Judgment : Ram Mohan Reddy, J. 1. The second respondent - United India Insurance Company Limited in MVC No.55/2013 on the file of the MACT and II Additional District Judge, Raichur aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 30.08.2013 allowing the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the 'Act') and saddling the liability to pay compensation of Rs.22,55,617/- with 6% interest has presented this appeal. 2. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 claiming to be the legal representatives of one Basavaraj who succumbed to grievous injury in an accident that occurred on 22.11.2012 when the motor vehicle being a Tata Sumo bearing certificate of registration No.KA-36/M-3020 belonging to the 6th respondent and insured by the appellant, driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the said Basavaraj, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act for compensation. In the said petition it was asserted that the deceased was aged 45 and was working as Assistant Officer in Agricultural Department of the State of Karnataka, at Lingasugur drawing a monthly salary of Rs.35,000/- and due to the accident succumbed to grievous in the Government Hospital at Lingasugur on 22.11.2012. 3. That petition was opposed by the insured contending that the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant and the policy of insurance was in force on the date and time of accident and liability if any be fixed on the appellant. The petition was also opposed by filing statement of objections of the appellant denying the involvement of the offending motor vehicle, on the premise that the said vehicle was kept under repair having met with an accident on 18.11.2012 near Karatagi, that the second wife of the deceased was not entitled to compensation and that one of the claimants had attained the age of majority hence not a dependent on the deceased, in addition to the contention, that the insured violated the terms of the policy of insurance by entrusting the vehicle to a driver who had no valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. Lastly, it was contended that the vehicle was not insured with it subject to confirmation of compliance of Section 64 VG of the Insurance Act. 4. In the premise of the pleadings of the parties, the MACT framed the following issues: "1. Lastly, it was contended that the vehicle was not insured with it subject to confirmation of compliance of Section 64 VG of the Insurance Act. 4. In the premise of the pleadings of the parties, the MACT framed the following issues: "1. Whether petitioners prove that the accident dated 22.11.2012 was due to rash and negligence on the part of driver of TATA Sumo bearing Reg.No.KA-36/M-3020 resulting in the death of Basavaraj? 2. Whether petitioners are entitled for award of compensation? If so, how much and from whom? 3. What order or award?" 5. Fifth respondent herein the widow of the deceased was examined as PW-1 and introduced documents marked as Exs.P1 to P9. The appellant/2nd respondent examined its officer as RW-1 and one other witness as RW-3 the Surveyor and introduced in evidence Exs.R1 to R44 while the insured was examined as RW-2. 6. The MACT having regard to the material on record, the evidence both oral and documentary, returned findings in the affirmative over issue Nos.1 and 2 and accordingly determined compensation payable to the claimants, by the judgment and award impugned. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits: (i) The MACT was not justified in attributing actionable negligence on the driver of the Tata Sumo vehicle since that vehicle was not in a roadworthy condition capable of being driven on 22.11.2012 the date of the accident. (ii) The award of Rs.20,20,617/- towards loss of dependency is excessive because of the inclusion of Rs.2,220/- as interim relief in the salary certificate Ex.P7. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, perused the pleadings, evidence both oral and documentary and examined the judgment and award impugned, at the threshold we find no merit in either of the submissions of the learned counsel. The thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the motor vehicle in question being a Tata Sumo had met with an accident on 18.11.2012 and was not in a motorable condition as reported by its surveyor in the survey report Ex.R1. That report bears the name Prabhanjan D.J. the Insurance Surveyor, Loss Assessor, and valuer, who, admittedly was not examined. Therefore, no credence can be attributed to Ex.R1 report. That report bears the name Prabhanjan D.J. the Insurance Surveyor, Loss Assessor, and valuer, who, admittedly was not examined. Therefore, no credence can be attributed to Ex.R1 report. RW-3 one M.Janardhan Reddy said to be the Surveyor speaks to his report Ex.R17 and states that he surveyed and assessed the loss in respect of the vehicle in question on 24.11.2012 when he visited M/s. Azeez Gas Welding Works, Raichur Road, Lingasugur according to the deponent the vehicle sustained the following damages: front bumper bent deshaped; Front extra bumper bent and deshaped; Front RH doors bent and deshaped; RH body panel bent dented and deshaped; Rear bumper RH side bent; Front RH fender panel bent in and dented. Front bonnet bent and dented; Roof panel dented and deshaped; Front RH side glass pillars bent and deshaped; Body roof bows bent and deshaped; LH side body panel dented and deshaped; Body LH side bent and deshaped; Front WS glass broken and rubber beading damaged; Door glass broken; Sliding glasses broken; Frame bent and deshaped and steering wheel bent and deshaped; Break booster assembly pressed and damaged; and that the vehicle was fully damaged and not in a roadworthy condition. According to the deponent the vehicle was not in a roadworthy condition to drive at a speed so as to overtake a truck and therefore the second accident dated 22.11.2012 was questionable. In the cross- examination it is elicited that the witness knows that an accident took place at Karatagi and the vehicle was brought and parked in Lingasugur garage and that there was no damage to the engine nor photographs produced relating to the damage to the break booster. 9. The testimony of RW-3 is over the damages to the motor vehicle in question noticed by him on 24.11.2012, while the accident occurred on 22.11.2012. The testimony of the said witness being damages to the vehicle post the accident on 22.11.2012 is not worthy of acceptance over whether or not the motor vehicle was in a motorable condition on the date of accident i.e. 22.11.2012. 10. RW-2, the insured, in examination-in-chief admits that even after the accident on 18.11.2012 the vehicle was in a roadworthy condition and was taken to Lingasugur by driving from Karatagi. That testimony is not discredited, hence no credence is attributed to the testimonies of RW-1 and RW-3 over the motorability of the vehicle in question on 22.11.2012. 10. RW-2, the insured, in examination-in-chief admits that even after the accident on 18.11.2012 the vehicle was in a roadworthy condition and was taken to Lingasugur by driving from Karatagi. That testimony is not discredited, hence no credence is attributed to the testimonies of RW-1 and RW-3 over the motorability of the vehicle in question on 22.11.2012. The first submission of the learned counsel must necessarily fail. 11. The salary certificate Ex.P-7 issued by the Government of Karnataka for the month of December, 2011 discloses that the deceased was born on 20.01.1954 and was designated Assistant Agriculture Officer drawing a gross salary of Rs.28,694/-, which included the Basic, Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance, interim relief, FTA and RA. It is not the case of the appellant that the interim relief was not a part of the salary payable to the deceased. It is common that interim relief partakes the character of salary which is paid by way of an interim arrangement subject to a final decision over the amount of salary to be paid to employees. Thus by no stretch of imagination Interim Relief could be termed as something other than salary which the deceased was entitled to from December, 2011. Hence the submission that interim relief does not form part of the salary of the deceased is unacceptable and is rejected. 12. The MACT reckoned the gross salary of the deceased as Rs.28,694/- and deducted Rs.200/- per month towards professional tax to arrive at annual salary of Rs.3,41,928/- from out of which was deducted Rs.2,00,000/- being exempted from income tax under the Income Tax laws and affected a further deduction of 30% of the balance of Rs.1,41,928/- towards income tax. The MACT reckoned Rs.2,99,350/- as the annual income of the deceased, deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased, since there were 5 dependants, to arrive at Rs.2,24,513/- as the annual loss of dependency, and applying multiplier 9' as applicable to age 58 years of the deceased awarded Rs.20,20,617/- towards loss of dependency. In fact, on the basis of the calculation noticed supra, the annual income of the deceased ought to have been Rs.3,33,928/- (Rs.3,41,928 - income tax of Rs.8,000/-) and deducting 1/4th i.e. Rs.83,482/- the annual loss of dependency is Rs.2,50,446/- and applying multiplier 9' the loss of dependency is Rs.22,54,014/- as against Rs.20,20,617/- awarded by the MACT. In fact, on the basis of the calculation noticed supra, the annual income of the deceased ought to have been Rs.3,33,928/- (Rs.3,41,928 - income tax of Rs.8,000/-) and deducting 1/4th i.e. Rs.83,482/- the annual loss of dependency is Rs.2,50,446/- and applying multiplier 9' the loss of dependency is Rs.22,54,014/- as against Rs.20,20,617/- awarded by the MACT. In other words, the compensation under loss of dependency is not excessive but on the lower side. 13. In the circumstances, we find no merit in the second submission of the learned counsel. Appeal devoid of merit, is accordingly rejected.