JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel along with Mr. P. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act arises from the judgment and award dated 16.05.2013 delivered in T.S. (MAC) No.340 of 2012 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, No.4, West Tripura, Agartala. 3. In this appeal there is no challenge against the finding relating to the accident that occurred on 23.06.2012 on the National Highway at place called ‘Itbatta’ near Bishramganj for rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No. TR-01-S-0246 [Ambassador]. The appellant has also not challenged the finding that the offending vehicle was duly insured by the appellant. When the victim, namely Ramu Sarkar was returning home by ridding the motorbike bearing registration No.TR-03-C-9880 along the Agartala-Sabroom highway, at about 1715 hours when reached to the place of accident, the offending vehicle dashed the bike by losing control. Both the biker and the pillion-rider received injuries. Ramu Sarkar [the biker] succumbed to the injuries and died in the hospital. For death of said Ramu Sarkar, the claimant-respondents No. 1 and 2 filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the tribunal. The tribunal after recording the evidence awarded a sum of Rs.39,90,480/- [Rupees Thirty Nine lacs Ninety thousand Four hundred Eighty] with an interest @7% per annum to the claimant-respondents payable within a period of 2(two) months from the date of said judgment and award, failing which the interest @9% per annum shall be charged. 4. In this appeal, the following grounds of objection have been projected by the appellant: (i) the tribunal did not deduct from the income, as assessed, the income tax which was supposed to be paid by the deceased; (ii) the penal interest that has been imposed is beyond the authority as provided under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act and (iii) the proof of age is not supported by proper record. 5. Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the tribunal has admitted the driving license of the deceased and from the said driving license, the tribunal has deduced the date of birth of the deceased and observed that at the time of death, the deceased was aged about 25 years. 5. Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the tribunal has admitted the driving license of the deceased and from the said driving license, the tribunal has deduced the date of birth of the deceased and observed that at the time of death, the deceased was aged about 25 years. Thus, the multiplier ‘18’ was chosen for having the loss of dependency. Mr. Gautam, learned counsel has fairly submitted that on the basis of the salary certificate the annual income was derived by the tribunal but the income tax as ought to have been deducted from his income has not been so deducted. At the relevant point of time i.e. in the assessment year 2013-2014, up to the income Rs.1,80,000/- no tax was payable. From Rs.1,80,000/- to Rs.8,50,000/-, the payable income tax was 10% per annum. If, as a whole and grossly without any further deduction, the annual income is calculated it would come to Rs.2,94,480/-, as the monthly gross salary the deceased used to draw was Rs.24,540/-. Thus, the net taxable income would come to Rs.1,14,480/- and the payable tax comes to Rs.11,448/-. 6. From the other hand, Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents has fairly acceded that such deduction ought to have been made by the tribunal. Hence, the said amount has to be deducted from the annual income of the deceased. After deduction the amount would come to Rs.2,83,032/-. The monthly income would, therefore, be Rs.23,586/- and as the deceased was below 40(forty) years, 50% of the income is liable to be added as the loss of future prospect. Loss of future prospect per month would come to Rs.11,793/-. The monthly income for purpose of assessing loss of dependency would, therefore, be Rs.35,379/-. This amount would be multiplied for having the loss of dependency i.e. Rs.35,379/- X 12 X 18=Rs.76,41,864/- following the principles as laid down in Sarla Verma & Ors vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 since the deceased is admittedly a bachelor, 50% shall be deducted from his income as the personal expenses. Therefore, total dependency would come to Rs.38,20,932/. The said amount shall carry interest @7% per annum as no punitive interest can be imposed within the authority of Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, total dependency would come to Rs.38,20,932/. The said amount shall carry interest @7% per annum as no punitive interest can be imposed within the authority of Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act. With the said amount, another sum of Rs.25,000/- would be added as the loss of estate. Thus, the total compensation would come to Rs.38,45,932/-. The claimant-respondents No.1 & 2 would get the equal share of the said compensation when the said amount shall be deposited by the appellant. The appellant is directed to deposit the entire amount within a period of 2(two) months from today after deducting the sum that has already been deposited by them. Mr. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has already deposited a sum of Rs.39,65,480/-. It goes without saying that at the time of depositing the amount, the said amount shall be straightway deducted. On deposit, the claimant-respondents No.1 and 2 will be entitled to withdraw the amount in terms of the directions as given by the tribunal by the impugned judgment and award. The claimant-respondents No.1 & 2 shall remain entitled to withdraw the deposited sum in equal share. In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.