JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILESH KUMAR SINHA) 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent-Insurance Company. 2. The appeal is directed against the judgment and Award dated 30th August, 2006 in Claim Case No. 26 of 2004 passed by the District Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif-cum-Claims Tribunal, Nalanda at Biharsharif (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). The aforesaid claim case was registered on an application filed by the appellant under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation on account of the death of her husband namely, Ramesh Prasad in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 29th November, 2003. 3. The relevant facts with respect to the accident since are not in dispute, as such, the details are not repeated as the same have been taken in detail in the judgment under appeal. However, the short relevant facts for the disposal of the above appeal are that the husband of the appellant no.1 namely, Ramesh Prasad was a Government employee working as Technical Operator in the Public Relation Department, Koderma in the State of Jharkhand. While going to the Circuit House boarded the Marshal jeep bearing registration No. JH-12A-4350 on the Koderma-Ranchi Road unfortunately the said jeep met an accident with a Truck bearing No. BHM 3019 coming from the opposite direction. In the accident the said Ramesh Prasad, husband of the appellant no.1, sustained multiple injuries on his person. He was taken to the Referral Hospital, Koderma for treatment, however, he succumbed to the injury. 4. The appellants filed the aforesaid claim case claiming the compensation of about rupees eighteen lacs. The Tribunal, however, upon considering the claim as also the evidence oral as well as documentary allowed the compensation of Rs. 8,79,500 (rupees eight lacs seventy nine thousand & five hundred) along with interest @ 6% per annum from the month of January, 2005 till recovery of the amount. While allowing the claim, the Tribunal also directed the manner in which the amount is to be paid to the appellant no.1. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal while considering the claim of the appellants did not consider correctly the monthly income/salary of the deceased as also applying the correct multiplier in order to arrive the total amount of compensation. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal while considering the claim of the appellants did not consider correctly the monthly income/salary of the deceased as also applying the correct multiplier in order to arrive the total amount of compensation. Besides, it was submitted that the rate of interest allowed by the Tribunal should not had been less than 12% per annum instead of 6% as allowed. Learned counsel submits that the Tribunal while taking into consideration the monthly income of the deceased failed to consider properly the evidence of the claimant no.1 to the effect that her husband was drawing the salary of rupees eleven thousand per month in absence of any cross-examination on this point by the opposite parties of the said claim case including the Insurance Company. Besides, the evidence of appellant no.1 the oral evidence of the son of the deceased (C.W.4) also specifically stated that his father was drawing a salary of Rs. 11,000/- per month. The other official witness on behalf of the claimants i.e. C.W. 2 proved the official documents with respect to the salary of the deceased. It is further submitted that the last pay certificate issued on 4th December, 2003 ( Exhibit-1) indicated the salary income of the deceased before adding the benefits of the first and second assured career progression (ACP) with effect from 09.08.1999 and 27.05.2002 respectively which indicated the salary of the deceased as Rs. 9540/-, the Tribunal however did not consider that the monthly salary of the deceased in the month preceding his date of death which was Rs. 10,907/- excluding the medical allowance of Rs. 50/-, and as such, the claim of the claimant that the monthly salary of the deceased was Rs. 11,000/- was correct and the same should have been taken by the Tribunal instead of Rs. 10,000/- after rounding the figure 9540/-. The office order dated 09.09.2005 (Exhibit 2) indicated the basic salary of the deceased as Rs. 6650/- as on the date of death after taking into consideration the grant of first and second A.C.P. besides the dearness allowance and other allowances. Learned counsel also submitted that the Tribunal after arriving at the annual salary of the deceased without any valid justification awarded the compensation amount adopting the multiplier of 11 instead of 13 taking into consideration the age of the deceased who was aged about 47 years. Learned counsel also submitted that the Tribunal after arriving at the annual salary of the deceased without any valid justification awarded the compensation amount adopting the multiplier of 11 instead of 13 taking into consideration the age of the deceased who was aged about 47 years. Relying upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases, 121 (paragraph 42). It was also submitted that while considering the dependency on the deceased, the Tribunal ought not to have deducted 1/3rd from the total yearly income since the deceased died leaving behind five persons in the family for having two daughters and two sons besides the widow, and as such, the maximum deduction could have been 1/4th and not 1/3rd relying upon the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court dealt with in paragraph 30. As regards the claim of interest, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the interest rate of 6% was not justified, and secondly, the claimants were entitled to the interest on the compensation amount with effect from the date of the claim application and not from the month of January, 2005 as allowed by the Tribunal on the ground that since time was allowed to the opposite parties of the claim petition for filing the written statement till December, 2004. 6. Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company, on the other hand, supports the order under appeal and submits that the learned Tribunal considering the entire material on record including the oral as well as documentary evidences awarded the correct compensation amount, even though the Insurance Company did not adduce any evidence oral or documentary except filing the written statement. It is, however, submitted that the Tribunal while considering the last pay certificate (Exhibit-1) had rightly arrived at the correct monthly income of the deceased to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- as also taking into consideration other factors whereby the son of the deceased was allowed compassionate appointment, the multiplier of 11 was appropriate and the interest allowed @ 6% with effect from the date Tribunal allowed was equally correct. 7. 10,000/- as also taking into consideration other factors whereby the son of the deceased was allowed compassionate appointment, the multiplier of 11 was appropriate and the interest allowed @ 6% with effect from the date Tribunal allowed was equally correct. 7. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and upon perusal of the evidences oral as well as documentary brought on record in support of the claim, it would appear that the appellants have a serious grievance with respect to the monthly income arrived by the Tribunal as also the multiplier of 11 as adopted. According to the appellants, the deceased has a monthly income of Rs. 11,000/- as per the evidence of claimant’s witness nos. 1 and 4, who were the widow and the son of the deceased as also the Exhibit-1/1 the income table of the monthly salary of the deceased issued by the office where the deceased was working read with office order dated 09.09.2005 (Exhibit-2) mentioning the basic monthly salary of the deceased after the grant of benefit of the first and second Assured Career Progression (ACP), and as such, adding over the same the dearness allowance of Rs. 3924/- the figure comes to Rs. 10,574/- and with the addition of the house rent allowance of Rs. 333/- it comes to Rs. 10907/- added by Rs. 50/- as medical allowance it slightly exceeds rupees eleven thousand per month. The Tribunal while considering the monthly salary of the deceased had taken into consideration the last pay certificate issued on 4th December, 2003 vide Exhibit-1 and on considering such last pay with addition of dearness allowance arrived the figure of Rs. 9540/- and after rounding the figure arrived the monthly income @ Rs. 10,000/- per month. In my opinion, the Tribunal could not have based its finding on the question of income the aforesaid exhibit-1 which was issued on 04.12.2003 without addition of the admissible benefits of first and second assured career progression (ACP) allowed by the office of the deceased effective from 9th August, 1999 and 27.05.2002 respectively. The husband of the claimant had died in the said accident on 29th November, 2003, and as such, the benefit of first and second assured career progression (ACP) ought to have been taken into consideration for arriving the correct monthly income which was reflecting in Exhibit-1/1. The husband of the claimant had died in the said accident on 29th November, 2003, and as such, the benefit of first and second assured career progression (ACP) ought to have been taken into consideration for arriving the correct monthly income which was reflecting in Exhibit-1/1. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the monthly salary of the deceased employee was to be taken @ 11,000/- per month. Now, as regards the correct multiplier, in this connection the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) the correct multiplier as indicated by the Apex Court considering the various factors and previous decisions of the Court held that in the case of the deceased within the age group of 45-50 years the correct table applicable would be 13, and as such, the deceased who died at the age of 47 years the correct multiplier applicable was 13 instead of 11. As regards the dependency, it is not in dispute that the deceased died in the aforesaid accident leaving behind five members in the family as noticed above including the widow. As such, the appropriate deduction should have been 1/4th from the total yearly income/salary instead of 1/3rd in light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) vide paragraph 30 wherein it is held to the effect that in case the deceased dies leaving behind maximum number of family members to be three, the deduction would be 1/3rd whereas in case the deceased dies leaving behind the family members more than three and less than five it would be 1/4th. Accordingly, I find that while calculating the compensation, the monthly income of the deceased employee to be taken @ 11,000/- per month and the correct multiplier to be applied be 13. As regards the interest, I am not interfering with the rate of interest as the death had occurred in the year 2003 and the interest @ 6% cannot be said to be on the lower side. However, there does not appear to be justification for allowing the aforesaid interest payable from the month of January, 2005 instead of allowing the interest from the date of filing the application i.e. 11.05.2004. However, there does not appear to be justification for allowing the aforesaid interest payable from the month of January, 2005 instead of allowing the interest from the date of filing the application i.e. 11.05.2004. The reason assigned by the Tribunal for allowing interest from the month of January, 2005 that since the Tribunal continued to allow time to the opposite parties for filing the written statement till December, 2005 is not justified. 8. In the result it is held and directed that the monthly income of the deceased be taken @ Rs.11,000/- per month and the multiplier of 13 be applied with aforesaid interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the application be calculated. Out of the difference of amount on account of the aforesaid recalculation, the fifty percent be deposited as fixed deposit in the Bank in the name of the claimant no.1 (appellant no.1) and rest fifty per cent be deposited in the savings bank account of the claimant no.1 in the like manner as the original compensation amount allowed and directed by the Tribunal. The aforesaid difference amount be deposited in the Court below in the like manner as the original compensation amount was deposited within a period of two months. 9. The judgment and the award under appeal is modified to the above extent. 10. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.