MACApp. 23/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE IA ANSARI By the award, dated 22-11-2007, passed, in MAC Case No. 1163/2006, by th e learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Cachar, Silchar, as Memb er, MACT, Cachar, Silchar, the claimants-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have been direc ted to be paid a sum of Rs. 4, 18, 000/-, as compensation with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of making of the claim application, the compensation and in terest being payable by the appellant herein, as insurer of the offending vehicl e. The case of the claimants-respondents was, in brief, thus: On 07-02-2006, while their brother, namely, Bapan Das (since deceased) was going on foot, he was hit by Vehicle No. MZ-01C/0586 on the Nation High Way at Panchgram, Kalibari. In ser iously injured condition, the brother of the claimants was carried to the hospit al, but before reaching the hospital, he succumbed to his injuries. At the time of his death, the deceased was 21 years of age, he was unmarried, he was a carpe nter and his monthly income was Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 8,000/-. In this appeal, the fact that the appellant is insurer of the offending vehicle is not in dispute nor is it in dispute that Bapan Das died as a result of rash d riving of the offending vehicle. The limited question, raised in this appeal, at the time of hearing, is the quan tum of compensation, which ought to have been made available to the claimants-re spondents. Aggrieved, therefore, by the quantum of compensation granted to the c laimants-respondents, the insurer has preferred this appeal. I have heard Mr. A Ahmed, learned counsel for the insurer-appellant, and Mr. N D ebnath, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of claimants-respondents. While considering the quantum of compensation, it needs to be noted that the claimants had put on record the Income Certificate of the deceased, as Ext. 3, which was issued by the Circle Officer, Silchar, showing that the annual inc ome of the deceased was Rs. 96,000/-. The learned Tribunal, however, took the vi ew that the amount mentioned therein was inflated. The learned Tribunal has asse ssed the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- per month and his annual income h as accordingly been assessed at Rs. 72,000/-. A careful reading of the evidence on record shows that one of the claimants gave evidence, on oath, and the appellant duly cross-examined the claimant. The evid ence of the claimant, namely, Binata Das, was that Bapan Das was a carpenter by profession and he used to earn Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- per month and that the said deceased was the sole bread-earner of their family as their parents had ex pired long back. It is also in the evidence of the said witness that Bapan Das u sed to bear expenses for education of his younger sisters, i.e., the claimants-r espondents and that due to his untimely and pre-mature death, the family members are facing acute hardship and are living at the mercy of their relatives. Though the appellant, as insurer, cross-examined the said claimant and disputed the veracity of the income certificate, it was not denied that Bapan Das was a c arpenter nor was any evidence adduced by the appellant to show that Bapan Das wa s not a carpenter. It has, thus, surfaced unscathered that Bapan Das was a carpenter. In such circu mstances, the only question remains as to what the income of the said deceased, as a carpenter, was. In this regard, except a bald statement that her brother us ed to earn Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- per month, no other material was brought o n record by the claimant. Though the learned Tribunal has treated the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/-, it has not assigned any reason for treating the inc ome of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/-. As a carpenter, it is correctly pointed out, on behalf of the appellant, that ev en if it is assumed that the deceased used to earn Rs. 200/- per day, he could n ot have worked on every day of the week or on every day of a month or on every d ay in a year. In such circumstances, the income of the deceased ought to have be en assessed at not more than Rs. 5,000/- per month. This annual income was, ther efore, Rs. 60,000/- (Rs. 5,000 x 12). As the said deceased met with death, according to the finding of the learned Tri bunal, at the age of 21 years, 17 was rightly chosen as multiplier. If 17 is tak en as multiplier, the total amount comes to the tune of Rs. 10,20,000/-. The le arned Tribunal has pointed out that since the deceased was unmarried, he would n ot have been able to spare more than 1/3rd of his income for his sisters, had he survived and got married. These conclusions of the learned Tribunal have not be en challenged by the claimants-respondents. Situated thus, it becomes clear that if 2/3rd of the said amount of Rs. 10,20,00 0/- is kept excluded, as future personal expenses of the said deceased, the tota l compensation, payable to the claimants-respondents, as loss of income arising out of the death of the said deceased, would come to the tune of Rs. 3,40,000/-. This apart, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as funeral ex penses and another sum of Rs. 5,000/- as loss of estate. The amounts, so awarded , do not call for any interference. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/-. The said compensation amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- shall be payable, in the light of the impugned award, @ 6% per annum from the date of making of the claim application until the payment of the entire compensation amount to the claimant s-respondents. While computing the interest on the awarded amount, the learned T ribunal shall exclude such amount or amounts as may have been received, pursuant to the impugned award, by the appellants to the claimants-respondents. Considering the fact that the claimants-respondents have not withdrawn t he sum of Rs. 2,09,000/-, which stands deposited with this Registry by the appel lant, the same shall be allowed to be withdrawn by the appellant subject to the condition that the appellant shall deposit the entire compensation amount with i nterest, which may have accrued thereon, in terms of the directions given herein above, in the learned Tribunal, Silchar, within a period of two months from toda y. With the above observations and directions, this appeal shall stand disp osed of. No order as to costs. Send back the LCRs.