JUDGMENT : Budi Habung, J. Heard Ms. Rita Das Mozumdar, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company. Also heard Mr. A. Mannaf, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the claimants/respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4; and Mr. S. R. Islam, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 & 6. 2. This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the judgment & award, dated 05.03.2019, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal No. 2, Kamrup(M), Guwahati in MAC. Case No. 750/2014, whereby, the learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 9,80,056/- along with an interest at the bank rate for Fixed Deposit from 01.04.2016, per annum, and in the event of failure to make the payment within the stipulated period; the compensation amount shall bear an additional interest at the rate of 1% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition in favour of the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 3. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal, in a nutshell, are that on 27.03.2014, at about 3 p.m., while the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing Registration No. AS-25D-8202, he was knocked down from behind by a Bolero Pickup Van bearing Registration No. AS-25AC-1131, as a result of which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries on his person. Thereafter, he was immediately taken to Boko PHC for treatment where he was declared brought dead. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 being the legal heirs of the deceased, filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal seeking compensation alleging that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. It was also contended that at the time of the accident, the deceased was an employee of the Government of Meghalaya and he was earning a monthly salary of Rs. 27,000/-. 4. The Opposite parties i.e. Owner and Driver of the offending vehicle, contested the case by filing their written statements denying the allegation of negligence. They, however, contended that at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was duly insured with the appellant Insurance Company and the driver possessed a valid driving license. 5. 27,000/-. 4. The Opposite parties i.e. Owner and Driver of the offending vehicle, contested the case by filing their written statements denying the allegation of negligence. They, however, contended that at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was duly insured with the appellant Insurance Company and the driver possessed a valid driving license. 5. The appellant Insurance Company also contested the case by filing the written statement, denying the averments and also contending that there was violation of the policy terms and conditions and therefore, the appellant Insurance Company are not liable to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle. 6. Upon consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The learned Tribunal, however, observed that the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 4 failed to prove that the deceased was an employee of the Government of Meghalaya and that he was earning a monthly salary of Rs. 27,000/-. Nevertheless, the learned Tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 6,500/- per month and awarded a total compensation amount of Rs. 9,80,056, including Rs. 40,000/- as loss of consortium; Rs.15,000/- as funeral expenses; and Rs. 15,000/- as loss of estate. 7. Accordingly, the appellant Insurance Company was directed to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 9,80,056/- within 3(three) months from the date of passing of the order along with an interest at the bank rate for Fixed Deposit from 01.04.2016, per annum, failing which, the compensation amount shall bear an additional interest at the rate of 1% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition. 8. Being aggrieved, the appellant Insurance Company preferred this appeal, inter alia, contending that the Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 6,500/- without any documentary proof. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rani & ors. v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & ors ., reported in 2018 STPL 9049 SC , submits that in the absence of any documentary evidence, the monthly income of the deceased should be taken as Rs. 5,000/-. 10. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rani & ors. v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & ors ., reported in 2018 STPL 9049 SC , submits that in the absence of any documentary evidence, the monthly income of the deceased should be taken as Rs. 5,000/-. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company further submits that the other grounds taken by them in this appeal i.e. Grounds No. A, B, C, D & E of the appeal memo, are not pressed in view of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & ors. , passed in Civil Appeal No. 841 of 2018 11. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 12. It is true that the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 4 could not produce any documentary proof to establish that the deceased was an employee under the Government of Meghalaya and that he was earning a monthly salary of Rs. 27,000/-. However, the notional income assessed by the learned Tribunal appears to be on a higher side in the absence of any supporting materials. 13. However, considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Rani (supra) and also considering the consensus reached between the parties; this Court finds it reasonable to re-assess the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/-. 14. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that the monthly income of the deceased shall be taken as Rs. 6,000/- instead of Rs. 6,5000/-. Thus, the compensation which the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are entitled, is re-assessed as under: Sl. No. Heads Calculation (i) Income Rs. 6,000/- per month (ii) 25% of Rs. 6,000/- to be added as future prospect Rs. 6,000/- + Rs. 1,500/- Rs. 7,500/- per month (iii) 1/3rd of Rs. 7,500/- is deducted as personal expenses of the deceased who left three dependents Rs. 7,500/- minus Rs. 2,500/- Rs. 5,000/- per month (iv) Compensation after multiplier of 14 is applied Rs. 5,000/- x 12 x 14 Rs. 8,40,000/- 15. The rest of the award of the learned Tribunal shall remain unaltered. 16. 7,500/- per month (iii) 1/3rd of Rs. 7,500/- is deducted as personal expenses of the deceased who left three dependents Rs. 7,500/- minus Rs. 2,500/- Rs. 5,000/- per month (iv) Compensation after multiplier of 14 is applied Rs. 5,000/- x 12 x 14 Rs. 8,40,000/- 15. The rest of the award of the learned Tribunal shall remain unaltered. 16. Since admittedly 50% of the total awarded amount has already been deposited and withdrawn by the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 4; the appellant Insurance Company is hereby directed to release the balance amount of the compensation to the claimants/ respondent Nos. 1 to 4, as per the modified award after due adjustment and the same shall be deposited before the learned Tribunal within a period of 6(six) weeks from today. 17. The Registry shall also release the statutory deposit to the appellant Insurance Company. 18. With the above modification, the instant appeal stands allowed and accordingly, disposed of. 19. Remit the connected Trial Court records to the Office of the learned Member, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal No. 2, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, forthwith.