JUDGMENT S. PANDA, J. : The appellant-Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 16.11.2011 passed by the learned 1st Addl.District Judge-cum-1st M.A.C.T., Cuttack in MACT No.320 of 2007. 2.The facts leading to the present appeal are as follows : Respondent Nos.1 to 5 are the dependant legal heirs of one Anu Charan Murmu who died in a motor vehicular accident on 20th April, 2007. The deceased was working as a Transmission Executive in All India Radio, Cuttack at the time of accident. While the deceased was returning to his house, the offending vehicle bearing registration number OR-05-W-0645 came in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident for which the deceased sustained multiple injuries and he was shifted to SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack for treatment. The injured succumbed to the injuries on the same date. At the time of death, the deceased was 38 years old. The claimants in the claim application stated that the monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.26,338/- and his take home salary was Rs.25,518/-. Since the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and the claimants were the dependants of the deceased, they are entitled to compensation. They claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.49,00,000/- towards loss of dependency. The owner of the vehicle admitted the accident and took a plea that due to fault of the deceased, the accident took place. He also pleaded that the offending vehicle had a valid insurance policy and the driver had also valid and effective driving licence covering the date of the accident. As such, the Insurance Company is to pay the compensation amount, if any, entitled to by the claimants. The appellant-Insurance Company filed separate written statement denying the allegations made by the claimants. The Insurance Company had disputed the age of the deceased, his occupation, income and also the fault of the driver of the offending vehicle. On the above findings, the Tribunal framed as many as four issues which are follows : “1. Whether due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration number OR-05-W-0645 (Santro Car) the accident took place and in that accident deceased, Anu Charan Murmu succumbed to injuries. 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to get the compensation. If so, what would be the extent, 3. Whether due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration number OR-05-W-0645 (Santro Car) the accident took place and in that accident deceased, Anu Charan Murmu succumbed to injuries. 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to get the compensation. If so, what would be the extent, 3. Whether all the Opposite Parties or any of the opposite Party are/is liable to pay the compensation; and 4. To what relief, if any, the petitioner are entitled.” 3.The claimants, in support of their case, examined four witnesses and also filed documentary evidence which were marked as Exts.1 to 17. The appellant-Insurance Company also examined two witnesses including the owner of the offending vehicle and also filed documentary evidence which were marked as Exts.A to D. The owner of the offending vehicle filed one document, i.e., certified copy of the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle which was marked as Ext.A/1. However, he did not examine any witness. On the evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The deceased was 38 years old on the date of the accident and his take home salary was Rs.25,158/- after statutory deductions towards G.P.F., professional tax, etc. as is evident from Ext.15. The Tribunal applying 15 multiplier calculated the compensation to the tune of Rs.45,28,440/- and also held that the claimants are entitled to Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium. Thus, the Tribunal, in toto, awarded Rs.45,37,940/- towards compensation and directed that the said amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e., 23.6.2007. 4.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company while challenging the impound awarded on various grounds specifically submitted that the Tribunal has erroneously calculated the compensation amount taking into account the revised pay scale of the deceased instead of the salary drawn by the deceased at the time of accident. He further submitted that the employer of the deceased deducted the income tax out of the salary of the deceased. Therefore, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be interfered with. He further submitted that the employer of the deceased deducted the income tax out of the salary of the deceased. Therefore, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be interfered with. In support of his submissions, he has cited the decisions of the apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 (2) TAC 677 (SC) and Shyamwati Sharma and others v. Karam Singh and others, 2010 (4) TAC 29 (SC). 5.Learned counsel for the claimant-respondents vehemently opposing the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the claimants examined the Drawings and Disbursing Officer of All India Radio, Cuttack as P.W.3 who proved the salary certificate of the deceased and deposed regarding statutory deduction. Since the Tribunal has rightly calcualted the compensation amount, the same need not be interfered with in the absence of any further materials available on record. Learned counsel for the respondents in support of his case has filed certified copy of the deposition of the witnesses and the certified copies of the exhibits. 6.From the aforesaid rival submissions of the parties and after going through the evidence, it appears that the pay scale of the deceased was revised with effect from 2006 and the deceased did not receive the said revised scale at the time of the accident. 7.The apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) has held that the assumption of the appellants that the actual future pay revisions should be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the income is not sound. The claimants only could rely upon the pay scales in force at the time of the accident, if they are prompt in conducting the case. But if they delay the proceedings, they can rely upon the revised higher pay scales that may come into effect during such pendency. Surely, promptness cannot be punished in this manner. The apex Court, therefore, rejected the contention that the revisions in pay scale subsequent to the death and before the final hearing should be taken note of for the purpose of determining the income for calculating the compensation. Surely, promptness cannot be punished in this manner. The apex Court, therefore, rejected the contention that the revisions in pay scale subsequent to the death and before the final hearing should be taken note of for the purpose of determining the income for calculating the compensation. 8.In view of the aforesaid proposition of law and the fact that P.W.3 who is the Drawing & Disbursing Officer has categorically stated that the pay scale of the deceased was revised at the time of his examination, the Tribunal has erroneously calcualted the compensation taking into consideration the revised scale of pay of the deceased during pendency of the claim application. From the record, it appears that the take home salary of the deceased was Rs.18,681/- per month which was revised to Rs.26,338/- from 2006. 9.Taking into consideration the above facts, this Court, while confirming the findings of the Tribunal in all other aspects but not regarding quantum of compensation, in the interest of justice, determines the just and fair compensation at Rs.41,00,000/- (rupees forty-one lakhs) which will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of payment. 10.Accordingly, this Court reduces the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.45,37,940/- to Rs.41,00,000/- (rupees forty-one lakhs) along with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment. Out of the compensation amount, Rs.35,00,000/- (rupees thirty five lakhs) shall be kept in fixed deposit in the names of the claimants for a period of six years. The rest of the amount with accrued interest shall be disbursed to the claimants on proper application/identification. The appellant-Insurance company shall deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from today. Statutory deposit made by the Insurance Company before this Court be refunded to it after showing the receipt of deposit of the modified compensation along with interest before the Tribunal on proper application. With the aforesaid modification of the impugned award, the appeal is partly allowed. Appeal partly allowed.