JUDGMENT : 1. MAC Case No. 60/2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dakshin Dinajpur at Balurghat was registered on an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereafter the ‘Act’). The claimants were three in number. They happen to be the wife, father and mother of a motor accident victim (Aniruddha Guha). While the victim was riding a motor cycle on 29th August, 2009, a bus being driven at a very high speed and in a negligent manner dashed the victim from behind and as a result of which, the victim fell down on the road along with his motor bike and sustained multiple injuries on his person. He was immediately shifted to Baranagar State General Hospital where he breathed his last. At the relevant time, the victim was employed in a private company and was in receipt of Rs.16,235/- as gross salary. Considering the oral and documentary evidence that were led, the tribunal in its judgment and award dated 13th June, 2017 recorded a finding that the victim died in the motor accident in question and since the offending vehicle which was being driven rashly and negligently was insured by the opposite party no. 2 (hereafter the insurer), it was liable to bear compensation payable to the claimants. Considering the age of the victim, i.e. 23 years, the tribunal proceeded to assess compensation applying the multiplier of 18 and arrived at a figure of Rs.22,17,460/- which was payable to the claimants on account of compensation along with interest @ 8.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till payment within 30 days of such award, failing which the insurer was made liable to pay interest @ 10% per annum. 2. The said award is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal under Section 173 of the Act, at the instance of the insurer. 3. In the memorandum of appeal, we find four grounds. 2. The said award is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal under Section 173 of the Act, at the instance of the insurer. 3. In the memorandum of appeal, we find four grounds. It has been urged that the tribunal erred in awarding Rs.22,17,460/- on account of compensation and the assessment made by it is wholly arbitrary, whimsical and bad in law; that, the tribunal was wrong in assessing compensation accepting the pleading of the claimants that the victim’s gross salary is Rs.16,235/-; that, the tribunal ought to have directed the claimants to prove the monthly income of the victim; and that, the award was not in conformity with the provisions of the Act and the rules framed there under. 4. In course of hearing, Mr. Das, learned advocate for the insurer has raised a solitary point. According to him, the victim must have been a payee of income tax and professional tax and such sum should have been deducted from his gross salary for the purpose of assessment of compensation. 5. Mr. Banik, learned advocate for the claimants, who are the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 before us, on the contrary, contended that the judgment and award of the tribunal does not merit any interference on any of the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal by the insurer. He submits by referring to paragraph-11 of the written statement filed by the insurer before the tribunal that the insurer denied that the victim had a monthly income of Rs.16,235/- and left it to the claimants to prove such income. Referring to exhibit-1, which was proved by the victim’s employer, Mr. Banik submitted that the basic pay of the victim was Rs.3,550/- and he was also entitled to Travelling Allowance and Dearness Allowance (hereafter TA/DA) and that the gross salary changed due to variance of TA/DA and other miscellaneous expenses from month to month. It is his specific submission that the victim was not assessable to income tax and, therefore, no amount should be deducted, as prayed for by the insurer. It is also Mr. Banik’s contention that if at all the insurer was desirous of proving before the tribunal that a certain amount should be deducted from the gross salary of the victim towards income tax and professional tax, evidence ought to have been led on behalf of the insurer. It is also Mr. Banik’s contention that if at all the insurer was desirous of proving before the tribunal that a certain amount should be deducted from the gross salary of the victim towards income tax and professional tax, evidence ought to have been led on behalf of the insurer. In the absence of any such evidence, the tribunal did not commit any error in assessing compensation in the manner it did. Mr. Banik brought to our notice that the claimants have filed a memorandum of cross-objection (C.O.T. 79 of 2017). Relying on the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court dated 31st October, 2017 in SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2015 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi), Mr. Banik submitted that the award of the tribunal warrants modification. According to him, the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation on account of future prospect as well as on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. 6. We have heard learned advocates for the parties on the merits of the appeal as well as the cross-objection and propose to dispose of the same by this common judgment and order. 7. Looking into Exhibit-1 before the tribunal, being the salary statement of the victim for the month of July, 2009, we find Rs.12,550/- was his gross salary. Sums of Rs.426/- and Rs.256/- were deducted on account of “PF” and “TDS”, respectively leaving a net salary of Rs.11,865/- to be taken home by the victim. “TDS” would imply that tax has been deducted at source; hence such sum is liable to be deducted but the claimants would be entitled in law to claim that the account deducted on account of Provident Fund should be added to the net salary. This takes care of Mr. Das’s contention and we shall bear this in mind while we reassess compensation. 8. We have also considered the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra). In paragraph 61, the Supreme Court has recorded its conclusions. Sub-paragraphs (iii), (iv) & (viii) being relevant, are quoted below :- (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. (iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. (viii) 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. 9. Bearing in mind the above, we proceed to reassess compensation as follows :- Sl No. Heads Calculation i. Notional yearly income Rs.12,291.00X12 =Rs.1,47,492.00 ii Less 1/3rd on account of personal and living expense Rs.98,328.00 iii Multiplier of 18 applied Rs.17,69,904.00 iv Future prospect Rs.6,95,837.00 v Loss of estate Rs.19,965.00 vi Funeral expenses Rs.19,965.00 vii Loss of consortium Rs.53,240.00 Total Compensation Rs.25,58,911.00 10. Therefore, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.25,58,911/- on account of compensation together with interest @ 8.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till realization. 11. The appellant/insurer shall deposit the aforesaid amount together with interest @ 8.5% before the tribunal within 60 (sixty) days from date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such deposit being made, the claimants shall be entitled to approach the tribunal for disbursal thereof, also in accordance with law. 12. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant/insurer shall be treated to be costs of the proceedings and the Registrar General is directed to hand over the said amount to the claimants, together with accrued interest, if an approach is made in that behalf. The appeal as well as the connected application (C.A.N. 8545 of 2017) and the cross-objection (C.O.T. 79 of 2017) stands disposed of. 13. The appeal as well as the connected application (C.A.N. 8545 of 2017) and the cross-objection (C.O.T. 79 of 2017) stands disposed of. 13. The amount of compensation together with interest @ 8.5% and costs shall be divided equally between the widow of the victim and the mother of the victim. 14. Lower court records to be sent down immediately. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment or order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.