JUDGMENT Rajesh Kumar, J. - The present appeal has arisen out of Award dated 20.01.2015 passed by District Judge VII cum MACT Judge, Dhanbad in Title (M.V.) Suit No. 91 of 2010. 2. The Suit has been instituted by the defendants-claimants that on 04.12.2009 while deceased Bishwanath Pandey was going to attend a reception party alongwith his two sons and other relatives on a Tata Sumo bearing registration number HR-51F-1204, at about 8 P.M. when the vehicle reached near Chourangi at NH2, GT Road within Kulti PS, District-Burdwan (West Bengal), an oil tanker bearing registration number WB- 37A-3205, being driven rashly and negligently, dashed the Tata Sumo as a result of which Bishwanath Pandey died on the spot and his son Bipul Pandey sustained serious injuries. 3. The Claim Tribunal after hearing the parties and taking evidence has recorded the monthly income of the deceased is Rs. 15,336/- (rupees fifteen thousand three hundred and thirty six) per month and his age has been assessed as 50 years and the number of dependent has been recorded as 5 (five). On the basis of above parameters, the multiplier of 13 has been applied, loss of dependency has been calculated as 3/4 of the monthly income and applying the principle of Sarla Verma''s case, the claim amount has been assessed as Rs. 20,78,464/- (rupees twenty lacs seventy eight thousand four hundred and sixty four) with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the claim application. 4. The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company. The first issue has been taken by the Insurance Company that the vehicle in which the appellant was travelling was not having the valid permit. The permit has been produced before this Court and that has been verified by the Insurance Company and it has been found genuine. This point taken by the appellant stands negated as the offending vehicle was having valid permit. 5. Now second issue has been raised by the appellant regarding (i) the monthly income and (ii) the contributory negligence of the Tata Sumo. 6. So far as, contributory negligence is concerned, it has neither been pleaded before the Claim Tribunal nor evidence has been placed by the appellant-Insurance Company. As such issue has not been framed and claimant has not been given opportunity to lead evidence on contributory negligence. 6. So far as, contributory negligence is concerned, it has neither been pleaded before the Claim Tribunal nor evidence has been placed by the appellant-Insurance Company. As such issue has not been framed and claimant has not been given opportunity to lead evidence on contributory negligence. As such Insurance Company could not be allowed to raise the such plea first time before this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Ext-2, wherein it has been mentioned that right side front of the offending vehicle was damaged. 8. Taking such plea, it has been argued that negligence was on the part of Tata Sumo and not on the part of oil tanker. This issue has to be specifically framed before the court below and opportunity to be given to the claimant to negate the same by leading proper evidence. Therefore, new plea cannot be allowed at this stage. 9. So far as monthly income is concerned, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that from perusal of Ext-1 which is Income Tax Return for the assessment year 2008-09 i.e. before the death of the deceased wherein income of deceased was Rs. 1,45,585/- (rupees one lac forty five thousand five hundred and eighty five) and net income was assessed as Rs. 1,09,940/- (rupees one lac nine thousand nine hundred and forty). Accordingly, the figure Rs. 1,49,940/- (rupees one lac forty nine thousand nine hundred and forty) ought to have been considered and not the gross income. 10. So far as, Ext-1/1 is concerned, that has been filed for the assessment year 2009-10 wherein gross total income has been found as Rs. 1,84,034/- (rupees one lac eighty four thousand and thirty four) and net income as Rs. 1,49,880/- (rupees one lac forty nine thousand eight hundred eighty). This return has been filed after four months of the death of the deceased. 11. Apart from Income Tax Return, no other oral witness has been examined on behalf of the claimants (sons of the deceased). They have stated regarding the gross total income of their father as Rs. 1,85,000/- (rupees one lac eighty five thousand) per year on the basis of Income Tax Return of the assessment year 2009-10. Thus, Income Tax Return only evidence produced regarding the income of the deceased. They have stated regarding the gross total income of their father as Rs. 1,85,000/- (rupees one lac eighty five thousand) per year on the basis of Income Tax Return of the assessment year 2009-10. Thus, Income Tax Return only evidence produced regarding the income of the deceased. The Income Tax Return which has been filed for the assessment year 2008-09 where the net income has assessed as Rs. 1,09,940/-(rupees one lac nine thousand nine hundred forty) and subsequent year that is the year of death, the income has been shown as Rs. 1,49,880/- (rupees one lac forty nine thousand eight hundred eighty). 12. Taking both the income from the assessment year, although income tax return of the year 2009-10 has been filed after death, there has been an increase in the gross income of the deceased. 13. In view of the above discussion, on the basis of Income Tax Return, the income of the deceased can be assessed as Rs. 1,30,000/- (rupees one lac thirty thousand) per year. Thus, there will be change in the amount of compensation on account of yearly income of the deceased. 14. In view of the above discussion, this Court holds that the yearly income of the deceased is Rs. 1,30,000/- (rupees one lac thirty thousand) per year. His age has been assessed as 50 years which is not interfered with. Number of dependent is 5 (five) that has also not been challenged. 15. On the basis of above finding, the appellant is entitled to multiplier of 13, towards future prospects 25%, loss of dependency th of the income has held by the court below claimant will be entitled of Rs. 70,000/- (seventy thousand) towards other expenses as per the Pranay Sethi case reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 . 16. In view of the above factum, the calculation is made as follows: Yearly Income Rs. 1,30,000/- (Future Prospects) 25% Rs. 32,500/- Rs. 1,62,500/- th deduction 1,62,500-40625= Rs. 1,21,875/- Age 50 years multiplier by 13 (as per Sarla Verma's case) Rs. 1,21,875x13= Rs. 15,84,375/- Other expenses + 70,000/- Total Rs. 16,54,375/- 17. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled for Rs. 16,54,375/- along with interest @ 7.50 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization. 18. With above direction, present appeal is disposed of. I.A. No. 4264 of 2016 also stands disposed of.