JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. CMP(M) No. 2064 of 2016 Heard. This application has been filed on behalf of the appellant/applicant seeking therein an order for condoning a delay of 52 days as has occurred in the institution of the appeal before this Court, against the impugned award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Sirmaur, Distrct at Nahan. 2. The application for condonation of delay, discloses that bureaucratic processes necessarily required to be undergone for finalization of an opinion, for the institution of an appeal against the impugned award, obviously consumed time. Since, consumption of time in the finalization of an opinion, for the institution of an appeal before this Court at the instance of the Insurance Company, is obvious, hence, consumption thereof is to be construed to be bonafide, as well as just. Therefore, sufficient and abundant cause is apparently made out for condoning the delay in the filing of the instant appeal. It has no elements of deliberateness nor is intentional. Accordingly, the delay in the institution of the instant appeal before this Court stands condoned and the application is allowed and disposed of accordingly. FAO No. 299 of 2017 Heard. Appeal be registered. 1. The instant appeal is directed against the impugned award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Sirmaur, District at Nahan, H.P. in MAC Petition No. 163-N/2 of 2013 whereby a sum of Rs. 27,61,344/- stood assessed as compensation amount upon the legal heirs of deceased Mam Chand. The aforesaid compensation amount assessed in the award stood apportioned vis-a-vis the claimants, in the hereinafter extracted manner:- 1. Kiran Bala Rs.12,61,344/- 2. Vinay Kumar Rs.5,00,000/- 3. Neeraj Kumar Rs.5,00,000/- 4. Poonam Kumari Rs.5,00,000/- 2. Under the impugned award, the learned Tribunal fastened the apposite indemnificatory liability upon the insurer of the offending vehicle. The insurer is aggrieved by the pronouncement recorded by the learned MACT, hence it has instituted the instant appeal before this Court. 3. Apparently, the deceased Mam Chand, as displayed by his salary certificate, was at the time contemporaneous to the ill fated mishap, drawing a salary of Rs. 19,643/- per mensem from his relevant employment. He at the stage contemporaneous to the ill-fated mishap was admittedly aged 53 years. 3. Apparently, the deceased Mam Chand, as displayed by his salary certificate, was at the time contemporaneous to the ill fated mishap, drawing a salary of Rs. 19,643/- per mensem from his relevant employment. He at the stage contemporaneous to the ill-fated mishap was admittedly aged 53 years. The learned Tribunal has proceeded to upon the aforesaid sums of the salary per mensem drawn by the deceased from his relevant employment, add 15% towards incremental accretional prospects vis-à-vis the aforesaid per mensem sums of money, derived by the deceased from his relevant employment. The learned tribunal in proceeding to add 15% vis-à-vis Rs.19,643/- per mensem, derived as salary by the deceased from his employment, is in stark conflict with the mandate of the Hon’ble Apex Court encapsulated in a case titled as Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , relevant paragraph No. 24 is reproduced hereinafter: “24. In Susamma Thomas, this Court increased the income by nearly 100%, in Sarla Dixit, the income was increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruah the income was increased by a mere 7%. In view of 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 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 calculations 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. 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.” wherein contrarily the Hon’ble Apex Court, has propounded that any addition in a percentum of 15% upon the actual per mensem salary drawn by the deceased from his employment, conspicuously when the deceased employee is aged beyond 50 years, as evidently was the age of the deceased at the time contemporaneous to the ill-fated occurrence, being grossly untenable. Thereupon it was grossly inappropriate for the learned Tribunal, to upon the actual per mensem salary drawn by the deceased employee, at the time contemporaneous to the ill-fated mishap, add thereon 15% per mensem, given its purportedly comprising the percentum of prospects of its accretions, in futuro. The rigor of the mandate aforesaid encapsulated in the verdict supra pronounced by the Hon’ble Apex Court is with enhanced momentum applicable hereat, given the visible factum of the deceased employee holding a permanent job in a Government Department, thereupon with Sarla Verma case (Supra) imposing a rigid interdiction against a deceased employee evidently aged beyond 50 years also evidently holding a permanent employment in a Government Department hence not warranting towards future incremental accretions, any addition in any percentum per mensem vis-à-vis the actual per mensem salary drawn from his employment. Thereupon, this Court is constrained to conclude that dehors any addition in any percentum per mensem vis-à-vis the actual per mensem salary drawn by the deceased, only the sum of Rs.19,643/- per mensem being the computable sums of money, whereupon the claimants can be concluded to be dependent also thereupon the relevant multiplier after deductions being meted thereon hence warranting application thereto, for determining the compensation amount. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the insurance has contended, that the award warrants interference, in as much as, the learned Tribunal erroneously deducting from the aforesaid figure of per mensem salary, salary whereof constitutes the base data for determining the pecuniary sums of annual dependency of the claimants upon the income of the deceased, 1/4th percentum therefrom, towards the personal expenses of the deceased. However, the aforesaid submission cannot warrant acceptance, as the table appended below paragraph No. 19 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court titled as Rajesh Kumar and other Vs. Rajbir Singh and other, (2013) 9 SCC 54 , permits 1/4th deductions from the sums of salary per mensem drawn by the deceased from his employment, on anvil of deductions therefrom in the aforesaid percentum working towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Sl. No. Heads. Calculation. (i) Salary Rs.9520 per month (ii) 50% of (i) above to be added as future prospects Rs.9520+4760)= Rs.14,280 per month (iii) 1/4 th of (ii) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased. (Rs.14,280-Rs.3570) = Rs.10,710 per month (iv) Compensation after multiplier of 16 is applied. Rs.10,710x12x16 = Rs.20,56,320/- (v) Loss of consortium Rs,1,00,000/- (vi) Loss of care and guidance for minor children Rs.1,00,000/- (vii) Funeral Expenses Rs.25,000/- Total Compensation Awarded Rs.22,81,320/- 4. Furthermore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that assessments under the impugned award vis-à-vis each of the claimants sums of Rs. one lac each respectively towards loss of love and affection and also assessment vis-à-vis one Kiran Bala, a sum of Rs. one lac towards loss of consortium, suffer from an infirmity, is, also not acceptable as the aforesaid table occurring in Sarla Verma Case (supra) approbates awarding of sums of money under the aforesaid heads respectively vis-à-vis the claimants. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant contends, that levying of interest at the rate of 9% upon the principal compensation amount, is not in accordance with law, as the learned Tribunal was enjoined to levy thereon interest at the rate of 4%. However, the aforesaid submission lacks vigour, in the face of the Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment in a case titled as Subulaxmi Vs. Managing Director, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 177 relevant paragraph 15 whereof stands reproduced hereinafter:- “15. Thus analysed, we are disposed to think that the High Court has erred in not granting interest on the enhanced sum. As is evincible, the Tribunal had granted payment of interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Managing Director, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 177 relevant paragraph 15 whereof stands reproduced hereinafter:- “15. Thus analysed, we are disposed to think that the High Court has erred in not granting interest on the enhanced sum. As is evincible, the Tribunal had granted payment of interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, we find that the interest awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and accordingly we direct that the interest on the differential enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of deposit of the same before the Tribunal. The respondent Corporation is directed to deposit the differential amount before the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from today.” approbating levying in the aforesaid percentum of interest on the principal compensation amount. 6. Consequently, the levying of interest at the rate of 9% per annum upon the principal compensation amount, by the learned Tribunal, does not suffer from any infirmity or gross perversity. 7. The effect of the above discussion is that the claimants, are, after deducting ¼ from of the total salary of Rs.19,643/- per mensem hence entitled to compensation amount comprised in a sum of Rs. 19,643-4910.75=14,732.25 rounded of to Rs.14,730x12=1,76,760x11=19,44,360/-besides by thereon adding sums of Rs. 1 lac each assessed vis-à-vis each of the claimants towards loss of love and affection and Rs.one lac assessed vis-à-vis one Kiran Bala towards loss of consortium and Rs.25,000/- assessed towards funeral charges, thereupon entitled to a total compensation amount quantified at Rs.24,69,360/-. The compensation amount shall be apportioned amongst the petitioners as under:- Kiran Bala(wife) Rs. 12,97,180/- Vinay Kumar Rs.3,90,727/- Neeraj Kumar Rs. 3,90,727/- Poonam Kumari Rs. 3,90,727/- 8. The aforesaid compensation amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its deposit. 9. In view of the above the instant appeal is partly allowed and the award of the learned MACT-II, Sirmaur District at Nahan is modified accordingly. The pending applications also stand disposed of.