ABDUL REHIM, J.

1. The 2nd respondent-insurance company before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal, in O.P. (MV) No.1120/2006 is the appellant herein, challenging the award. The respondents 1 to 3 were the claimants 1, 2 and 4 before the Tribunal. The 3rd claimant died after the award and hence not made a party in this appeal. In the present appeal there is no challenge against the finding of the Tribunal on the aspect of the negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle which was insured with the appellant company. In other words, the appellant is not disputing their liability for payment of the compensation for which the claimants are entitled.

2. Main challenge in this appeal is based on a contention that the amount awarded under different heads are excessive. Further contention is against the stipulation for payment of higher rate of interest at 12%, after a period of two months from the date of the award.

3. Heard the standing counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3.

4. One of the main contentions raised by the appellant is that, the Tribunal went erred in making an addition of 50% towards future prospects while fixing the multiplicand for computing the loss of dependency, by relying on a decision of honourable supreme court in Santhosh Devi V. National Insurance Company Limited and others (2012 ACJ 1428). Contention of the appellant is that, the honourable supreme court had directed addition of 50% towards future prospects only in cases where the person died/injured is a salaried employee getting a fixed income. In the case of self employed persons below the age of 50, guidelines was fixed to add only 30% towards future prospects. It is pointed out that, in the case at hand, despite the claim that the deceased was a driver earning monthly income of Rs.3,000/-, no proof was adduced to substantiate the occupation or income. Learned counsel urged that the claimants have failed even to produce his driving licence, if any. Therefore it is contended that the person died cannot be included in the category of self employed persons and hence the addition made towards future prospects cannot be sustained.

5. We find merit in the above said contention of the appellant. But at the same time, considering the socioeconomic situations which prevailed during the year 2006; and also on considering the fact that the claimants, who were the wife, minor child, father and sister of the deceased, were all dependent upon the deceased for their livelihood, the notional amount of Rs.3,000/- fixed as income for the purpose of computing the loss of dependency is on the lower side. We also take note that the amount of compensation awarded under various other heads are also on the lower side. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the amount wrongly awarded towards future prospects can be set off against the inadequacy in the quantum of compensation fixed under different other heads, including the notional income fixed. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

6. Another important point raised by the appellant is regarding awarding of higher rate of interest at 12% per annum, after two months from the date of the award. We notice that the Tribunal directed the appellant insurance company to make payment of the amount of compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of the claim petition, within 60 days from the date of the award. The Tribunal further directed that, failing deposit of the amount within the time stipulated as above, the claimants will be entitled for enhanced interest @ 12% per annum on the amount payable thereafter. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the stipulation for payment of a higher rate of interest cannot be sustained as legal and justifiable. It is pointed out that, there is no contractual obligation on the part of the insurance company making them liable for payment