JUDGMENT Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. The disposal of this appeal would also govern the disposal of M.A. (C) No. 504 of 2013 (Smt. Seema Pandey and others vs. Arun Sinha and others) as both appeals have arisen out of one accident and common award dated 27.04.2012 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara, Revenue District Bemetara, Civil District Durg, Chhattisgarh (for short the Claims Tribunal) in Claim Case No. 171 of 2011 and common question of fact & law are involved, therefore, they were heard together and being decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of convenience, M.A. (C) No. 653 of 2012 is taken up as the lead case. 2. Appellant/Insurance Company filed M.A. (C) No. 653 of 2012 challenging the liability, whereas, claimants have filed M.A. (C) No. 504 of 2013 seeking enhancement. FACTS 3. Facts leading to filing of the lead-case, i.e. M.A. (C) No. 653 of 2012 may briefly be noted thus:- 3.1 Claimants Smt. Seema Pandey & others filed claim petition No. 171 of 2011 seeking compensation stating inter alia that on the date of accident i.e. on 23.07.2011, her husband Kunj Bihari Pandey (deceased) was going from village Devkar to village Rakhi on his motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-07/LS/7242. When he reached near bridge of Devkar Chowki, a bus bearing registration No. CG-07/E/0141 (offending vehicle), driven by respondent No.4, owned by respondent No.5 and insured with appellant Insurance Company, rashly and negligently, dashed the motorcycle of Kunj Bihari Pandey. On the said dash, Kunj Bihari Pandey fell down from his motorcycle and sustained grievous injuries and thereafter died. At the time of accident, Kunj Bihari Pandey was aged about 45 years and was earning Rs. 31,912 per month as Upper Division Teacher/Lecturer. Claimants claimed compensation to the extent of Rs. 1,41,96,048 from the respondents jointly & severally. 3.2 Respondents No. 4 & 5 driver and owner of the offending vehicle proceeded ex parte, whereas, appellant Insurance Company filed written statement before the learned Claims Tribunal and raised a plea that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid & effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle on the date of accident and also raised a plea that the offending vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms of policy conditions. Insurance Company also raised a plea that deceased was himself contributory negligent in the accident, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to make payment of compensation and lastly raised a plea that out of the income of the deceased 30% income tax should be deducted. 3.3 Learned Claims Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence has recorded following findings:- (i) The deceased Kunj Bihari Pandey was working as Upper Division Teacher/Lecturer in Government Girls H.S. School, Devkar, his monthly income of Rs. 31,912 and HRA was deducted as Rs. 854, thus, deceased monthly income was assessed as Rs. 31,058, which comes to Rs. 3,72,696 per annum and increased 30% towards future prospects and deducted 30% towards income tax and thereby nullified increase of 30%. After deducting 1/3rd towards living and personal expenses and dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 2,48,464 per annum and by applying the multiplier of 12, awarded Rs. 29,81,568 to the claimants. In addition, a sum of Rs. 32,000 also awarded towards conventional heads. Thus, total compensation of Rs. 30,13,568 has been awarded to the claimants along with 6% interest. (ii) Deceased Kunj Bihari Pandey had died on account of rash and negligent act of respondent No. 4 driver of the offending vehicle. (iii) On the date of accident, driver of the offending vehicle did have possess a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle. (iv) The offending vehicle was duly insured with the appellant Insurance Company, therefore, Insurance Company is liable to make payment of compensation to the claimants. SUBMISSION OF COUNSELS 4. Mr. H.S. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has fallen into error in not holding the deceased-Kunj Bihari Pandey as contributory negligent in the accident and thereby not deducting 50% towards his contributory negligence. He would further submit that the multiplier adopted by the learned Claims Tribunal is 12, is not appropriate, it ought to have been 10. Mr. Patel would further submit that the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal with regard to the fact that the driver did have possess a valid & effective driving licence is perverse and contrary to the record. Mr. Patel would lastly submit that the offending vehicle was being plied in violation of terms of policy conditions, therefore, appellant/ Insurance Company be exonerated from its liability to make payment of compensation. Mr. Patel would lastly submit that the offending vehicle was being plied in violation of terms of policy conditions, therefore, appellant/ Insurance Company be exonerated from its liability to make payment of compensation. 5. Per contra, Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia and Mr. Vivek Rathore, learned counsel appearing for the claimants would submit that the vehicle was duly insured at the time of accident. He would further submit that the Insurance Company has failed to establish the fact of contributory negligence. Mr. Bhatia would further submit that Claims Tribunal has committed legal error in applying the multiplier of 12, it ought to have been 13 in view of the decision reported in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009)6 SCC 121 . He would further submit that deduction of the Income Tax by the Claims Tribunal at the flat rate of 30% nullifying the amount of 30% addition towards future prospects is unjustified. He would lastly submit that compensation deserves to be enhanced. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival submission made therein and perused the record of the Claims Tribunal. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION 7. On the basis of factual and legal submissions raised on behalf of the parties, following points would arise for determination of appeal:- (i) Whether the finding of fact recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that deceased-Kunj Bihari Pandey was not contributory negligent is just and proper? (ii) Whether the multiplier of 12 adopted by the learned Claims Tribunal is appropriate? (iii) Whether the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that 30% income tax is required to be deducted in increasel addition of 30% towards future prospects is justified? ANSWER TO POINT NO.1 8. I proceed to consider the plea of the appellant/Insurance Company that the deceased Kunj Bihari Pandey has contributory negligent in the accident stating inter alia that accident occurred on account of collusion of two vehicles and therefore, the deceased motorcyclist is also responsible equally on the basis of contributory negligence and therefore, 50% liability be fastened on the deceased himself. 9. During the course of trial, claimants have examined three witnesses i.e. Smt. Seema Pandey as AW-1, Vijay Choubey as AW-2 and Smt. Sivani Mukherjee as AW-3, Principal of Government Girls H.S. School, Devkar and have exhibited documents i.e. Exhibits P/1 to P/27 in support of their case. 9. During the course of trial, claimants have examined three witnesses i.e. Smt. Seema Pandey as AW-1, Vijay Choubey as AW-2 and Smt. Sivani Mukherjee as AW-3, Principal of Government Girls H.S. School, Devkar and have exhibited documents i.e. Exhibits P/1 to P/27 in support of their case. Exhibit P/1 is the charge-sheet, by which, offence under Section 304-A of the IPC has been registered against the driver of the offending vehicle specifically alleging that while driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently, he• caused the death of Kunj Bihari Pandey. The criminal case is pending for consideration in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saja being criminal case No. 291 of 2011. Apart from this, Exhibit P/2 is First Information Report, Exhibit P/3 is Dehatinalishi. Charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle (Exhibit P/1), spot map (Exhibit P/9) and oilier documents placed on record clearly establish sole negligence on the part of respondent No. 4 driver of the offending vehicle as Insurance Company has not adduced any legal and clinching evidence to prove the fact of contributory negligence. 10. It is well settled that the Insurance Company taking a plea of contributory negligence on the part of the victim, must lead evidence with regard thereto and unless such evidence is led by the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company's plea with regard to the contributory negligence cannot succeed. The Insurance Company must state specifically that there was some causal connection of the deceased with the-damage suffered by him to hold that the conduct of the decease~ amounted to contributory negligence. Similarly, there had to be some connection on the part of the deceased showing absence of reasonable care for his own safety which contributed to the damage. 11. The Law of Torts by Justice G.P. Singh, the following propositions of law regarding contributory negligence have been stated:- "It is to be noted that negligence of the plaintiff which can be described as contributory negligence must have casual connection with the damage suffered by him." "The question simply is whether the plaintiff or the deceased (in case of claims arising out of death) had failed to take reasonable care of his own safety which had contributed to the damage." 12. In Case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. Shri Laxman Iyer and another, AIR 2003 SC 4182 : (2003) 8 SCC 731 , the Supreme Court held as under:- 6. Where an accident is due to negligence of both parties, substantially there would be contributory negligence the crucial question on which liability depends would be whether either party could, by exercise of reasonable care, have avoided the consequence of other's whichever party could have avoided the consequence of other's would be liable for the accident. It a person's negligent act or omission was the proximate and immediate cause of death, the fact that the person suffering injury' was himself negligent and also contributed to the accident or other circumstances by which the injury was caused would not afford a defence to the other. Contributory negligence is applicable solely to the conduct of a plaintiff. It means that there has been an act or omission on the part of the plaintiff which has materially contributed to the damage, the act or omission being of such a nature that it may properly be described as negligence, although negligence is not given its usual meaning. (See Charles worth on Negligence, 3rd Edition Page 328). It is now well settled that in the case-of contributory negligence, Courts have power to apportion the loss between the parties as seems just and equitable. Apportionment in that context means that damages are reduced to such an extent as the Court thinks just and equitable having regard to the claim shared in the responsibility for the damage. But in a case where there has been no contributory negligence on the part of the victim, the question of apportionment does not arise. 13. In case of Pramodkumar Rasikhhai Jhaveri vs. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak and others, (2002)6 SCC 455 , the Supreme Court held as under:- 8. We do not think that these two reasons given by the High Court fully justify the accepted principles of contributory negligence. The question of contributory negligence arises when there has been some act or omission on the claimant's part, which has materially contributed to the damage caused, and is of such a nature that it may properly be described as negligence. Negligence ordinarily means breach of a legal duty to care, but when used in the expression contributory negligence it does not mean breach of any duty. Negligence ordinarily means breach of a legal duty to care, but when used in the expression contributory negligence it does not mean breach of any duty. It only means the failure by a person to use reasonable care for the safety of either himself or his property, so that he becomes blameworthy in part as an author of his own wrong. 9. Subject to non-requirement of the existence of duty, the question of contributory negligence is to be decided on the same principle on which the question of defendant's negligence is decided. The standard of reasonable man is as relevant in the case of plaintiff's contributory negligence as in the case of defendant's negligence. But the degree of want of care which will constitute contributory negligence, varies with the circumstances and the factual situation of the case. The following observation of the High Court of Australia in Astley vs. Austrust Ltd. (1999)13 ALJR 403 is worthy of quoting:- "A finding of contributory negligence turns on a factual investigation whether the plaintiff contributed to his or her own loss by failing to take reasonable care of his or her person or property. What is reasonable care depends on the circumstances of the case. In many cases, it may be proper for a plaintiff to rely on the defendant to perform its duty. But there is no absolute rule. The duties and responsibilities of the defendant are a variable factor in determining whether contributory negligence exists and, if so, to what degree. In some cases, the nature of the duty owed may exculpate the plaintiff from a claim of contributory negligence in other cases, the nature of the duty may reduce the plaintiff's share of responsibility for the damage suffered and in yet other cases the nature of the duty may not prevent a finding that the plaintiff failed to take reasonable care for the safety of his or her person or property. Contributory negligence focuses on the conduct of the plaintiff. The duty owed by the defendant, although relevant, is one only of many factors that must be weighed in determining whether the plaintiff has so conducted itself that it failed to take reasonable care for the safety of its person or property." 14. Contributory negligence focuses on the conduct of the plaintiff. The duty owed by the defendant, although relevant, is one only of many factors that must be weighed in determining whether the plaintiff has so conducted itself that it failed to take reasonable care for the safety of its person or property." 14. In a recent decision in Minu Rout & another vs. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra & other, 2013 AIR SCW 5375, the plea of contributory negligence was taken by Insurance Company, but neither driver nor any independent witness was examined to prove the allegation of contributory negligence. The Supreme Court, while setting aside the finding of contributory negligence, held as under:- "12. The Tribunal ought to have seen that non production of FIR has no consequence for the reason that charge sheet was against the truck driver for the offences punishable under Sections 279 read with Section 302 of IPC read with the provisions of the M.V. Act. The Insurance Company, though claimed permission under Section 170(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 from the Tribunal to contest the proceedings by availing the defence of the owner of the offending Verile, it did not choose to examine either the driver of the truck or any other independent eye witness to prove the allegation of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased Susil Rout on account of which the accident took place as he was driving the car in a rash and negligent manner. In the absence of rebuttal evidence adduced on record by the Tribunal, the Tribunal should not have placed reliance on the charge-sheet Exh.1 in which the deceased driver was mentioned as an accused and on his death his name was deleted from the charge sheet. The Tribunal has referred to certain stray answers elicited from the evidence of PW2 and PW3 in their cross-examination and placed reliance on them to record the finding on issue No.1. For the aforesaid reasons, the findings and reasons recorded by the Tribunal on the contentious issue No.1 holding that there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased driver in the absence of legal evidence adduced by .the Insurance Company to prove the plea taken by it that accident did not take place on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck driver is erroneous in law." 15. In the instant case, though the Insurance Company was granted permission under Section 170 of the M.V. Act by the Claims Tribunal on 16.02.2012 to contest the proceeding by availing the defence of the owner of the offending vehicle, it did not examine either driver of the vehicle/respondent No. 4 or any other independent witness to establish the plea of contributory negligence on the part of deceased- Kunj Bihari Pandey and thus, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company that deceased Kunj Bihari Pandey was contributory negligent deserves to be rejected. 16. Thus, appellant/Insurance Company has failed to prove the fact of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal in this regard is based on material available on record and I hereby affirm the finding so recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal. Thus, this point is, answered accordingly. ANSWER TO POINT NO.2 17. The learned Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding in the impugned award that the age of deceased Kunj Bihari Pandey on the date of accident was 48 years. This finding has not been challenged any of the parties and it has attained finality. Thus, the age of deceased Kunj Bihari Pandey is taken as 48 years. In a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others (supra), it has been held (kindly see para-42) that multiplier of 13 would be appropriate multiplier for, age group of 46 to 50 years. Thus, in view of the aforestated decision, appropriate multiplier in the instant case would be 13 and the learned Claims Tribunal has committed legal error in applying the multiplier of 12 and I hold that appropriate multiplier would be 13 in the present case. Thus, this point is answered accordingly. ANSWER TO POINT NO.3 18. In the instant case, deceased-Kunj Bihari Pandey was admittedly Upper Division Teacher/Lecturer working in the Govt. Girls H.S. School, Devkar. Smt. Sivani Mukherjee (AW-3), Principal of Government Girls H.S. School, Devkar was examined. She had clearly deposed that deceased-Kunj Bihari Pandey, aged about 48 years, was working as Upper Division Teacher in Government school and getting salary of Rs. 31,912 per month. In a decision in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others (supra), the Supreme Court held thus:- 24. Smt. Sivani Mukherjee (AW-3), Principal of Government Girls H.S. School, Devkar was examined. She had clearly deposed that deceased-Kunj Bihari Pandey, aged about 48 years, was working as Upper Division Teacher in Government school and getting salary of Rs. 31,912 per month. In a decision in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others (supra), the Supreme Court held thus:- 24. In Susamma Thomas (1994)2 SCC 176 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 335, this Court increased the income by nearly 100%, in Sarla Dixit (1996)3 SCC 179 the income was increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezbanuah (2003)2 SCC 148: 2003 SCC (Cri) 746, the income was increased by a mere 7%. In view of the imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. (Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax). The addition should be only 30%, if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculation being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments, etc.), the Courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. 19. In a decision in Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others, (2012)6 SCC 421 , the Supreme Court held that an addition of 30% increase must be applied for increase in total income of the deceased over a period of time if he had been alive. The Supreme Court has further reiterated and followed the Case of Santosh Devi (supra) in Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza and others vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service JT 2013 (13 SC 386). 20. The Supreme Court has further reiterated and followed the Case of Santosh Devi (supra) in Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza and others vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service JT 2013 (13 SC 386). 20. Thus, I find that that there is sufficient evidence on record with regard I to the future prospects as on the date of accident, deceased- Kunj Bihari Pandey had a permanent job as Upper Division Teacher/Lecturer in Government Girls H.S. School, Devkar and his age was 48 years and the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that the claimants are entitled 30% addition towards future prospects is just and proper and I hereby affirm the same. 21. Now the question, which requires consideration whether Claims Tribunal is justified in deducting 30% income tax while making addition of 30% towards future prospects. The Supreme Court in a decision in Vimal Kanwar and others vs. Kishore Dan and others (2013)7 SCC 476 , be held that if the annual income falls within taxable range, in such cases, if any objection as to deduction of tax is made by a party then the claimant is required to prove that the victim has already paid income tax and no further tax has to be deducted from the income. The Supreme Court held thus:- 23. In Sarla Verma [ (2009)6 SCC 121 ] this Court held: (SCC p. 133, para 20) "20. Generally the actual income of the deceased less income tax should be the starting point for calculating the compensation." This Court further observed that – (SCC p. 134, para 24) "24. Where the annual income is in taxable range, the words 'actual salary' should be read as 'actual salary less tax." Therefore, it is clear that if the annual income comes within the taxable range, income tax is required to be deducted for determination of the actual salary. But while deducting income tax from the salary, it is necessary to notice the nature of the income of the victim. If the victim is receiving income chargeable under the head salaries one should keep in mind that under Section 192(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 any person responsible for paying any income chargeable under the head salaries shall at the time of payment, deduct income tax on estimated income of the employee from salaries for that financial year. Such deduction is commonly known as tax deducted at source (TDS, for short). Such deduction is commonly known as tax deducted at source (TDS, for short). When the employer fails in default to deduct the IDS from the employee's salary, as it is his duty to deduct the TDS, then the penalty for non-deduction of TDS is prescribed under Section 201 (1-A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, in case the income of the victim is only from salary the presumption would be that the employer under Section 192(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has deducted the tax at source from the employee's salary. In case if an objection is raised by any party, the objector is required to prove by producing evidence such as any party, the objector is required to prove by producing evidence such as LPC to suggest that the employer failed to deduct the TDS from the salary of the employee. However, there can be cases where the victim is not a salaried person i.e. his income is from sources other than salary and the annual income falls within taxable range, in such cases, if any objection as to deduction of Tax is made by a party then the claimant is required to prove that the victim has already paid income tax and no further tax has to be deducted from the income. 24. In the present case, none of the respondents brought to the notice of the Court that the income tax payable by the deceased Sajjan Singh was not deducted at source by the employer State Government. No such Statement was made by Ram Avtar Parikh, PW2, an employee of the Public Works Department of the State Government who placed on record the last pay certificate and the service book of the deceased. The Tribunal or the High Court on perusal of the last pay certificate, have not noticed that the income tax on the estimated income of the employee was not deducted from the salary of the employee during the said month or financial year. In absence of such evidence, it is presumed that the salary paid to the deceased Sajjan Singh as per last pay certificate was paid in accordance with law i.e. by deducting the income tax on the estimated income of the deceased Sajjan Singh for that month or the financial year. In absence of such evidence, it is presumed that the salary paid to the deceased Sajjan Singh as per last pay certificate was paid in accordance with law i.e. by deducting the income tax on the estimated income of the deceased Sajjan Singh for that month or the financial year. The appellants have specifically stated that the assessment year applicable, in the instant case is 1997-1998 and not 1996-1997 as held by the High Court. They have also taken specific plea that for Assessment Year 1997-1998 the rate of tax on income more than Rs. 40,000 and up to Rs. 60,000 was 15% and not 20% as held by the High Court. The aforesaid fact has not been disputed by the respondents. 25. In view of the finding as recorded above and the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as discussed, we hold that the High Court was wrong in deducting 20% from the salary of the deceased towards income tax, for calculating the compensation. As per law, the presumption will be that employer State Government at the time of payment of salary deducted income tax on the estimated income of the deceased employee from the salary and in absence of any evidence, we hold that the salary as shown in the last pay certificate as Rs. 8920 should be accepted which if rounded off comes to Rs. 9000 for calculating the compensation payable to the dependent(s)." 22. In view of the aforesaid legal preposition, I proceed to examine the case in hand, I hold that the deceased Kunj Bihari Pandey was Govt. servant working as Upper Division Teacher/Lecturer in Government Girls H.S. School, Devkar and was receiving income chargeable under the head salaries one should keep in mind that under Section 192(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, any person responsible for paying any income chargeable under the head of salaries shall at the time of payment, deduct income tax on estimated income of the employee from salaries for that financial year. Exhibit P/24 is Form No. 16 (certificate under Section 203 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 for tax deducted at Source from income chargeable under the head salaries) and Clause-18 of the said form records that deceased's income tax has been deducted as Rs. 17,356 for the Assessment year 2011-2012. 23. Exhibit P/24 is Form No. 16 (certificate under Section 203 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 for tax deducted at Source from income chargeable under the head salaries) and Clause-18 of the said form records that deceased's income tax has been deducted as Rs. 17,356 for the Assessment year 2011-2012. 23. In view of the finding as recorded above and the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as discussed, I hold that the Claims Tribunal was wrong in deducting 30% total addition of future prospects of the deceased towards income tax, for calculating the compensation. As per law the presumption will be that employer State Government at the time of payment of salary deducted income tax on the estimated income of the deceased employee from the salary and in absence of any evidence, I hold that the salary as shown in the last pay certificate as Rs. 31,058 (Gross Salary 31,912 - 854 deducted towards HRA) should be accepted for calculating the compensation payable to the dependants and Rs. 17,356 should be deducted from the income of the deceased towards income tax for a particular year. CONCLUSION 24. In my considered opinion, the claimants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- (i) I hold the monthly income of deceased Kunj Bihari Pandey as Rs. 31,058 (Gross Salary Rs. 31,912 - 854 deducted towards HRA), which comes to Rs. 3,72,696 (31,058 x 12) per annum. (ii) Income Tax would be deducted as per Exhibit P/24 as Rs. 17,356, by which the income less tax as assessed Rs. 3,55,340 (3,72,696-17,356). (iii) 30% increase towards future prospects, which comes to Rs. 1,06,602 (3,55,340 x 30%) and after adding 30% towards future prospects, actual income comes to Rs. 4,61,942 (3,55,340 + 1,06,602). (iv) After deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses, dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 3,07,962. (v) By applying the appropriate multiplier of 13, loss of dependency comes to Rs. 40,03,506. (vi) In addition, Rs. 32,000 has also awarded towards conventional heads. (vii) Thus, total compensation comes to Rs. 40,35,506 along-with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till its realization. 25. The Claims Tribunal has already been awarded a total sum of Rs. 30,13,568, thus, the enhanced amount would be Rs. 10,21,938 (40,35,506 - 30,13,568). 40,03,506. (vi) In addition, Rs. 32,000 has also awarded towards conventional heads. (vii) Thus, total compensation comes to Rs. 40,35,506 along-with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till its realization. 25. The Claims Tribunal has already been awarded a total sum of Rs. 30,13,568, thus, the enhanced amount would be Rs. 10,21,938 (40,35,506 - 30,13,568). As such, appeal filed by the claimants M.A. (C) No. 504 of 2013 is partly allowed and award of the Claims Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated hereinabove. 26. Appellant/Insurance Company is granted 3 months time to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs. 10,21,938 and also award amount if not paid already with interest @ 6% per annum before the concerned Claims Tribunal. 27. As such, the appeal filed by the appellant/Insurance Company M.A. (C) No. 653 o 2012) is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 28. The original order be kept in the record of M.A. (C) No. 653 of 2012 and the copy of the same shall be kept in the record of another connected M.A. (C) No. 504 of 2013. Appeal of Insurance Company Rejected and Appeal of Claimants is Partly Allowed.