JUDGMENT : No one appeared on behalf of the respondents, even on repeated calls. Heard Mr. Sabal Kumar Laik, learned counsel for appellants. 2. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.01.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court-III, Dhanbad in Title (M.V.) Suit No. 187 of 2004 for enhancing the compensation, awarded by the learned Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 24.1.2004 at 7.00 pm, while the deceased-Lal Chand Soren was going from Simlabahal colliery to his friend’s house at Raghunathpur near Chali Bangla, on the way, when he reached Barwadih, G.T. Road, the truck bearing Registration No. RJ-02G-6981 being rashly and negligently driven, hit the back of the scooter of Lal Chand Soren, resulting in serious injuries to Lal Chand Soren and he died on the spot. Katras (Rajganj) P.S. Case No. 29 of 2004 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC was instituted, in connection with the said accident. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the driver of the truck bearing Registration No. RJ-02G-6981. 4. In the Tribunal, neither respondent no. 2- owner of the vehicle appeared nor filed any written statement and only respondent no. 1- Insurance Company contested the case and filed the written statement. 5. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:- (i) Whether plaintiffs have got any cause of action? (ii) Whether the suit is maintainable? (iii) Whether the vehicle No. RJ-02G-6981 being driven by the driver rashly and negligently at the time of accident? (iv) Whether the driver of vehicle No. RJ-02G-6981 had got valid driving licence and the said vehicle had valid tax token, road permit and fitness certificate at the time of accident? (v) Whether plaintiffs are entitled as claimed, if so, what relief or reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled? 6. In support of the case, the claimants have examined three witnesses besides proving documents. C.W.1-Kailash Mahto and C.W.2-Tarapado Kumar were the eye witnesses to the occurrence. Claimant no. 1-Manjhli Manjhian has also been examined as C.W.3. The claimants also proved the pay slip of the deceased-Lal Chand Soren for the month of October, 2003 which was marked as Ext.1; Ext. In support of the case, the claimants have examined three witnesses besides proving documents. C.W.1-Kailash Mahto and C.W.2-Tarapado Kumar were the eye witnesses to the occurrence. Claimant no. 1-Manjhli Manjhian has also been examined as C.W.3. The claimants also proved the pay slip of the deceased-Lal Chand Soren for the month of October, 2003 which was marked as Ext.1; Ext. 2 is the FIR of Katras (Rajganj) P.S. Case No. 29 of 2004; Ext.3 is the certified copy of the charge-sheet; an attested copy of the postmortem report of the deceased has been marked as Ext.4. From the side of the Insurance Company, no witness was examined but it proved the photocopy of the Identity Card of the deceased-Lal Chand Soren which was marked as Ext. A; and the photocopy of the internal communication of the insurance company which was marked as Ext. B; photocopy of the letter of surveyor and loss assessor assessed by the Sr. Divisional Manager was marked as Ext. C; photocopy of surveyor and loss assessor addressed to the DTO has been marked as Ext. D and the photocopy of the receipt was marked as Ext. E. 7. Learned Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence in the record came to a conclusion that the claimants have proved that on the date of occurrence the deceased was riding the scooter which was hit by the truck bearing Registration No. RJ-02G-6981, resulting in the death of Lal Chand Soren. From the Identity Card of the deceased, the Tribunal assessed the age of the deceased to be 43 years at the time of accident. In the pay slip of the deceased, which was marked as Ext.1, it was mentioned that the gross salary of the deceased Lal Chand Soren was Rs.9494/- per month and his net salary was Rs.7144/- per month. The learned Tribunal has considered the net salary of the deceased as his income and basing upon the same by applying multiplier 12, has awarded total compensation of Rs. 6,50,000/- and as Rs.50,000/- was earlier paid to the claimants as ad interim compensation and hence ordered the respondent-Insurance Company to pay the net compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- to the claimants but did not award any interest without assigning any reason. 8. Mr. 6,50,000/- and as Rs.50,000/- was earlier paid to the claimants as ad interim compensation and hence ordered the respondent-Insurance Company to pay the net compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- to the claimants but did not award any interest without assigning any reason. 8. Mr. Sabal Kumar Laik, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the claimants-appellants have prayed for enhancement of compensation on the following grounds:- (a) The first ground is that the learned Tribunal should have considered the gross salary of the deceased-Lal Chand Soren less the income tax payable by him instead of considering the net salary of the deceased while assessing his income and to buttress his submission the learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Yerramma & Ors. v. G. Krishnamurthy & Anr. reported in 2015 AIR SCW 514, wherein Their Lordships in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the judgment have held as under: “13. The Tribunal on examining the salary slip of the deceased for the month of April, 2011 determined the salary of the deceased at Rs.21,168/- per month after deducting towards P.T. and other statutory deductions. Therefore, the Tribunal arrived at Rs.21,168/- per month as the salary of the deceased. The High Court in its impugned judgment and order affirmed the same. We are of the view, that on the facts and circumstances of this case, the net salary of the deceased taken by the Tribunal and the High Court for determination of loss of dependency is erroneous as it is not in accordance with the principles laid down by this Court in this regard. Therefore the same is liable to be set aside as it has to be properly determined by taking gross income of the deceased. It is clear that the gross income of the deceased at the time of his death as per his salary slip was Rs.26,000/- per month. Therefore, we are of the view that a just and reasonable compensation under the head of loss of dependency has not been determined by the courts below. Thus, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court is vitiated both on account of erroneous finding and error in law. The gross salary drawn by the deceased at the time of his death was Rs.26,000/- per month. The High Court and the Tribunal have taken the net salary at Rs. Thus, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court is vitiated both on account of erroneous finding and error in law. The gross salary drawn by the deceased at the time of his death was Rs.26,000/- per month. The High Court and the Tribunal have taken the net salary at Rs. 21,168/- per month, thereby the Courts below have erred in making deductions from the gross salary of the deceased towards. P.T. of Rs.200/- and other statutory deductions and therefore, arriving at Rs.21,168/- per month at the net salary of the deceased is erroneous in law. Therefore, we are of the view that both the Tribunal and the High Court have erred in not following the rules laid down by this Court in Indira Srivastava’s ( AIR 2008 SC 845 : 2008 AIR SCW 143) (supra) in not taking gross income of the deceased to determine the loss of dependency. 14. The gross salary drawn by the deceased at the time of his death as per salary slip produced on record was Rs.26,000/- per month and after deducting 10% towards income tax, net income comes to Rs.23,400/- per month. Thus, the annual income of the deceased would be Rs.2,80,800/-. Deducting 1/4th of this amount towards his personal expenses by applying the principle as laid down by this Court in Sarla Verma case ( AIR 2009 SC 3104 : 2009 AIR SCW 4992) (supra), the balance amount comes to Rs.2,10,600/- [(2,80,800 – Rs.70,200/- (14th of Rs.2,80,800/-)]. Therefore, the loss of dependency of the appellants by applying the appropriate multiplier of 11, according to the rules laid down by this Court in the Sarla Verma comes to Rs.23,16,600/- (Rs.2,10,600/- x 11).” (Emphasis Supplied) (b) The second ground is that the learned Tribunal has erred by deducting one-third of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses keeping in view the fact that all the five claimants are the dependants of the deceased and in fact, the Tribunal ought to have deducted only one-fourth of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. In this respect, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarla Verma (SMT) & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , wherein Their Lordships have held in paragraph-30 which reads as under: “30. In this respect, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarla Verma (SMT) & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , wherein Their Lordships have held in paragraph-30 which reads as under: “30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one- fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.” (Emphasis Supplied) (c) So far third ground for enhancement of compensation as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants is that, as per paragraph-40 of the judgment in the case of Sarla Verma (SMT) & Others (supra), the age of the deceased being 43 years multiplier should have been 14, but the learned Tribunal has erred in using the multiplier 12. (d) The fourth ground for enhancement of compensation is that the learned Tribunal has erred in not considering the future prospects of the income of the deceased. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased being a salaried employee aged about 43 years, addition of 30% of the income of the deceased ought to have been made in his total income in view of the decision in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others reported in AIR 2017 SCW 5157, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held as under in paragraph 61: “61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions: … … … … … … … … … … (iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. … … … … … … … … … … … Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000, Rs. 40,000 and Rs. 15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.” (Emphasis Supplied) (e) The fifth ground for enhancement of compensation is that the learned Tribunal has erred in not awarding the interest from the date of filing of the claim application. In this respect, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Amresh Kumari v. Niranjan Lal Jagdish Pd. Jain and others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 433 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph 2 has held as under: “2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The question whether interest on the amount of compensation determined to be payable to the claimant is to be awarded from the date of the award or from the date of the filing of the claim petition came up for consideration before this Court in Mohinder Kaur v. Hira Nand Sindhi (2015) 4 SCC 434 , to which one of us (D.K. Jain, J.) was a party, it was held that the claimant was entitled to interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. Following the said decision, we hold that the appellant would be entitled to simple interest @ 9 per cent, as awarded by the learned Single Judge, from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 11-8-1986.” (Emphasis Supplied) and hence it is submitted that the interest @ 9% per annum over the said amount from the date of filing of the claim application be awarded to the claimants-appellants. (f) The sixth ground for enhancement of compensation is that the learned Tribunal has erred in not awarding compensation under the conventional head of funeral expenses and loss of consortium and in view of the Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants-appellants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of consortium i.e. total extra compensation of Rs. 30,000/-. 9. The only point for determination in this appeal is “Whether the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation on the six grounds submitted by the appellants as mentioned above?” 10. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and after going through the records, I find that in view of the ratio of the case of Yerramma & Ors. (supra), the learned Tribunal has erred in not considering the gross salary of the deceased-Lal Chand Soren. From Ext.1, which is the pay slip for the month of October, 2003, it appears that the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.9494/- per month which comes out to Rs.1,13,928/-. 11. Keeping in view the ratio of the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the deceased being salaried employee addition of 30% to his income be made, so including the future prospect amount comes out to Rs. 1,48,106/- deducting 10% of the amount towards his income tax and applying the ratio of the case of Yerramma & Ors. (supra), his total net income comes out to Rs. 1,33,296/- applying the ratio of the case of Sarla Verma (SMT) & Others (supra), as the deceased has five dependants, one-fourth of the income of the deceased is to be deducted towards his personal expenses while calculating the multiplicand which comes out to Rs. 99,972/- keeping in view that the deceased was aged about 43 years at the time of his death in view of the ratio of Sarla Verma (SMT) & Others (supra) the multiplier to be applied is 14. So total compensation comes out to Rs. 13,99,608/-. In view of the settled principle of law by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mahindra Kaur (supra) and Amresh Kumari (supra), the claimants are entitled to the interest @ 9% per annum over the said amount from the date of filing of the claim application and adding Rs. 30,000/- to the same under the conventional heads of Rs.15,000/- each under the funeral expenses and loss of consortium, total compensation comes out to Rs.14,29,608/-. 30,000/- to the same under the conventional heads of Rs.15,000/- each under the funeral expenses and loss of consortium, total compensation comes out to Rs.14,29,608/-. Since it appears from the impugned judgment, that Rs.50,000/- has earlier been paid to the appellants as ad interim compensation, the claimants-appellants are entitled to receive net compensation amount of Rs.13,79,608/- from the respondent no.1-Insurance Company. 12. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned judgment dated 27.01.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court-III, Dhanbad in Title (M.V.) Suit No. 187 of 2004, is modified to the following extent : i. Respondent no.1-Insurance Company is directed to pay the total compensation amount of Rs. 13,79,608/- along with simple interest @ 9% per annum thereon from the date of filing of the claim application to till the date of actual payment of the amount, less the amount, if any, paid by the respondent no. 1-Insurance Company to the claimants within three months from the date of receipt/ production of the copy of this judgment. 13. This appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid modification, of the impugned judgment and award. Let a copy of this judgment be sent forthwith to the learned tribunal.