JUDGMENT : 1. Interlocutory application being I.A. No.4484 of 2019 in M.A. No.357 of 2018 has been preferred for condonation of delay of 302 days in preferring the appeal for enhancement of the Award by the appellants/claimants. 2. I.A. No.968 of 2018 in M.A. No.31 of 2018 has been preferred for condonation of delay of 171 days in preferring the appeal for setting aside the award by the appellant- Superintendent of Police, Gumla. 3. Having considered rival submissions of the parties and gone through the statement made in the concerned I.As., i.e. I.A. No.4484 of 2019 in M.A. No.357 of 2018 for condonation of delay of 302 days in preferring the appeal and I.A. No.968 of 2018 in M.A. No.31 of 2018 for condonation of delay of 171 days in preferring the appeal are hereby allowed. 4. Accordingly both the I.As are allowed and disposed of. 5. Both the appeals are being taken up together as they are arising out of a common award dated 09.05.2017 passed by Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi, in Motor Accident Claim Case No.145 of 2012. M.A. No. 31 of 2018 6. The Superintendent of Police, Gumla has preferred the appeal being M.A. No.31 of 2018 for setting aside the award on the ground that quantum of compensation has been excessively computed by the learned Tribunal and interest has also been given @ 9% instead of 7.5% per annum contrary to the judgment in the case of Dharmpal and Sons Vs. UP State Road Transport Corporation, 2008 (4) JCR 79 SC. 7. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that one of the legal heir of the deceased-Ghuran Mahli namely, Urmila Devi has been given a compassionate appointment on the post of Constable with ex gratia of Rs.10,00,000/-, as such, the amount may be reduced substantially as the same will cause financial burden upon the State Exchequer. M.A. No. 357 of 2018 8. Leaned counsel for the appellants-Mr. Nikhil Ranjan has preferred M.A. No.357 of 2018 for enhancement of the award only on the ground that the learned Tribunal has granted less amount under conventional head to the extent of Rs.45,000/-instead of Rs.70,000/-contrary to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , at para 59.8. 9. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants (in M.A. No. 357 of 2018) has submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/-as funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/-under the head for loss of Estate and Rs.10,000/-under the head for loss of consortium which is contrary to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court where under the head for loss of consortium Rs.40,000/-, loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-and funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-has been awarded by the Apex Court as such the same amount may be enhanced by adding Rs.25,000/-in the awarded amount passed by the learned Tribunal. 10. Mrs. Aparajita Bhardwaj has submitted that the enhancement may not be done as the Tribunal has granted 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 15.05.2012 till realization of the awarded amount which ought to have been simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the application in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dharmpal and Sons Vs. UP State Road Transport Corporation, 2008 (4) JCR 79 SC. As such, considering the meager change in the quantum of amount this Court sitting in the appeal may not interfere with award. 11. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. The brief fact of the case is that on 08.12.2010, deceased-Ghuran Mahli along with other police personnels were returning to P.S. Basia, District-Gumla at his place of posting after discharging his duty at Orissa. The deceased along with other persons were traveling in the police vehicle bearing registration no.JH-07C-3385. As soon as vehicle reached near the Joram Tiwari Hotel on NH-23 at about 08:30 A.M. the police vehicle because dis-balanced, dashed against another vehicle trailor bearing registration no.UP-44P-2308 standing in the side of the road, resulting into death of Sub-Inspector namely, Vijay Das traveling in the police vehicle on the spot and deceased-Ghuran Mahli was taken for treatment to hospital where he also succumbed to death. 12. This Court, in terms of the order dated 13.09.2019, enquired from the District Legal Services Authority, Gumla regarding compliance of the order rendered in the case of Jai Prakash Vs. National Insurance Company Limited & Ors., as reported in (2010) 2 SCC 607 . 12. This Court, in terms of the order dated 13.09.2019, enquired from the District Legal Services Authority, Gumla regarding compliance of the order rendered in the case of Jai Prakash Vs. National Insurance Company Limited & Ors., as reported in (2010) 2 SCC 607 . The report has been submitted by the District Legal Services Authority, Gumla stating that legal assistance is being provided to the legal heirs/representative of the deceased, Vijay Das for preferring the claim application vide report as contained in Letter No.4013 dated 21.10.2019. 13. For the alleged occurrence, an FIR was lodged at T. Tangar Police Station in the District of Simdega vide T. Tangar P.S. Case No.64 of 2010 dated 08.12.2010 against the driver of the Police vehicle bearing Registration No.JH07C 3385 for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. During investigation, investigating officer of the case found that the accident occurred due to failure of break of the offending Police Vehicle and accordingly submitted Final Report vide Final Report No.06 of 2011, dated 15.02.2011. The post-mortem report of the dead-body of the deceased (Ghuran Mahli) was conducted at RIMS, Ranchi and report was submitted vide P.M. report No.2252 of 2011 dated 29.12.2010. 14. Applicants are wife, minor daughters, minor son and mother of the deceased. The deceased-Ghuran Mahli was drawing net salary of Rs.15,644/-per month as a Police Constable. Thus, total amount of Rs.1,87,728/- (Rs.15,644/-x 12) was the annual income of the deceased. The applicants/claimants are entitled for Future Prospect @ 30%, in view of the judgment of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , as the deceased was in the age group of 46 years, as such, the total future prospect comes to Rs.56,318/-which has been added in the annual salary, thus total annual income comes to Rs.2,44,046/-. Since the family is constituted of four to six persons, as such, towards personal and living expenses of the deceased deduction has been made @ ¼th of the income which comes to Rs.61,011/-, as such, net income of the deceased for calculation of loss of dependency is Rs. 1,83,035/-. (Rs.2,44,046 – Rs.61,011). 15. Since the family is constituted of four to six persons, as such, towards personal and living expenses of the deceased deduction has been made @ ¼th of the income which comes to Rs.61,011/-, as such, net income of the deceased for calculation of loss of dependency is Rs. 1,83,035/-. (Rs.2,44,046 – Rs.61,011). 15. The deceased was in the age-group of 46, as such, multiplier of 13 is applicable in view of the judgment rendered in the case of and the learned Tribunal has rightly calculated the same though wrongly mentioned it in the impugned award as 16. Thus, total amount come to Rs.1,83,035/- X 13 = Rs.23,79,455/-. 16. Under conventional head amount of Rs.25,000/-as funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/-as loss of Estate and Rs.10,000/-under loss of consortium has been paid by the learned Tribunal, which ought to have been Rs.40,000/-as loss consortium, Rs.15,000/-as loss of Estate and Rs.15,000/-as funeral expenses, in view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 at Para 59.8. Thus, the amount ought to have been Rs.23,79,455/-+ Rs.70,000/-which comes to Rs.24,49,455/-along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, in view of the judgment rendered in the case of Dharmpal and Sons Vs. UP State Road Transport Corporation, 2008 (4) JCR 79 SC. 17. It is true that Urmila Devi (claimant No.1) has been given compassionate appointment apart from ex-gratia of Rs.10,000,00/-, as per the scheme of the 'Jharkhand Police' but the said amount cannot be deducted from the compensation for which the dependents of the deceased are entitled under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the case of Lal Dai and Anr. Vs. Himachal Road Transport, reported in 2007 (8) SCC 319 relying on earlier judgment passed in Helen C. Rebello (Mrs) and Others vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another, reported in 1999 (1) SCC 90 on this issue. 18. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that any amount paid as an ex gratia cannot be deducted from the compensation awarded to the dependents/claimants under the Motor Vehicles Act. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified to the extent of Rs.24,49,455/-along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the application till its realization. 19. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified to the extent of Rs.24,49,455/-along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the application till its realization. 19. It is expected that the Superintendent of Police, Gumla who is the appellant before Court, as such, the State Authorities instead of litigating the thing shall take all endeavours to satisfy the award within a period of 90 days from today, as the claimants/respondents are none else than dependents of their own constable. 20. Accordingly, M.A. No. 31 of 2018 is hereby dismissed only with modification in the interest from 9% to 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application whereas M.A. No.357 of 2018 is allowed. 21. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant-Superintendent of Police, Gumla in M.A. No.31 of 2018 shall be returned and refunded to the Superintendent of Police, Gumla within four weeks from the date of filing of the requisition by the counsel for the State. 22. The Registrar General of this Court is directed to refund the statutory amount deposited by the appellant at the time of filing of Miscellaneous Appeal, within a period of four weeks from the date of the filling of the requisition/application for the same by the counsel for the appellant. 23. I.A. No.10621 of 2019 in M.A. No.31 of 2018 is hereby closed.