a fake driving licence on the date of the accident i.e. 31.12.2013, in view of the investigation carried out by the appellant insurance company through its Investigator obtained a D/L verification report from the D.T.O. Mon, Nagaland. (c) The appellant, to prove before the learned Tribunal that driving licence bearing No. 55654/TV/Mon of the driver of the offending vehicle issued by the D.T.O., Mon, Nagaland on 17.5.2010 was a fake one, took necessary steps for issuance of summons on DTO, Mon, Nagaland, but, on the date fixed i.e. 23.11.2017, the said authority did not appear before the learned Tribunal at Guwahati. The appellant insurance company thereafter, filed a petition before the learned Tribunal to adduce evidence through defence witness and to exhibit the driving licence particulars of the driver of the offending vehicle as well as the D/L verification report issued by the DTO, Mon, Nagaland, but the same was rejected by the learned Tribunal and the same has caused serious prejudice to the appellant insurance company in the instant case. (d) Then, having no other alternative, the appellant insurance company at the fag end of the proceedings while filing its written argument annexed the driving licence verification report issued by DTO, Mon, Nagaland which clearly goes to show that on the date of the alleged accident i.e. 31.12.2013, the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a fake driving licence. (e) For that, the learned Tribunal in the instant case has committed serious error while awarding compensation by not allowing the appellant insurance company to adduce evidence through defence witness and to exhibit the driving licence particulars of the driver of the offending vehicle as well as the D/L verification report issued by the DTO, Mon, Nagaland. (f) The learned Tribunal, while awarding compensation to the claimants, awarded an excessive amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only under the head of "Loss of Consortium" which is not in conformity with the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014 ( National Insurance Co. Ltd. -vs- Pranay Sethi & Ors. ). Ltd. -vs- Pranay Sethi & Ors. ). (g) The learned Tribunal, while awarding compensation to the claimants, erroneously awarded an amount of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand) only under the head of "Loss of Love and Affection for minor children" in as much as the same is not a conventional head and accordingly, not warranted in view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra ). (h) The impugned judgment and award dated 07.07.2018 is bad in law, highly excessive, without any reasonable cause or basis and as such, calls for interference by this Court. (i) The impugned judgment and award dated 07.07.2018 is not sustainable in law and accordingly, the same is liable to be suitably interfered with by this Court. 5. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant has raised following points for consideration of the Court during argument :- (i) The driving licence of the driver was fake in view of the report of the D.T.O., Mon, Nagaland issued on 17.05.2010; (ii) The report of DTO, Mon was enclosed with the written argument and the same was not considered by the learned Tribunal; (iii) The learned Tribunal had not afforded proper opportunity to examine the DTO, Mon, as witness for which prejudice was caused to the appellant; (iv) Award of compensation of Rs.50,000/ under the head of consortium is erroneous in view of the decision of Pranay Sethi (supra); (v) Award of compensation amounting Rs.75,000/- under the head of "Loss of Love and Affection for minor children" is not a conventional head and contrary to the decision in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra ); and (vi) While calculating the compensation, the learned Tribunal fixed notional income of the deceased at higher side, without indicating in the impugned judgment. 5.1. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, Mr. Dutta has contended to set aside the impugned judgment and award. 6. Per contra, Mr. Prashad, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 – 4 submits that this Court being first appellate Court has to assess and award just compensation to the claimants. Mr. Prasad submits that the learned Tribunal had failed to assess just compensation in the present case and also failed to indicate in the impugned judgment and award as to how it assessed the sum of Rs. 4,80,000/- for death of the deceased. Further submission of Mr. Mr. Prasad submits that the learned Tribunal had failed to assess just compensation in the present case and also failed to indicate in the impugned judgment and award as to how it assessed the sum of Rs. 4,80,000/- for death of the deceased. Further submission of Mr. Prasad is that the learned Tribunal has taken into account the notional income of the deceased at a lower side and as he was a Mason by profession and was a skilled workman, his daily wages ought to have been assessed at Rs. 175/ in view of Notification No.ACL43/2004/ dated 1 st of March, 2013 issued by the Labour Commissioner, Assam, Guwahati. Referring to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram , reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 , Mr. Prashad submits that the claimants are entitled to filial consortium @ Rs. 40,000/-, each, for loss of filial consortium. Under such circumstances, Mr. Prashad has contended to assess and award just compensation to the claimants and to dismiss the appeal. 7. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on the record and also perused the impugned judgment and award and the decisions referred by learned counsel for both the parties. 8. It appears that the claimant in her claim petition as well as in her evidence categorically stated that on 31-12-2013, her deceased husband, namely, Girish Kalita was waiting for boarding a bus at Dolabari on N.H. 37 along with his friend Sri Krishna Bishwakarma. Then suddenly at about 3.00 p.m., the offending vehicle, bearing Registration No. ML-09-5290, which being driven in high speed and in rash and negligent manner, knocked down her husband. As a result, her husband sustained grievous injuries and during the course of treatment he succumbed to injuries on 04-01-2014 at G.M.C.H. In connection with the accident, police also registered a case against the driver of the offending vehicle bearing Tezpur P.S. Case No. 631/14 u/s 279/304(A)/337 of IPC. At the time of death, her deceased husband left behind her and 3 children as legal heirs. He was 42 years and he was working as a mason. At the time of death, her deceased husband left behind her and 3 children as legal heirs. He was 42 years and he was working as a mason. In support of her claim, she exhibited the Form-54 as Exhibit-1, and post- mortem report as Exhibit-2, her PAN Card as Exhibit-3, School Certificate of Jyotimoy Kalita as Exhibit-4 and Certified copy of FIR of Tezpur Case No. 631/2014 as Exhibit-5 and Charge Sheet as Exhibit-6. There is no dispute regarding involvement of the vehicle and driving of the same in rash and negligent manner at the time of accident. 9. The claim petition indicates that at the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 42 years. However, P.W.1, in her examination-in-chief, claimed that the age of the deceased was 39 years. But, in the cross-examination of the P.W.1 (Claimant No.1) admitted that the age of her deceased husband was 42 years. Though no age proof certificate was produced and exhibited during trial, the admission of age by the P.W.1, in her cross-examination has to be accepted as correct age. 9.1. The evidence of the claimant and also the claim petition indicates that by profession the deceased was a mason. However, no documentary proof was produced and exhibited during the course of trial. The learned Tribunal had taken into account the income of a unskilled labour in view of some decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court. But it had not referred any such decisions. I have carefully gone through the Notification No.ACL43/2004/ dated 1 st of March, 2013 issued by the Labour Commissioner, Assam, Guwahati, so produced before this Court by Mr. Prashad, the learned counsel for the claimant/respondent. The schedule of the said notification read as under:- SCHEDULE Categories of Workmen: Rate of wages (A) Skilled Workmen …….. Rs. 227.00 (I.T.I. Certificate Holder) (B) Skilled Workmen ………. Rs. 175.00 (Other than I.T.I. Certificate Holder) (C) Unskilled Workmen ………. Rs. 169.00 9.2. Thus, there appears to be substance in the submission of Mr. Prashad. Indisputably, mason is a skilled workman. But, admittedly neither any document nor ITI certificate to that effect was produced and exhibited by the claimant. Therefore, his daily wage has to be counted at the rate of a skilled workman as provided in clause (B) of the said schedule i.e. @ Rs. 175.00. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased has to be assessed @ Rs. 5250/. 9.3. Therefore, his daily wage has to be counted at the rate of a skilled workman as provided in clause (B) of the said schedule i.e. @ Rs. 175.00. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased has to be assessed @ Rs. 5250/. 9.3. Thus, having accepted the income of the deceased at Rs. 5250/ per month, and as self employed and his age was 42 years and the same was between the age of 40 to 50 years, 25% of the same has to be added as future prospect, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) After addition of 25% to Rs. 5250/ the amount would be Rs. 6563/. ( Rs.5250/ + Rs.1312.5 = Rs.6562.5 (rounded off at Rs. 6563/) 9.4. Thereafter, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) , ¼th of the aforesaid amount has to be deducted as personal expenses, since he left behind four dependants at the time of accident. After deducting ¼th of the above, the amount would be Rs. 4923/- [Rs. Rs.6563 – 1640.75] = Rs. 4922.25(rounded off at Rs. 4923/). Since the age of the deceased at the time of his death was 42 years, the applicable multiplier, as per decision of Sarala Verma (supra) would be 14. After application of multiplier, the amount would be Rs.8,27,064/- (Rs.4923 x 12 x 14 = Rs.8,27,064/- 9.5. It is to be noted here that under the conventional heads, a sum of Rs. 40,000/ towards each of the member, with 10% increase in every three years has to be awarded under the head – filial consortium, has to be paid in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd.(supra) Mr. Prashad, the learned counsel for the claimants/respondents herein has rightly pointed this out during hearing and I find substance in the same. It is to be noted here that the deceased herein this case had left behind his wife and three children. Observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para No. 24 of the said decision, quoted below:- “ 24. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under “loss of consortium” as laid down in Pranay Sethi [ National Insurance Co. Observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para No. 24 of the said decision, quoted below:- “ 24. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under “loss of consortium” as laid down in Pranay Sethi [ National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC 680 ]. In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs 40,000 each for loss of filial consortium. 9.6. Further, the claimants/respondents No.1, 2, 3 and 4, shall be paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/- under head - funeral expenses and the aforesaid amounts should be enhanced by 10% in every 3 years, and a sum of Rs. 15,000 /- under head - loss of estate , and the aforesaid amounts should be enhanced by 10% in every 3 years in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). It is to be noted here that after the accident, more than 11 years elapsed. That being so, the aforesaid amounts have to be enhanced by thrice. 9.7. The whole calculation, after application of the principle laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (SMT) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and also in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) , would be as under:- Sl. No. Heads Calculation I Monthly income Rs. 5250/- II 25% of (i) to be added as future prospect= (Rs.5250/+Rs.1312.5 = Rs.6562.5 (rounded off at Rs. 6563/). Rs.6563/- III 1/4th of the (ii) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased= [Rs. 1640.75] = Rs. Rs.6563– 4922.25(rounded off at Rs. 4923/). Rs. 4923/- IV Compensation after multiplier of 14 is applied (Rs.4923 x 12 x 14 = Rs.8,27,064/- Rs. 8,27,064/- V Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- which has to be increased by 10% in every three years (15,000 x 10/100) = 1500 x 3 = Rs.4500/- Rs.15,000/-+ Rs.4,500/-= Rs.19,500/- VI Loss of filial Consortium =Rs.40,000/-, which has to be increased by 10% in each three years 40,000 x 10/100 = 4000 x 3 = 12,000. (Rs.40,000 + 12,000 = Rs.52,000/-x 4 = 208000/) Rs. 40,000/- + Rs.12000/-= Rs. 52,000/-x 4= Rs. (Rs.40,000 + 12,000 = Rs.52,000/-x 4 = 208000/) Rs. 40,000/- + Rs.12000/-= Rs. 52,000/-x 4= Rs. 2,08,000/ VII Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-, which has to be increased by 10% in each three years 15,000 x 10/100 = 1500 x 3 =Rs.4500/- Rs.15,000/-+ Rs.4500/-= Rs.19,500/- Total compensation awarded = Rs. 10,85,550/- 10. It also appears from the Exhibit-1, i.e. Form 54 (Accident Information Report) that at the relevant time, the vehicle was insured with the appellant, i.e. National Insurance Company Limited, vide Policy No. 200600/31/13/610000 1456 and the same was valid till 25.10.2014. Since the accident took place on 31.12.2013, the policy was in force on the relevant date. This is an undisputed fact. 11. It also appears from the Exhibit-1, that at the relevant time the respondent No.6, the driver of the vehicle had a driving licence, bearing No. 55654/TV/MON. It was valid on 16.05.2016 and was issued by the DTO, Mon, Nagaland. 11.1. Though the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the driving licence used by the driver was fake and no such driving licence was issued as per verification report of D.T.O. Mon District, Nagaland, yet, the appellant had failed to substantiate its stand by examining the concerned D.T.O. or by any person authorized by him. That being so, the submission of Mr. Dutta, the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. The burden to establish the same squarely falls upon the appellant and the same could not be discharged. The learned Tribunal had rightly discussed the same in the impugned judgment and arrived at a reasoned finding and the same warrants no interference of this Court. Finding: 12. In the result, this Court finds this appeal devoid of merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. However, the impugned Judgment and Award, dated 07.07.2018, stands modified to the extent indicated above. 13. The appellant, i.e. the National Insurance Company Limited, is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,85,550/- (Rupees Ten lacs Eighty Five Thousand Five Hundred Fifty ) only, being the compensation, which according to this Court is just compensation, here in this case. The amount, if already paid to the claimant has to be deducted from the aforesaid amount. 14. The appellant, i.e. the National Insurance Company Limited, is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,85,550/- (Rupees Ten lacs Eighty Five Thousand Five Hundred Fifty ) only, being the compensation, which according to this Court is just compensation, here in this case. The amount, if already paid to the claimant has to be deducted from the aforesaid amount. 14. It is further provided that the amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of claim petition till realization of the amount in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association and Others , reported in (2011) 14 SCC 481 . In the said case, it has been held that the interest upon the compensation amount @ 9% per annum, would be justified. Same principle was followed in the case of Kalpanaraj vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation , reported in (2014) C.R. 693 (SC). 15. The appellant shall deposit the aforesaid amount before the learned Tribunal within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment and award. 16. In terms of above, this MAC Appeal stands disposed of. The Registry shall send down the record of the learned Tribunal with a copy of this judgment and order forthwith. The parties have to bear their own cost. Statutory deposit, if any shall be returned to the appellant Insurance Company.