JUDGMENT : ROBIN PHUKAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. Banik, leaned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.C. Paul, learned standing counsel for the respondent No.2. None appears for the respondent No.1. 2. In this appeal, under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, the appellant has challenged the judgment and award dated 30.10.2019, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonitpur at Tezpur (learned Tribunal, for short), in MAC Case No. 11/2018(D). 3. It is to be noted here that vide the impugned judgment and award dated 30.10.2019, the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition filed by the petitioner, directing the opposite party No. 5, i.e., the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. to pay the sum of Rs. 10,00,150/- with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e., on 31.03.2018; till full and final realization. 4. Being highly aggrieved by the said judgment and award dated 30.10.2019, passed by the Learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sonitpur, Tezpur the appellant has preferred the present appeal on the following grounds:- (i) That the Learned Tribunal erred in law in directing the respondent No.5 to discharge the liability of the award and in not directing the opposite party No.3 to discharge the liability of the award and as such, the judgment dated 30/10/2019 is liable to be modified. (ii) That the evidence of DW-2, i.e. the Administrative Officer of the opposite party No.5 Insurance Company having made it crystal clear that the police had submitted charge sheet (Exhibit -3) against the offending truck. However, the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the matter in its entirety by sifting the evidence and as such, the learned Tribunal erred in law in settling the liability of the award on the opposite party No. 5 and not on the opposite party No. 3 and as such, the award dated 30/10/2019, is liable to be modified. (iii) That the learned Tribunal having placed reliance on the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector of the truck outweighing the conclusion reached by the Police Authorities, committed manifest error of law as also of facts in concluding the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the WagonR and as such, the Judgment dated 30/10/2019 is liable to be modified. 4.1. 4.1. Under the given facts and circumstances it is prayed for modifying and directing the opposite party No.3 to discharge the liability of the award, dated 30.10.2019 and to allow the present appeal. 5. Mr. Banik, leaned counsel for the appellant submits that the accident in question took place on 28.11.2017, wherein, two vehicles; bearing registration Nos. DL-03-CR/6768 (Wagon R) and AS-14C/0806 (truck) were involved and there was head-on-collision between the Wagon-R and the truck; and after investigation of the case, police submitted the charge-sheet (exhibit-3) against the driver of the offending truck. But, the learned Tribunal has saddled the responsibility in releasing the award upon the opposite party No. 5 and not on the opposite party No. 3; in spite of the driver of the truck being charge sheeted in the Police case, which was registered after the offence; and as such, the learned Tribunal erred in law in settling the liability upon the opposite party No. 5 and on such ground, the impugned award is liable to be interfered with and the matter may be remanded to the learned Tribunal to decide the matter afresh, after affording an opportunity of being heard to both the parties. 6. Mr. Paul, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 2 herein, submits that he has no objection in the event of remanding the matter to the learned Tribunal for a fresh decision. 7. Having heard the submissions, so advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the memo of appeal and also the grounds mentioned therein; and also gone through the impugned Judgment and Award dated 30.10.2019, passed by the learned Tribunal. 8. Indisputedly, the two vehicles bearing registration Nos. DL-03-CR/6768 (Wagon R) and AS-14C/0806 (Truck) were involved in the said accident. And it also appears that in connection with the said accident, Dolgaon P.S. Case No. 765/2017, under Sections 279 /338/304(A)/427 IPC has been registered and undisputedly, charge sheet (exhibit-3) has been submitted by the Investigating Officer against the driver of the Truck bearing registration No. AS-14C-0806. 9. DL-03-CR/6768 (Wagon R) and AS-14C/0806 (Truck) were involved in the said accident. And it also appears that in connection with the said accident, Dolgaon P.S. Case No. 765/2017, under Sections 279 /338/304(A)/427 IPC has been registered and undisputedly, charge sheet (exhibit-3) has been submitted by the Investigating Officer against the driver of the Truck bearing registration No. AS-14C-0806. 9. A careful perusal of the impugned judgment and award dated 30.10.2019, and the record of the Tribunal reveals that upon the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal had framed following issues:- (i) Whether the accident took place on 28-11-2017 at about 9:00 P.M. due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of both the vehicles bearing no. AS-14C/0806 (truck) and DL-03CR/6768 (Wagon R) and whether the victim Om Prakash Sah died due to the alleged accident? (ii) Whether the claimant is/are entitled for any compensation as prayed for and if so, from whom and to what extent? 9.1. It also appears that thereafter, the learned Tribunal had discussed the evidence on record. Firstly, it had discussed the evidence adduced by the claimant as under:- “8. The claimant Bina Devi was examined in the case as CW-1 who deposed in her evidence that she has filed this claim case claiming compensation for the death of her husband arising out of a road traffic accident which occurred on 28-11-2017 caused by rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle bearing No.AS-14C/0806(truck). As a result her husband died on the spot. 9. CW-1 has exhibited the following documents: (i) Ext. 1 accident information report (Form 54) (ii) Ext 2 Post mortem report. 10. In her cross-examination CW-1 has replied that she had not been to attend the marriage ceremony on the date of accident. She has not filed the birth certificate or voter ID of her husband to ascertain the actual date of birth of her husband. She has not filed any document to ascertain that her husband was a Mason at the time of accident. The owner of the Wagon R was one Krishnanand Choudhury who was also driving the car. She has not witnessed the accident but she has heard about it. 11. She has not filed any document to ascertain that her husband was a Mason at the time of accident. The owner of the Wagon R was one Krishnanand Choudhury who was also driving the car. She has not witnessed the accident but she has heard about it. 11. CW-2 is Riajuddin who deposed in his evidence that on 28-11- 2017 he went to Guwahati along with his friend by a four wheeler and on that day itself they were returning back to Tezpur via Mongoldoi. At about 9-00 P.M. when they reached near Batabari under Dalgaon P.S. one heavy truck bearing No.AS-14C/0806 after crossing their vehicle with high speed moving in a rash and negligent manner knocked down another car from the front side which was proceeding from Dhekiajuli side towards Kharupetia and the said accident took place just few mtrs., ahead of him before his own eyes. After parking their car by the side of the road immediately he rushed near place of occurrence and found all the persons travelling in the vehicle sustained grievous injuries with severe bleeding and after observation he found that one of the injured was known to him and he was Usman Ansari and later on, he came to know that all the injured occupants including Krishna Nand Choudhury travelling in the said Wagon R were declared dead at the hospital. 12. In his cross-examination CW-2 has replied that at Batamari, Dalgaon there was a traffic jam. Other than the truck and Wagon R there was no any vehicle had collided in the said accident. He could not say the colour of the Wagon R. He had not found any person in the said truck. Both the vehicles had collided head on. In the Wagon R there were 5 persons. Osman Ansari is his friend who died in the said accident. 13. Ext. 1 is the accident information report which reveals that an accident occurred on 28-11-2017 at about 9-00 P.M. at Batamari NH-15 and Krishna Nand Choudhury died in the said accident. The vehicle bearing No.AS-14C/0806(truck) was shown to be the offending vehicle. Osman Ansari is his friend who died in the said accident. 13. Ext. 1 is the accident information report which reveals that an accident occurred on 28-11-2017 at about 9-00 P.M. at Batamari NH-15 and Krishna Nand Choudhury died in the said accident. The vehicle bearing No.AS-14C/0806(truck) was shown to be the offending vehicle. The ejahar, lodged by one Asik Ansari stating that on 28-11-2017 at about 9-00 p.m. his son Nadim Ansari, Krishna Nand Choudhury, Osman Ansari, Imam Ansari and Om Prakash Sah while travelling in a vehicle bearing No.DL/03CR/6768 (Wagon R) from Tezpur Goroimari towards Kharupetia, another vehicle bearing No.AS-14C/0806(truck) coming in a rash and negligent from the opposite direction knocked down the Wagon R vehicle. As a result Krishna Nand Choudhury and Osman Ansari died on the spot and Nadim Ansari, Imam Ansari and Om Prakash Sah died in the Mongaldoi hospital during treatment. On receipt of the ejahar, one case was registered vide Dalgaon P.S. case No. 765/17 u/s- 279/338/ 304(A)/427 IPC. It is seen that charge sheet was submitted against the driver of the vehicle bearing No.AS- 14C/0806(truck) Prahlad Barman u/s-279/338/ 304(A)/427 IPC. Seizure list of seizing the vehicle bearing No.AS-14C/0806(truck) and its documents and the seizure list of seizing the vehicle bearing No.DL-03CR/6768 (Wagon R) and its documents are available in the record. 9.2. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal had discussed the evidence adduced by the opposite parties/respondents as under:- “15. DW-1 Pulak Narayan Goswami who deposed in his evidence that he is holding post of Administrative Officer of O.P. NO. 3 i.e. New India Assurance Co. 9.2. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal had discussed the evidence adduced by the opposite parties/respondents as under:- “15. DW-1 Pulak Narayan Goswami who deposed in his evidence that he is holding post of Administrative Officer of O.P. NO. 3 i.e. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. having its Divisional office at Tezpur and he used to look after the motor vehicle accident claims cases of their company at their said Divisional office at Tezpur was appointed private investigator had submitted its investigation report in connection with the alleged accident and from the said investigators report it has been revealed that on the date of accident i.e. on 28-11-2017 an accident took place at Batamari on NH-15 at 9-00 p.m. and the Wagon R bearing No.DL- 03CR/6768(Wagon R) which was going towards Kharupetia side from Goroimari and when it reached near the place of accident the said vehicle had at first dashed on the rear back side of a motorcycle bearing No.AS-13B/1646 and thereafter it again had dashed another vehicle on the rear and back side of a running truck bearing No.AS-14C/0806 which was going on the same direction and as a result of which the back side basket of the said motor cycle was damaged and the back side of the said truck was dented and its back side light was broken but the front side of said Wagon R vehicle was completely damaged. In fact the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the said Wagon R vehicle. 16. DW-1 has exhibited three documents. Ext. A is the MVI report of the vehicle bearing No.AS-14C/0806(truck). Ext. B is MVI report of the motor cycle bearing No.AS-13B/1646. Ext. C is MVI report of the vehicle bearing No.DL-03CR/6768(Wagon R). From Ext. A i.e. MVI report of the truck bearing No.AS-14C/0806(truck) which shows following damages backside pressed/dented/miscalling and back side light broken. From Ext. B i.e. MVI report of the motor cycle bearing No.AS-13B/1646 having damages- backside basket broken. Ext. C is the MVI report of Wagon R bearing No.DL-03CR/6768 which shows the following damages- Body pressed/dented/miscalling, engine out of order, Chassis bent, both side front and rear door pressed/dented/miscalling, steering as out of order and glass broken and head light broken. 17. DW-2 is Biswajit Dey, who deposed in his evidence that he is serving in United India Insurance Company, Tezpur Division in capacity of Administrative Officer. 17. DW-2 is Biswajit Dey, who deposed in his evidence that he is serving in United India Insurance Company, Tezpur Division in capacity of Administrative Officer. The claimant has not claimed any compensation from the Wagon R vehicle bearing No. DL- 03CR/6768 from their company. In the claim petition itself the claimant has stated that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing No.AS-14C/0806 (truck). Their company after receiving of summons collected the charge sheet, seizure list of the criminal case from the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang. The claimant has exhibited the charge sheet vide Ext. 3 in this case. The police after investigation submitted charge sheet against the driver of the offending truck. He has brought the seizure list which is collected by their company and from the seizure list it is seen that the Wagon R vehicle bearing No. DL-03CR/6768 Road Tax was valid upto 31-07-2016 whereas the date of accident was on 28-11-2017. 18. In his cross-examination DW-2 has replied that he had not seen the actual damage caused to the vehicles which were involved in the said accident. As he had not been to the accident site his evidence is based on the record and documents which he got from his office. In the said accident the vehicle bearing No. AS- 14C/0806(truck) wherein damages has been shown as backside pressed and dented and back side light broken. In the MVI report of Wagon R, the damage has been shown as steering out of order and engine out of order, chassis bent, head light glass broken, front windshield broken, body pressed and dented. One motor cycle bearing No.AS-13B/1646 damages have been shown as backside basket broken.” 9.3. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal had arrived at the following finding in respect of both the issues:- “19. From the MVI report of the truck bearing No.AS-14C/0806 and the Wagon R bearing No. DL-03CR/6768 it is crystal clear that there cannot be any head on collision between the vehicles. If the accident occurred due to head on collision, the damages of the truck definitely would have been caused on its front side but not on the backside of the vehicle. If the accident occurred due to head on collision, the damages of the truck definitely would have been caused on its front side but not on the backside of the vehicle. Under such backdrop it can be said that whatever stated by DW-1 regarding accident that, the Wagon R vehicle has dashed against the backside of the truck has some value in the eye of law. It is not in dispute that an accident occurred on 28-11-2017 and the passengers travelling in the Wagon R vehicle including the driver died in connection with the said accident. But the story narrated by the claimant as well as the evidence of the claimant and her witnesses and MVI reports are contradicted to each other. Though charge sheet was submitted against the truck driver due to rash and negligent driving but it is unexplained how the MVI found damages on the back side of the truck. There was no cross-examination of DW-1 on the point by the claimant. Situated thus, there is no hesitation to hold that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Wagon R vehicle bearing No.DL-03CR/6768 and insurer of the vehicle i.e. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. is liable to pay compensation.” 9.4. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal had proceeded to determine the compensation, which the claimant/appellant is entitled to and determined the same at Rs. 10,00,150/- and directed the respondent No.2 herein (opposite party No. 5 in the claim petition) to pay the aforesaid amount of compensation. 10. A careful examination of the record and the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal, this Court finds sufficient merit in the submission of Mr. Banik, learned counsel for the appellant. It appears that the claimant/appellant case is based upon the evidence of C.W.1 and C.W.2 and on two documents, being (i) Ext. 1 accident information report (Form 54) and (ii) Ext 2 Post mortem report. The claimant/appellant had examined herself as CW-1. Admittedly, she is not the eye witness to the accident. But, she heard about the same that on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Truck bearing registration No. AS- 14C/0806(Truck) the accident took place on 28.11.2017, wherein her husband suffered demise. The claimant/appellant had examined herself as CW-1. Admittedly, she is not the eye witness to the accident. But, she heard about the same that on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Truck bearing registration No. AS- 14C/0806(Truck) the accident took place on 28.11.2017, wherein her husband suffered demise. C.W.2 is the eye witness of the accident and he deposed in no uncertain terms that due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Truck, bearing registration No. AS-14C/0806(Truck) the accident took place. Both respondent No.1 and 2 herein, had cross-examined CW-2 and it is elicited by respondent No. 1(New India Assurance Co. Ltd.) that both the vehicle had collided head on. The factum that the Truck was driven in rash and negligent manner remained un-rebutted. It also appears that respondent No.2, during cross-examination of CW-2, has elicited that the accident took place due to sole negligence on the part of the driver of the Truck and it was driven in very rash and negligent manner and that the Truck hit on the front side of the WagonR. 11. Further, from the Ext. 1, the accident information report, reveals that an accident occurred on 28-11-2017 at about 9-00 P.M. at Batamari NH-15 and Krishna Nand Choudhury died in the said accident and the Truck, bearing No.AS-14C/0806 was shown as the offending vehicle therein. The ejahar, lodged by one Asik Ansari also indicates that the vehicle bearing No.AS-14C/0806 (Truck), which was coming in a rash and negligent from the opposite direction knocked down the Wagon R vehicle, bearing No. DL/03CR/6768, as a result Krishna Nand Choudhury and Osman Ansari died on the spot and Nadim Ansari, Imam Ansari and Om Prakash Sah died in the Mongaldoi Hospital during treatment. Upon the said ejahar, Dalgaon P.S. case No. 765/17, u/s-279/338/ 304(A)/427 IPC, was registered and investigation was carried out and thereafter, charge sheet was submitted against the driver of the vehicle bearing No.AS-14C/0806 (Truck), namely, Prahlad Barman, to stand trial u/s-279/338/304(A)/427 IPC. 12. But, the learned Tribunal had misread the evidence of eye witness i.e. CW 2 and the Accident Information Report, the Ejahar and the Charge Sheet (Exhibit-I of respondent No. 2). 12. But, the learned Tribunal had misread the evidence of eye witness i.e. CW 2 and the Accident Information Report, the Ejahar and the Charge Sheet (Exhibit-I of respondent No. 2). Instead, primarily based upon the evidence of DW-1, the Administrative Officer of respondent No.1 herein, and the documents exhibited by him i.e. Exhibit-A, (MVI- Report of the Truck), Exhibit-B, (MVI Report of the Motor Cycle bearing No. AS-13/B-1646, and Exhibit-C, (MVI Report of Wagon-R), had arrived at the finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the WagonR vehicle bearing No.DL-03CR/6768 and insurer of the vehicle i.e. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 2 herein, is liable to pay compensation. 13. Indisputably, the evidence of DW-1 is based upon report of investigator, namely, Pradip Kumar Nath, who was asked to investigate about the accident. But, the said investigator had not entered into the witness box. Moreover, the MVI, who had examined and submitted report in respect of the three vehicles, also not been examined as witness to prove the report and the contents thereof. Thus, the finding, so arrived at by the learned Tribunal, in respect of the vehicle, responsible for the accident, solely relying upon the hearsay evidence of DW-1 and the MVI Reports, without examining and proving the same through the concerned MVI, appears to be ex-facie illegal and arbitrary. 14. This Court is not oblivious of the proposition that in motor accident cases the Tribunals are to make an enquiry and strict rule of evidence is often not followed in such an enquiry. Reference in this context can be made to decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi & Ors. vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors . (2009) 13 SC 530, Kaushnumma Begum and others vs. New India Assurance Company Limited , 2001 ACJ 421 SC and National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pushpa Rana , 2009 ACJ 287 , wherein it has been held that the negligence has to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view is to be taken. It has been further held that the proceedings under the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT are not akin to the proceedings in a Civil Suit and hence, strict rules of evidence are not applicable. It has been further held that the proceedings under the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT are not akin to the proceedings in a Civil Suit and hence, strict rules of evidence are not applicable. Again in the case of Rajwati @ Rajjo vs. United India Insurance Company Limited , (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1699, the Supreme Court has held as under:- "In a case relating to motor accident claims, the claimants are not required to prove the case as it is required to be done in a criminal trial. The Court must keep this distinction in mind. It is well settled that MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 is a beneficial piece of legislation and as such, while dealing with compensation cases, once the actual occurrence of the accident has been established, the Tribunal's role would be to award just and fair compensation. As held by this court in Sunita (supra) and Kusum Lata (supra), strict rules of evidence as applicable in a criminal trial, are not applicable in motor accident compensation cases, i.e. to say, 'the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases." 15. Under the given facts and circumstances and also in view of the evidence placed on record, the finding of the learned Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the WagonR vehicle bearing No.DL-03CR/6768 and insurer of the vehicle i.e. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 2 herein, has to pay compensation, is liable to be interfered with. 16. Ltd., respondent No. 2 herein, has to pay compensation, is liable to be interfered with. 16. In view of the fact, that was elicited by respondent No.2 in cross-examination of CW-2, who is the eye witness of the accident that both vehicles had collided head on, and also in view of his evidence that the accident took place due to sole negligence on the part of the driver of the Truck and it was driven in very rash and negligent manner and that the Truck hit on the front side of the WagonR and also in view of the fact that in the police case, charge sheet was filed by police against the driver of the Truck to stand trial under Section 279 /338/304(A)/427 IPC, and more specifically the evidence of head on collision between the Truck and the WagonR and that the Truck hit on the front side of the WagonR, this Court is of the view that insurer of both the vehicles are liable for the accident and on such count liability to pay compensation has to be saddled, both upon the Truck and WagonR vehicle. 17. Though Mr. Banik, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the matter may be remanded to the learned Tribunal, yet this Court is left unimpressed by the said submission. While determining the legality and propriety of the order of remand made by the High Court, in the case of P. Purushottam Reddy v. Pratap Steels Ltd. [Appeal (Civil) Nos. 679-680 of 2002], Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “Prior to the insertion of Rule 23A in Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure by CPC Amendment Act 1976, there were only two provisions contemplating remand by a court of appeal in Order 41 of CPC. Rule 23 applies when the trial court disposes of the entire suit by recording its findings on a preliminary issue without deciding other issues and the finding on preliminary issue is reversed in appeal. Rule 25 applies when the appellate court notices an omission on the part of the trial court to frame or try any issue or to determine any question of fact which in the opinion of the appellate court was essential to the right decision of the suit upon the merits. Rule 25 applies when the appellate court notices an omission on the part of the trial court to frame or try any issue or to determine any question of fact which in the opinion of the appellate court was essential to the right decision of the suit upon the merits. However, the remand contemplated by Rule 25 is a limited remand in as much as the subordinate court can try only such issues as are referred to it for trial and having done so, the evidence recorded, together with findings and reasons therefore of the trial court, are required to be returned to the appellate court. However, still it was a settled position of law before 1976 Amendment that the court, in a appropriate case could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the CPC to order a remand if such a remand was considered pre-eminently necessary ex debito justitiate, though not covered by any specific provision of Order 41 of the CPC. In cases where additional evidence is required to be taken in the event of any one of the clauses of sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 being attracted, such additional evidence oral or documentary, is allowed to be produced either before the appellate court itself or by directing any court subordinate to the appellate court to receive such evidence and send it to the appellate court. In 1976, Rule 23 A has been inserted in Order 41 which provides for a remand by an appellate court hearing an appeal against a decree if (i) the trial court disposed of the case otherwise than on a preliminary point, and (ii) the decree is reversed in appeal and a retrial is considered necessary. On twin conditions being satisfied, the appellate court can exercise the same power of remand under Rule 23A as it is under Rule 23. After the amendment, all the cases of wholesale remand are covered by Rule 23 and 23 A. In view of the express provision of these rules, the High Court cannot have recourse to its inherent powers to make a remand because, as held in Mahendra v. Sushila, AIR (1965) SC 365, at p. 399), it is well settled that inherent powers can be availed of ex debito justiatiate only in the absence of express provisions in the Code. It is only in exceptional cases where the court may now exercise the power of remand de hors the Rules 23 and 23A. To wit, the superior court, if it finds that the judgment under appeal has not disposed of the case satisfactorily in the manner required by Order 20 Rule 3 or Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC and hence it is no judgment in the eye of law, it may set aside the same and send the matter back for re-writing the judgment so as to protect valuable rights of the parties,. An appellate court should be circumspect in ordering a remand when the case is not covered either by Rule 23 or Rule 23A or Rule 25 of the CPC. An unwarranted order of remand gives the litigation an undeserved lease of life and, therefore, must be avoided.” 18. As none of the conditions being satisfied here in this case by Mr. Banik, the learned counsel for the appellant herein, this Court is not in a position to exercise the power of remand under Order 41 Rule 23A or under Rule 23 CPC. The contention of Mr. Banik, therefore, stands repudiated. Instead, this Court is inclined to assess the compensation which the claimants are entitled to. 19. It appears that the learned Tribunal has assessed the compensation, which the claimant is entitled to as under:- “20. According to the claimant, her deceased husband was working as Mason and doing business prior to the accident and his monthly income was Rs. 9,000/-to 10,000/-, But no any document has been furnished by the claimant regarding occupation and income of the deceased. Under such circumstances, income of the deceased be considered under minimum rates of wages of the State of Assam. As per Govt. notification, the present minimum rates of wages of the State of unskilled worker as Rs. 7,950/-which be taken into consideration in this case. 21. Regarding age of the deceased, as per claim petition deceased was 48 years of age when the accident took place. Except P.M. report the claimant has not submitted any document to ascertain the age of her deceased husband. It is a settled position of law that if any age proof document is not available, the age mentioned in P.M. report can be taken into consideration. Except P.M. report the claimant has not submitted any document to ascertain the age of her deceased husband. It is a settled position of law that if any age proof document is not available, the age mentioned in P.M. report can be taken into consideration. As per P.M. Report, age of the deceased was 48 years, which can be taken into consideration in this case. 22. As per the case of Sarla Verma vs. DTC, AIR 2009 (6) SC 121 the multiplier would be 13. 23. In the instant case, the deceased left behind his wife, three sons and one daughter. As such, the standardized deduction towards personal and living expense of deceased is applicable as stated in the case of Sarala Verma. Considering the aforesaid mandate in the instant case since there are five Nos. of dependants, so, 1/4th of the income is required to be deducted with a presumption that had the deceased been alive, he could have spent 1/4th for his personal and living expenses. 24. As per SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Shethi & Ors.) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has fixed compensation in case of death 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. 25. So, in view of the aforesaid discussion, in the instant case the computation of compensation is awarded as follows:- A) Annual income of the deceased Rs. 7,950/- X 12 = Rs. 5.95,400/- B) After deducting 1/4 th of the annual income of the deceased, amount comes to = Rs.71,550/ C) After multiplied with multiplier, amount comes to Rs. 71,550/-X 13 = Rs. 9,30,150/- D) Funeral expenses = Rs. 15,000/- E) Loss of consortium = Rs. 40,000/- F) Loss of estate = Rs . 15,000/- TOTAL = Rs. 10,00,150/- (Rupees ten lakhs one hundred fifty)only. ORDER : In the result, the claim petition is allowed, awarding Rs.10,00,150/- (Rupees ten lakhs one hundred fifty) only with interest thereon @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the case i.e. on 31-03-2018 till full and realization. O.P. No. 5 i.e. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. is directed to discharge liability of the award within a period of 30(thirty) days from the date of receipt of the order.” 20. O.P. No. 5 i.e. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. is directed to discharge liability of the award within a period of 30(thirty) days from the date of receipt of the order.” 20. The finding of the learned Tribunal in respect of the age, profession and income of the deceased has not been disputed by any of the parties in this appeal. However, it appears that while determining the loss of dependency the learned Tribunal has not added the future prospect. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC 680. 21. Thus, having accepted the income of the deceased at Rs. 7950/ per month, and as self employed (Mason) and his age was 48 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 National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC 680 . After addition of 25% to Rs. 7950/ the amount would be Rs. 9938/. ( Rs.7950/ + Rs.1987.5) = Rs.9937.5 (rounded off at Rs. 9938/-) 22. Thereafter, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 121 , 1/4 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. 7454/- [Rs. 9938– 2484.5] = Rs. 7453.5 (rounded off at Rs. 7454/). Since the age of the deceased at the time of his death was 48 years, the applicable multiplier, as per decision of Sarala Verma (supra) would be 13. After application of multiplier, the amount would be Rs.11,62,824/- (Rs.7454 x 12 x 13 = Rs.11,62,824/- 23. 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. v. Nanu Ram , (2018) 18 SCC 130 . 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. v. Nanu Ram , (2018) 18 SCC 130 . This aspect has, however, eschewed consideration of the learned Tribunal. It is to be noted here that the deceased herein this case, had left behind his wife and three sons and one daughter. 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 [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.” 24. Further, the claimant and her four children 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, almost 8 years elapsed. That being so, the aforesaid amounts have to be enhanced by twice. 25. The whole calculation, after application of the principle laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and also in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) and Nanu Ram (supra), would be as under:- S. No. Heads Calculation I Monthly income Rs. 7950/- II 25% of (i) to be added as future prospect = Rs. 9938/- (Rs. 7950/- + Rs. 1987.5) = Rs. 9937.5 (rounded off at Rs. 9938/-) Rs. 9938/- III 1/4th of the (ii) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased = [Rs. 9938 - 2484.5] = Rs. 7453.5 (rounded off at Rs. 7454/-) Rs. 7454/- IV Compensation after multiplier of 13 is applied (Rs. 7454 x 12 x 13) = Rs. 11,62,824/- Rs. 7950/- + Rs. 1987.5) = Rs. 9937.5 (rounded off at Rs. 9938/-) Rs. 9938/- III 1/4th of the (ii) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased = [Rs. 9938 - 2484.5] = Rs. 7453.5 (rounded off at Rs. 7454/-) Rs. 7454/- IV Compensation after multiplier of 13 is applied (Rs. 7454 x 12 x 13) = Rs. 11,62,824/- Rs. 11,62,824/- 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 2 = Rs. 3,000/- Rs. 15,000/- + Rs. 3,000/- = Rs. 18,000/- 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 2 = 8,000. (Rs. 40,000 + 8,000 = Rs. 48,000/- x 5 = 2,40,000/-) Rs. 40,000/- + Rs. 8,000/-= Rs. 48,000/- x 5 = Rs. 2,40,000/- VII Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- which has to be increased by 10% in each three years 15,000 x 10/100 = 1500 x 2 = Rs. 3,000/- Rs. 15,000/- + Rs. 3,000/- = Rs. 18,000/- Total Rs. 14,56,216/- 26. Accordingly, the compensation, which the claimant/appellant is entitled to, is assessed at Rs. 14,56,216/- Finding: - 27. In the result, this Court finds this appeal devoid of merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. However, the impugned Judgment and Award, dated 30.10.2019, stands modified to the extent indicated above. 28. In view of the finding recorded in para No. 25 above, the liability to pay the aforesaid amount of compensation i.e. Rs.14,56,216/- has to be apportioned between the respondent No.1 and 2 i.e. the New India Assurance Company Limited, the insurer of Truck, bearing registration No. AS-14C/0806, and the United India Insurance Co. Ltd., the insurer of the WagonR vehicle, bearing registration No. DL- 03CR/6768, as there was head on collision between both the vehicles. The amount, if already paid to the claimant/appellant has to be deducted from the aforesaid amount. 29. It is further provided that the entire amount, including the future prospect, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. The amount, if already paid to the claimant/appellant has to be deducted from the aforesaid amount. 29. It is further provided that the entire amount, including the future prospect, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika & Ors., Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11340 of 2020 ; shall 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 , (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 , (2014) C.R. 693 (SC). 30. The respondent No.1 and 2 shall deposit their respective portion of 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. 31. Though the learned Tribunal had directed to keep some of the amount in fixed deposit in the bank, in the name of the daughter, who, at the time of accident on 28.11.2017, was 14 years old, yet in the meantime she might have attained majority. Even then this Court is inclined to direct the learned Tribunal to keep a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/ fixed deposit in a nationalized bank for a period of 5 years. On being deposited, the said amount of compensation, before it, in the name of the claimant, the said amount shall not be allowed to be withdrawn by the claimant from the bank; without the leave of the Tribunal. 32. 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.