Judgment :- Re: CAN 264 of 2015 (condonation of delay) Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. This first miscellaneous appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. There was 140 days delay in filing this appeal. Reason for the delay has been explained by the appellant/applicant in this application for condonation of delay. It is stated therein that slow movement of the file from one table to the other is the cause for such delay. Since no individual officer of the Insurance Company can take independent decision for filing an appeal, such delay was caused. Considering the explanation given for the delay, we hold that the delay has been sufficiently explained by the appellant/applicant. Accordingly, delay in filing this appeal is condoned. Let the appeal now be registered. The application for condonation of delay being CAN 264 of 2015 is thus disposed of. Re: FMAT 1405 of 2014 Immediately after the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is regularized, we are requested by the learned counsel appearing for the parties to consider the appeal on merit by dispensing with the requirement of filing paper book. Accordingly, we have taken up this appeal for hearing by dispensing with the requirement of filing paper book in this appeal. Since the insurance company has already entered appearance and the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is of the Insurance Company, the requirement of service of notice of appeal upon the owner of the offending vehicle is dispensed with on the prayer of the learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties. Let us now consider the merit of this appeal in the facts of the instant case. This first miscellaneous appeal is directed against an award dated 28th April, 2014 passed by the Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court-1, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur in M.A.C. Case No. 160/2013. The victim was the Assistant Director of Agriculture Kharagpur Subdivision, Paschim Medinipur. On 25th August, 2012, he was traveling in a Bus bearing registration No. WB 31/3053. The said vehicle was capsized in a road side pond as the driver of the said vehicle could not control the excessive speed of the Bus. After the said accident, the victim sustained grievous injuries all over the body specially on his head and soon thereafter he was taken to S.D. Hospital, Contai. Doctor declared him dead. The said vehicle was capsized in a road side pond as the driver of the said vehicle could not control the excessive speed of the Bus. After the said accident, the victim sustained grievous injuries all over the body specially on his head and soon thereafter he was taken to S.D. Hospital, Contai. Doctor declared him dead. Subsequently the heirs of the said victim filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation. The victim at the time of his death used to earn Rs.45,292/- per month on account of his salary. He was the only earning member in his family. At the time of his death, he was aged about 42 years. The claimants claimed a sum of Rs.55,00,000/- as compensation plus interest. The Insurance Company contested the said proceeding by filing written statement denying the allegations made out by the claimants in their claim-petition. The Insurance Company denied that the victim was aged about 42 years at the time of his death and he was earning a sum of Rs.45,292/- per month on account of his salary. The parties have led evidence both documentary as well as oral in support of their respective claims in the said proceeding. Learned Tribunal after considering the materials on record held that the net income of the deceased was Rs.33,012/- per month as on 1st August, 2012. Such conclusion was drawn from the pay statement of the deceased being Exhibit-8. Learned Tribunal found that the victim was born on 12th September, 1970 and as such the Learned Tribunal held that the victim was 42 years old at the time of accident. Following the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 SC, Learned Tribunal held that 14 will be the appropriate multiplier as the deceased was aged about 42 years i.e. within the age group between 40-50 years. By following the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case, Learned Tribunal held that 1/4th should be deducted from his total income on account of his personal expenses and 50% of his total income should be added on account of future prospect. Thus the Learned Tribunal held that a sum of Rs.62,48,768/- is payable by the Insurance Company to the claimants on account of compensation. Thus the Learned Tribunal held that a sum of Rs.62,48,768/- is payable by the Insurance Company to the claimants on account of compensation. The Insurance Company has challenged the legality of the said judgment and/or award passed by the Learned Tribunal in this appeal. According to the appellant/Insurance Company, the Learned Tribunal ought not to have added 50% of the income on account of future prospect of the said victim. The Insurance Company claimed that 30% of the income should have been added on account of future prospect of the victim. The insurance company further claimed that the Learned Tribunal instead of deducting 1/4th from the total income of the deceased on account of his personal expenses, 1/3rd should have been deducted from his total income on account of his personal expenses. Accordingly, the Insurance Company invites us to modify the award. A cross-objection has been filed by the claimants in connection with this appeal. The claimants claimed that having regard to the fact that the gross income of the victim at the time of his death was Rs.45,292/- per month, the loss of estate should have been calculated by the Learned Tribunal by taking into account the gross income of the victim minus the statutory deductions (i.e. a sum of Rs.2,000/- on account of Income-tax and a sum of Rs.200/- on account of P. Tax). The claimants thus claimed that loss of estate should have been calculated by accepting the income of the victim as Rs.43,092/- per month. We find substance in such contention of the cross-objectors as we find from the salary certificate of the victim for the month of July, 2012 that his monthly salary for the said month was Rs.45,292/-. It appears from the said salary certificate that Rs.2,000/- was deducted on account of Income-tax and a further sum of Rs.200/- was deducted on account of P. Tax. Thus if the said sum of Rs.2,200/- is deducted from the gross salary of the victim, then the net salary which was payable to the victim for the month of July 2012 was Rs.43,092/-. Thus we hold that the loss of estate should have been calculated by accepting the income of the victim as Rs.43,092/-. Since the victim was the only earning member of the family, we hold that 1/3rd should have been deducted from his total income on account of his personal expenses. Thus we hold that the loss of estate should have been calculated by accepting the income of the victim as Rs.43,092/-. Since the victim was the only earning member of the family, we hold that 1/3rd should have been deducted from his total income on account of his personal expenses. Thus if 1/3rd is deducted from his total income, then the monthly loss of income will be Rs. 28,728/- (Rs.43,092/- Rs.14,364/- = Rs.28,728/-). Having regard to the fact that the victim was aged about 42 years at the time of his death and he was the Assistant Director of Agriculture Kharagpur Subdivision, Paschim Medinipur, we hold that he had future prospect for promotion in service. Accordingly, we add a further sum of Rs.8,618/- (Rs.28,728/- x 30% = Rs.8,618/-) being equivalent to 30% of his income on account of future prospect. Thus the monthly loss of dependency will be Rs.37,346/- (Rs.28,728/- + Rs.8,618/- = Rs.37,346/.). Thus the yearly loss of dependency of the claimants will be Rs.4,48,152/- (Rs.37,346/- X 12 = Rs.4,48,152/-). Having regard to the fact that the victim was aged about 42 years at the time of his death, we by following the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 SC held that the Learned Tribunal was justified in accepting the multiplier of 14 in the instant case. Thus, if we multiply the annual loss of dependency of the claimants amounting to Rs.4,48,152/- by 14, then we find that the total loss of dependency of the claimants will be Rs.62,74,128/-. In addition to the said sum of Rs.62,74,128/-, a further sum of Rs.9,500/- is payable to the claimants on account of statutory compensation. Thus we find that a sum of Rs.62,83,628/- (Rs.62,74,128/- + Rs.9,500/- = Rs.62,83,628/-) is payable by the Insurance Company on account of just compensation to the claimants. Considering the age of the victim at the time of his death and the post he was holding in his service, we hold that a sum of Rs.62,83,628/- will not be an unjust compensation for untimely death of the only earning member of the claimants’ family having five dependents including widow and two minor children. Considering the age of the victim at the time of his death and the post he was holding in his service, we hold that a sum of Rs.62,83,628/- will not be an unjust compensation for untimely death of the only earning member of the claimants’ family having five dependents including widow and two minor children. Thus, we hold that the claimants will get an award of Rs.62,83,628/- together with interest @ 6% per annum on the awarded compensation from the date of filing of the claim-petition i.e. 11th September, 2012 up to the date of actual payment thereof. Such payment will be made to the claimants in the following manner :- 1. The appellant/Insurance Company will pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to each of the minor children of the victim being claimants/respondent nos. 2 and 3 herein. 2. The appellant/Insurance Company will pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to each of the parents of the victim being claimants/respondent nos. 4 and 5 herein. 3. The appellant/Insurance Company will pay a sum of Rs.4,83,628/- together with interest @6% per annum on the total awarded amount of Rs.62,83,628/- from the date of filing of the claim-petition i.e. 11th September, 2012 up to the date of actual payment thereof to the widow of the victim being claimant/respondent no.1 herein. Such payment will be made to the respective claimants/respondents by way of transferring the amount to the respective savings bank accounts of those claimants within four weeks from the date of furnishing the particulars of the savings bank accounts of those claimants to the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company will be at liberty to withdraw the statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- from this Court upon compliance of necessary formalities in this regard, after the awarded amount is paid to the claimants in the manner as aforesaid. The impugned award of the Learned Tribunal is modified accordingly. The appeal is thus disposed of. Re: CAN 271 of 2015 (Stay) In view of disposal of the appeal in the manner as aforesaid, no further order need be passed on the stay application. The said application being CAN 271 of 2015 is thus deemed to be disposed of. Re: COT 17 of 2015 The cross-objection filed by the claimants/respondent nos.1 to 5 is also disposed of accordingly by treating the same as on the day’s list. The said application being CAN 271 of 2015 is thus deemed to be disposed of. Re: COT 17 of 2015 The cross-objection filed by the claimants/respondent nos.1 to 5 is also disposed of accordingly by treating the same as on the day’s list. Since the original cross-objection filed by the claimants/respondents is not available on record, copy of the cross-objection which is supplied by Mr. Banik, learned advocate appearing for the claimants/respondent nos.1 to 5 be treated as original and be kept with the record.