JUDGMENT : Arun Kumar Rai, J. 1. Heard Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/ claimants and Mr. Pratyush Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2- Insurance Company. 2. The appellants/ claimants have preferred instant appeal for enhancement of compensation granted by the award dated 19th March, 2019 passed in Title (M.V.) Suit No. 157 of 2014 whereby the District Judge–VI Cum M.A.C.T, Dhanbad has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs 2,89,000/- along with interest @ 9% S.I from the date of filing of the suit till its realization. 3. It is the case of the appellants/ claimants that the deceased was unmarried at the time of accident and was having monthly income of Rs.10,000/- as he was doing business of decoration and as per the claim application, he was 25 years of age at the time of accident. Learned Tribunal has come to conclusion regarding monthly income of deceased as Rs. 3000/- because no documentary evidence qua the income of deceased brought on record and by taking age of 23 years of the deceased as per the post-mortem report, the final compensation amount was computed Rs. 2,89,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum. 4. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellants/ claimants that there is consistent oral evidence of witness nos. 1 to 5 that the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/ from his business of decoration, but the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to be only Rs. 3000/-.Further, with regard to monthly income, it has been pointed that considering the nature of business, there could not have been any documentary evidence and the learned Tribunal erred in taking meager income of Rs. 3000/- of the deceased while assessing the compensation. 5. It is also urged on behalf of the appellants/ claimants that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is not in consonance with the ratio laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 as loss of income under the head of Future Prospect has not been considered and further under the conventional head, only Rs. 15,000/- has been awarded. 6. 15,000/- has been awarded. 6. Learned counsel on behalf for Insurance Company pointed out that the learned Tribunal has erred while computing compensation by not making 50% deduction under Personal and Living expenses as deceased being bachelor in terms of ratio in the case of Sarla Verma v. DTC, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . Further, interest @ 9% simple interest awarded by the learned Tribunal is in excess which ought to be @ 6% simple interest from the date of the application till its realization. 7. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides and perusing the materials on record, it transpires that owner of the offending vehicle has also been made party (respondent no. 1) apart from New India Assurance Company Limited but vide order dated 27.01.2025, this Court dispensed with notice upon respondent no. 1 (owner of the vehicle) as the learned Tribunal has saddled the liability solely on Insurance Company. It is not in dispute that deceased was unmarried at the time of accident. In absence of any documentary evidence with regard to the age of the deceased, this court considers the age of deceased as per the post mortem report i.e. 23 years, which has been rightly taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal. 8 . As far as, income of deceased is concerned, the appellants/ claimants failed to adduce any documentary evidence in support of their oral evidences against the claim of Rs. 10,000 as monthly income and learned Tribunal has taken monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3000/-, which is meager. This court considering the business of decoration of the deceased and the deceased being only son of the claimants/appellants and ratio laid down in the case of Chameli Devi Vs. Jivrail Mian reported in 2019 (4) TAC 724(SC), considers the income of deceased as Rs. 5000/- per month . 9. Considering Rs. 5,000/- as the monthly income of the deceased, being bachelor 50% as deduction towards personal and living expenses and 18 as multiplier as per sarla verma (supra), addition of 40% as future prospect as deceased being self employed and below 40 years of age and Rs. 70,000/- under the conventional head as per Pranay Sethi (Supra) , the final compensation amount will work out as under :- Monthly Income Rs. 5,000/- Personal & Living Expenses (Deduction) sarla verma (supra) Rs. 5,000×50% = Rs.5,000 – Rs. 70,000/- under the conventional head as per Pranay Sethi (Supra) , the final compensation amount will work out as under :- Monthly Income Rs. 5,000/- Personal & Living Expenses (Deduction) sarla verma (supra) Rs. 5,000×50% = Rs.5,000 – Rs. 2,500 = Rs. 2,500/- Annual Income Rs. 2,500×12 = Rs. 30,000 Multiplier of 18 (23 years as the age of the deceased at the time of the accident) Sarla verma (supra) Rs. 30,000×18= Rs. 5,40,000/- Future Prospect – (40%) Pranay Sethi (Supra) Rs. 5,40,000×40%= Rs. 2,16,000/- Rs. 5,40,000+2,16,000 = Rs. 7,56,000/- Conventional Head (Loss of Estate, Funeral Expenses and Loss of Consortium) Pranay Sethi (Supra) Rs. 70,000/- Total Compensation Rs.7,56,000 + Rs.70,000 = Rs. 8,26,000 10. As far as, interest part is concern, this court taking the legal proposition in the judgment rendered by the apex court i n the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mannat Johal, reported in (2019) 15 SCC 260 , is of considered view that Respondent- Insurance Company is liable to pay the aforesaid compensation amount along with interest @ 7.5% per annum simple interest, from the date of filing of the suit till its realization. 11. Further, record of Tribunal reveals that Cheque No. 164956 dated 17.05.2016 for the sum of Rs. 3,35,440/- has already been received by the appellants/ claimants on 27.05.2016. The Insurance Company is directed to indemnify the remaining amount of award to the appellants/ claimants along with the interest, within a period of 45 days from today. 12 . Consequently, the Miscellaneous Appeal being M.A. No. 298 of 2016, is hereby, allowed.