ORDER : 1. This appeal has been filed by the owner of the vehicle who has been held liable to pay compensation of Rs.44,95,430/- for the death of the deceased. 2. It is not disputed that the deceased Nishitosh Choudhury was an employee of the department of Customs and Excise, Agartala. He was travelling in a Bolero Jeep belonging to the department which met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver and as a result the claim petition was filed. 3. Two arguments have been raised before this Court by the department. The first argument is that the accident did not occur due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle and the second argument is that the compensation awarded is excessive. With regard to the first argument it is urged by Mr. P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the department that the accident did not take place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bolero Jeep but in fact the accident took place because the steering wheel of the vehicle got locked. 4. When any owner or driver or vehicle takes the defence that the vehicle in question developed a sudden defect the burden is on such owner or driver to show that the defect was a latent defect which could not be discovered despite due diligence. It is also for the owner and the driver of the vehicle to show that the vehicle was being maintained properly and despite proper maintenance it was not possible to discover such defect. Other than taking this defence and the officials of the department making an oral submission that the steering wheel got locked no evidence has been led to prove in what manner the vehicle was being maintained. It is the duty of the owner and the driver in such cases to prove that the vehicle was being maintained properly, it was being serviced properly and despite such servicing and maintenance, the vehicle suddenly developed a defect. 5. As far as this case is concerned, the appellants have not even examined any Motor Vehicle Inspector or expert to prove that the accident took place due to the locking of the steering wheel. 5. As far as this case is concerned, the appellants have not even examined any Motor Vehicle Inspector or expert to prove that the accident took place due to the locking of the steering wheel. Except the self-serving statement of the driver of the vehicle, no other evidence to prove the maintenance of the vehicle has been examined. 6. As far as quantum is concerned, the undisputed facts are that the deceased was earning a salary of Rs.17,211/- per month. Pursuant to the directions of the Tribunal issued on 12.10.2012 the department issued a salary slip showing what would be the salary of the deceased for the month of February, 2008 after applying the benefits of the 6th Pay Commission and the total salary i.e. Basic Pay, Grade Pay, Dearness Allowance, Special Compensatory Allowance, House Rent Allowance, Special Duty Allowance & Transport Allowance works out to Rs.27,292/-. Transport allowance will be personal to the deceased. This is not something which the family gets. Therefore, that will be deducted and the salary now works out to Rs.26,396/-. 7. The learned Tribunal has added 30% towards future prospects and has also noted that tax has to be deducted. However, while making the calculations he has not deducted any amount for tax. In the first pay certificate filed by the petitioner Rs.4,000/- per month was being deducted for the tax. After revision of the pay scale the deduction of the tax would definitely be higher. Therefore, I deduct Rs.4,000/- for income tax which brings the amount to Rs.22,396/-. 30% is added for the future prospects which brings the amount to Rs.29,115/-. 30% is deducted for the personal expenses of the deceased therefore, the amount works out to Rs.20,380/- per month or Rs.2,44,560/- per year and multiplier of 14 is applied and the compensation works out to Rs.34,23,840/- which is rounded off to Rs.34,24,000/-. In addition thereto the widow is held entitled to Rs.50,000/- for consortium and another sum of Rs.20,000/- is granted as funeral expenses. Therefore, the total amount of compensation works out to Rs.34,94,000/- (rupees thirty four lakh ninety four thousand). 8. I am constrained to observe that the learned Tribunal while passing award held that from the perusal of the salary slip it appears that the deceased was an income tax assessee. Therefore, the total amount of compensation works out to Rs.34,94,000/- (rupees thirty four lakh ninety four thousand). 8. I am constrained to observe that the learned Tribunal while passing award held that from the perusal of the salary slip it appears that the deceased was an income tax assessee. Therefore, the opposite party No.1 was at liberty to adjust the amount of compensation after deducting the tax as admissible. I am afraid this is not the way awards are passed under the Motor Vehicles Act. Under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is the duty of the Tribunal to determine the amount of compensation which appears to be just and proper. The Tribunal is also expected to specify the person or persons to whom the compensation is to be paid and the Tribunal is also to specify the amount which is to be paid by which of the respondents. The Tribunal could not leave it to the department to deduct the income tax. Before the Tribunal there was evidence that under the old pay slip Rs.4,000/- was being deducted per month from the tax. Therefore, minimum this amount should have been deducted as this Court has done. In Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 212 case, relied upon by the Tribunal itself the Apex Court has clearly held that it is the duty of the Court to assess what is the tax and to deduct the amount of tax payable before assessing the compensation. In this case the amount of tax was apparent from the pay slip and still the Tribunal did not deduct the same. 9. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed and the compensation is reduced from Rs.44,95,430/- to Rs.34,94,000/-. The claimants are also entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the modified amount, i.e. Rs.34,94,000/- from the date of filing of the claim petition till deposit of the amount. This amount is apportioned as follows:- (i) Smt. Lipika Choudhury (widow) Rs. 20,00,000/- (ii) Sri Nilanjan Choudhury (major son) Rs. 5,00,000/- (iii) Sri Nibaran Choudhury (major son) Rs. 5,00,000/- (iv) Smt. Manika Choudhury (mother) Rs. 4,94,000/- 10. The parties shall also be entitled to interest proportionate to their shares. I have been informed that 25% of the amount has already been deposited and withdrawn. 20,00,000/- (ii) Sri Nilanjan Choudhury (major son) Rs. 5,00,000/- (iii) Sri Nibaran Choudhury (major son) Rs. 5,00,000/- (iv) Smt. Manika Choudhury (mother) Rs. 4,94,000/- 10. The parties shall also be entitled to interest proportionate to their shares. I have been informed that 25% of the amount has already been deposited and withdrawn. Therefore, the department is directed to deposit the balance amount after adjusting the amount already deposited in the Registry of this Court within 4(four) months from today. On deposit of the said amount the amount falling to the shares of the 2(two) major sons and the mother of the deceased shall be released to them straightway. As far as the widow is concerned, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- shall be paid to her straightway and the balance amount shall be kept in a fixed deposit for a period of 5 years at the first instance and thereafter, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest shall be released every year in her favour till the entire amount is released to her. 11. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 12. Send down the LCRs forthwith.