JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited as well as Mr. B. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1, 2, 3 and 4. None appears for the respondent No. 5 despite due notice from this court. 2. By means of this appeal, the judgment and award dated 20.07.2013 delivered in T.S. (MAC) No. 01 of 2012 by the Motor Accident Tribunal, West Tripura, Court No. 4 has been called in question. In this appeal, the veracity of accident which occurred on 30.11.2011, at about 5.50/6.00 p.m. on Agartala-Bishalgarh road near SDM office is not in question. Even the death of one Falguna Debbarma who was proceeding by riding his motor cycle bearing registration No. TR-01-C-9354 in the extreme left side of the road in normal speed has not been doubted. At that time, one speeding vehicle bearing registration No. TR-01-N-1794 (Tata Ace) coming from the opposite direction dashed Falguna Debbarma. He received fatal injuries and when in a alarming condition he was brought to Bishalgarh hospital, he was referred to GBP hospital for better treatment of his injuries. On the following day of the accident i.e. on 01.12.2011, he succumbed to his injuries. The respondents No. 14 filed the claim-petition under Section 166 of the MV Act. 3. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was an Assistant Teacher under the Directorate of School Education and on 01.12.2012 his salary was Rs. 15,757/- as per the salary certificate issued by the Inspector of Schools, Bishalgarh. On the day of the accident the age of the deceased was about 42 years and as such he was in the age group of 42-45. Having regard to all these as noted, loss of dependency was deduced @ Rs. 25,81,236/-. This sum was calculated after adding the loss of future prospect @ 30%. 4. Mr. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged initially that the accident was the outcome of the contributory negligence. In that context following question and observations were found relevant: (i) Whether the appellant has discharged his burden to prove that there was negligence on the part of the deceased, Mr. Gautam, learned counsel for the appellant has fairly submitted that there was no ex facie evidence in this regard and finally he did not insist on the said ground. (ii) Mr. Gautam, learned counsel for the appellant has fairly submitted that there was no ex facie evidence in this regard and finally he did not insist on the said ground. (ii) Mr. Gautam, learned counsel has further submitted that the tribunal has imposed penal interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim. It is true the penal interest cannot be imposed by the tribunal within its jurisdiction under Section 171 of the MV Act. Mr. Gautam, learned counsel has also raised that while determining the annual income of the deceased, the professional tax that the deceased paid has not been taken care of. 5. From the other side, Mr. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the claimant- respondents has submitted that since the appeal is a continuation of adjudication, he urged this court to look into the factors which are missing in the award as awarded by the tribunal. Mr. Debnath, learned counsel has relied on a decision of the apex court in Vimal Kanwar and Others vs. Kishore Dan and Others, 2013 ACJ 1441 where the apex court has provided a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss of consortium and loss to the estate and for loss of love and affection to the daughter @ Rs. 2,00,000/- and for loss of love and affection to the widow and the mother @ Rs. 1,00,000/- each i.e. 2,00,000/- with funeral expenses at Rs. 25,000/-. Based on that Mr. Gautam, learned counsel has also raised that while determining the annual income of the deceased, the professional tax that the deceased used to pass has not been taken care of. Based on Vimal Kanwar (supra), Mr. Debnath, learned counsel has contended that the award may include all those conventional components of compensation. In this regard, another decision of the apex court in Rajesh and Others vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, 2013 ACJ 1403 has also been relied by Mr. Debnath, learned counsel. If we take the first, objection first as Mr. Gautam, learned counsel has already conceded that ground is without substance as the required evidence is conspicuous by absence. The objection as raised regarding the non-deduction of the professional tax, this court finds force in the submission in view of the law laid down in Sarala Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, AIR (2009) 6 SCC 121 . The objection as raised regarding the non-deduction of the professional tax, this court finds force in the submission in view of the law laid down in Sarala Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, AIR (2009) 6 SCC 121 . In that decision the apex court has held that tax including the income tax and other statutory tax including the professional tax shall be excluded from the income for purpose of calculating the loss of dependency. Thus, in this case if the sum of Rs. 1,000/- on the account of the professional tax is deducted, that would be just and proper. His annual income for purpose of calculating the dependency would be Rs. 1,89,100/- along with that 30% shall be added as the loss of future prospect. Thus the annual income index, after adding of the said income as the 30% loss of future prospect, comes to Rs. 2,44,540.40/- rounded @ Rs. 2,44,540/-. The ‘multiplier’ 14 as applied by the tribunal has so correctly been applied. On applying the multiplier the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 34,23,560.00/-. From that sum ¼ shall be deducted as the personal expenses. Thus, the final loss of dependency comes to Rs. 25,67,670/-. 6. The claimant-respondent No. 2 being the unfortunate wife of the deceased is entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/- as the consortium and the claimant-respondent No. 1, 3 and 4 respectively being the mother and daughters of the deceased are entitled to get Rs. 1,00,000/- each as the loss of love and affection. This court will not interfere with the amount of funeral expenses as granted at Rs. 5,000/-. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs. 28,72,670.00/-. This award shall carry interest @ 9% with effect from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. on 02.01.2012. As already stated, the award of penal interest is beyond the jurisdiction of the tribunal. However, in view of the award of interest @ 9% has become insignificant as this court has provided interest @ 9% on the award. Out of the awarded sum, the claimant-appellant No. 14 shall get share in the manner as stated hereafter. It appears from the records of C.M Appeal No. 235 of 2014 arising from this appeal that the respondent No. 1 has expired during pendency of this appeal. Out of the awarded sum, the claimant-appellant No. 14 shall get share in the manner as stated hereafter. It appears from the records of C.M Appeal No. 235 of 2014 arising from this appeal that the respondent No. 1 has expired during pendency of this appeal. The awarded amount for loss of consortium and for loss of love and affection are specific to each of the claimant-respondents as mentioned. Out of the total compensation as awarded except those of consortium and love and affection, the compensation shall be divided in equal shares. The respondent No. 2 shall get her share with the amount that has been determined for loss of consortium and the funeral expenses. But the shares of the appellants No. 3 and 4 shall remain in a fixed deposit in a national bank till they attained majority. But the respondent No. 2 will be entitled to receive the interest accrued on the said deposit on quarterly basis. For avoiding any confusion, it is to be noted that for death of the respondent No. 1, her share shall merge with the shares of the surviving claimant-respondents. 7. Since the appellant has already deposited a sum of Rs. 34,71,924/- the difference that might accrue for granting the enhanced sum for the loss of consortium and the loss of love and affection, shall be deposited by the appellant-insurance company within a period of 2(two) months in the tribunal. The Registry shall disburse the amount in terms of this order and after releasing the said amount create new fixed deposits in favour of the claimant- respondents No. 3 and 4 in the manner as stated above. If it is found that the appellant is entitled to refund any sum, that shall be refunded as per procedure. 8. With this observations and direction this appeal stands partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.