JUDGMENT : REKHA BORANA, J. 1. The present misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellant Insurance Company against the impugned judgment and award dated 14.10.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Labour Court), Sriganganagar in MACT Case No.68/2022, whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and passed an award in favour of the claimants therein. 2. Brief facts as averred in the claim petition are that an FIR was lodged by one Chandana Ram Choudhary on 07.11.2021, stating therein that he, alongwith one Prem Singh was travelling from Jaisalmer to Tanot Mata Temple. One Toyota vehicle No.RJ- 31-CV-2474 was moving ahead of them. At about 18 kms from Ramgarh, a camel came running from the right and to avoid collision, driver of the car applied sudden brakes due to which the vehicle overturned. All three females and two males occupying the car suffered serious head injuries. They were rescued out of the car by Chandana Ram, Prem Singh and one passing-by traveller Pramod. Arjita, Anju, Varshika and Vishal, four occupants of the car succumbed to the injuries on the spot and fifth occupant Rinku was admitted in the Government Hospital at Ramgarh who also expired during the treatment. As per the claim petition, the vehicle was driven by Vishal. FIR No.76/2021 qua the incident was registered at Police Station Ramgarh. 3. The offending vehicle, on the date of the accident, was insured with appellant Insurance Company. 4. Besides the judgment and award dated 14.10.2024, order dated 28.08.2024 is also under challenge in the present appeal. Vide said order dated 28.08.2024, application under Order XVI Rule 1, CPC as filed by the Insurance Company seeking direction to summon the District Education Officer and Principal of the School with which all the deceased were allegedly employed, stood rejected. 5. At the very inception, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submitted that although a specific prayer has not been made in the present appeal but then prayer No.3 is eventually for the matter to be remanded back to the learned Tribunal while directing to summon the District Education Officer and the Principal of the School where allegedly all the deceased were working. Learned counsel submitted that the said prayer is infact to set aside order dated 28.08.2024 and the same be granted. 6. Learned counsel submitted that the said prayer is infact to set aside order dated 28.08.2024 and the same be granted. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents claimants submitted that order dated 28.08.2024 not been challenged at the relevant stage when it was passed, the same cannot be challenged in the present appeal along with the final award, the same being an interlocutory order, without a specific challenge been laid to order dated 28.08.2024, any appeal qua the said relief cannot be entertained. 7. Responding to the above objection, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submitted that there is no legal bar to challenge an interlocutory order in an appeal assailing the final order/Award. Although the present proceeding is nomenclatured as a misc. appeal, it is fundamentally a first appeal arising from a judgment and Award and hence, a challenge to order dated 28.08.2024 can definitely be laid in the present appeal. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in Mohd. Inam Vs. Sanjay Kumar Singhal and Others ; (2020) 7 SCC 327 8. So far as challenge to order dated 28.08.2024 is concerned, as it is the settled position of law, a party is not bound to appeal from every interlocutory order which is a step in the procedure that leads to a final decree. It is open in an appeal from such final decree to question an interlocutory order. 9. While relying upon the above ratio laid down by the Privy Council in Sheonoth, alias Buray Kaka Vs. Ramnath alias Chotaya Kara; 1865 SCC OnLine PC 12 , the Hon’ble Apex Court observed and held as under : “11. It could thus be seen that considering the scheme of the Act, the principles as recognised by Section 105(1) and Order 43 Rule 1-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the various judgments of the Privy Council as well as this Court, it was held in Achal Misra Vs. Rama Shanker Singh; (2005) 5 SCC 531 that an interlocutory order which had not been appealed from, either because no appeal lay or even though an appeal lay, an appeal was not taken, can be challenged in an appeal from a final decree or order.” 10. Rama Shanker Singh; (2005) 5 SCC 531 that an interlocutory order which had not been appealed from, either because no appeal lay or even though an appeal lay, an appeal was not taken, can be challenged in an appeal from a final decree or order.” 10. In view of the above settled position of law, this Court is of the clear opinion that a challenge to order dated 28.08.2024 can definitely be laid and entertained in the present appeal wherein a challenge to the final award has been made. 11. So far as a specific prayer for setting aside of order dated 28.08.2024 not been made in the present appeal is concerned, evidently prayer No.3 amounts to the same. Even a specific ground (Ground No.F) pertaining to order dated 28.08.2024 has been raised in the appeal. Further, it is evident that it is only erroneously that date of order in prayer No.2 has been mentioned to be 30.08.2024 instead of 28.08.2024. This Court is of the opinion that in view of the above facts and in view of a specific ground been raised in the appeal, challenge to order dated 28.08.2024 can definitely be maintained. 12. Coming on to the legality of order dated 28.08.2024, evidently the order passed in Claim Case No.65/2022; Sunita & Ors. Vs. Rakesh & Ors. has been annexed along with the appeal and no order as passed in the present claim petition has been annexed. In that view of the matter, this Court proceeds on the merit of the order as annexed along with the appeal. 13. Learned Tribunal rejected the application under Order XVI Rule 1, CPC as filed by the Insurance Company with a specific finding that the documents pertaining to income had been exhibited on record and the witnesses had also been cross- examined by the Insurance Company on said documents. In view of the same, there was no necessity to summon the Principal of the School or the District Education Officer. Further, the application was moved after the claimants evidence had been closed and there was no reason assigned for the said delay. 14. This Court is of the clear opinion that the finding as recorded by the learned Tribunal does not deserve any interference. Further, the application was moved after the claimants evidence had been closed and there was no reason assigned for the said delay. 14. This Court is of the clear opinion that the finding as recorded by the learned Tribunal does not deserve any interference. As the burden was on the claimants to prove the income of the deceased, relevant salary certificate of the deceased was exhibited for the said purpose which cannot be a manipulated document. When once the said document was exhibited on record and the witnesses had even been cross-examined by the Insurance Company on the said document, the learned Tribunal rightly observed that the Principal of the School or the District Education Officer were not required to be summoned. 15. Coming on to the merit of the Award in question, the learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence available on record and after hearing counsel for the parties, while assessing the monthly income of the deceased (Varshika) to be Rs.23,500/-, awarded total compensation of Rs.51,86,000/- in favour of the claimants, the break up of which is as under : 16. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company raised the following grounds : (i) The learned Tribunal erroneously computed the income of the deceased to be Rs.23,500/- per month whereas there were major discrepancies in the salary as mentioned in the Salary Certificate (Exhibit-27) and the bank statement. (ii) The learned Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3 of the income qua personal expenses whereas 1/2 of the income ought to have been deducted considering the deceased to be a ‘Bachelor’ as there was no proof of her being married. 17. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents claimants submitted that the learned Tribunal rightly assessed the income of the deceased on basis of documentary evidence available on record and the same does not deserve any interference. 18. Heard learned counsels. Perused the material available on record. 19. So far as the marriage of the deceased is concerned, it is clearly reflected from the Death Certificate (Exhibit-17) that the deceased was married. But then the husband of the deceased is not a party to the present claim petition and neither has he claimed himself to be the dependant of the deceased. It is only the parents of the deceased who have filed the present claim petition claiming themselves to be the dependants of the deceased. But then the husband of the deceased is not a party to the present claim petition and neither has he claimed himself to be the dependant of the deceased. It is only the parents of the deceased who have filed the present claim petition claiming themselves to be the dependants of the deceased. In that view of the matter, the deduction of 1/3 was rightly made by the learned Tribunal. 20. So far as the income is concerned, learned Tribunal relied upon the Salary Certificate of the deceased of a private school as was exhibited on the record. However, neither the author of the said certificate or any other independent witness to prove the said document, was examined by the claimants. Furthermore, no bank account statement of the deceased as exhibited in other claim petitions arising out of the same accident, was exhibited. 21. In view of the same, this Court is of the clear opinion that the Salary Certificate could not have been termed to have been proved and the income as reflected in the said certificate could not have been taken into consideration. 22. But then, it was proved on record that the deceased had a B.Ed. Qualification (Ex.41) and had even procured a REET certificate (Ex.43). Meaning thereby, she definitely was qualified to be a Teacher and hence, it cannot be assumed that despite being qualified, she would not be earning. 23. In view of the income of the deceased not been proved on record, the minimum wages of a highly skilled labour can definitely be taken as a criteria for computation of income of the deceased. The loss of income therefore deserves to be computed @ Rs.6,150/- per month. 24. So far as other aspects pertaining to the age of the deceased, the multiplier as applied, future prospects as considered, the consortium amount as awarded, the amount qua funeral expenses and loss of estate as awarded, all being totally in consonance with law, do not deserve any interference. 24. Consequently, the impugned Judgment/Award dated 14.10.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Labour Court), Sriganganagar in MACT Case No.68/2022 is modified to the extent that the respondents claimants shall be entitled to the following compensation: 25. 24. Consequently, the impugned Judgment/Award dated 14.10.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Labour Court), Sriganganagar in MACT Case No.68/2022 is modified to the extent that the respondents claimants shall be entitled to the following compensation: 25. The appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation (if not deposited yet) with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the same shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. Upon deposition, the learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the same to the respondent-claimants in terms of the award. 26. The appeal is partly allowed with above terms. 27. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.