JUDGMENT : I.A. No.581 of 2014 1. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is delay of 816 days in preferring the appeal and the reason for the same has been explained in 2. I.A. No.581 of 2014 and considering the holistic view of the matter as well as merit of the appeal, the delay may be condoned as if the delay is not condoned in such a benevolent legislation irreparable loss will be caused to the appellant. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer and submitted that there is long delay of 816 days in filing the appeal and reason has not been properly explained by the claimant/appellant, as such, it would not be proper to interfere with the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal, as such, delay may not be condoned and the appeal itself is liable to be dismissed. 4. Considering the submissions of the parties, this Court is inclined to condone the delay of 816 days in preferring the appeal. Accordingly, delay of 816 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned. 5. I.A. No.581 of 2014 stands disposed of. M.A. No. 344 of 2013 6. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 7. The appeal has been preferred by the claimant namely, Martha Dungdung @ Martha Soreng for enhancement of the award dated 03.06.2011 passed by learned District Judge-cum-MACT, Simdega in M.A.C. Case No.20 of 2007 whereby the claimant has been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.3,36,000/-along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the order and the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is directed to pay the same within a period of three months from the date of the order failing which the claimant is entitled to realize the same through the process of the court and in that event claimant shall be entitled to have penal interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the order. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the claimant has preferred this appeal on the ground that the deceased (Bipin Dungdung) received fatal injury and died on the spot being the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration no.JH-07A-6356 at the age of 20-23 years and as per the postmortem report, Doctor has assessed the age of the deceased to be 28 years. The learned Tribunal has wrongly used the multiplier of 16 contrary to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) & others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , which ought to have been multiplier of 17 considering the age of deceased to be 28 years. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the deceased was having fixed salary, who died at the age of less than 40 years, as such, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 para 59.4, the future prospect of 40% has not been granted by the learned Tribunal. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that under the conventional head, the learned Tribunal has only granted Rs.2,000/-instead of Rs.70,000/-in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) para 59.8 (for the loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-, for loss of consortium Rs.40,000/-and for funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-is to be given), as such, the same may be enhanced and the interest be granted from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of realization instead of date of order, in view of Section 171 MV Act read with judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dharmpal and Sons Vs. UP State Road Transport Corporation, reported in 2008 (4) JCR 79 SC. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent-Oriental Insurance Company has submitted that copy has been served upon the learned counsel for the Insurance Company only on 14.09.2019, as such, from the date of filing of the appeal i.e. 25.11.2013 till 14.09.2019, the interest may be waived, if the appeal is allowed, interest shall only be paid from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of filing of the appeal on 25.11.2013. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has fairly submitted that claim case comes under the purview of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, as such, this Court may consider the same. 13. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has fairly submitted that claim case comes under the purview of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, as such, this Court may consider the same. 13. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the learned Tribunal has wrongly multiplied the multiplier of 16 instead of 17, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). Under the conventional head, less payment has been made and the future prospect has not been considered. The interest ought to have been granted from the date of filing of the claim application, if no any reason has been assigned by the learned Tribunal in view of Section 171 of the MV Act as well as in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dharmpal (supra). 14. Learned counsel for the respondent has also referred the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Ranjana Prakash & Ors. vs. Divisional Manager & Anr., reported in 2011 (14) SCC 639 para 8 and has submitted that, this Court may consider the fair and just compensation. 15. As such, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ranjana Prakash (supra) para 8 of which is profitably quoted hereunder:- “8. Where an appeal is filed challenging the quantum of compensation, irrespective of who files the appeal, the appropriate course for the High Court is to examine the facts and by applying the relevant principles, determine the just compensation. If the compensation determined by it is higher than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will allow the appeal, if it is by the claimants and dismiss the appeal, if it is by the owner/insurer. Similarly, if the compensation determined by the High Court is lesser than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will dismiss any appeal by the claimants for enhancement, but allow any appeal by the owner/insurer for reduction. The High Court cannot obviously increase the compensation in an appeal by the owner/insurer for reducing the compensation, nor can it reduce the compensation in an appeal by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.” 16. The High Court cannot obviously increase the compensation in an appeal by the owner/insurer for reducing the compensation, nor can it reduce the compensation in an appeal by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.” 16. It appears that mother of the deceased has claimed income of the deceased to be Rs.3,500/-per month but the learned Tribunal has considered it to be Rs.3,000/-. On the other hand, the deceased was a bachelor, but the learned Tribunal has only deducted 1/3rd instead of 50% in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) at para 30. 17. Accordingly, this Court considered the income of the deceased to be Rs.3,500/- per month. 18. Deceased was having fixed income and died at the age of 28 years, as such, 40% future prospect be added in view of para 59.4 of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) which comes to Rs.1,400/-. 19. Total Rs.4,900/-then half of the same is deducted, as deceased being bachelor towards his personal and living expenses in view of para 30 of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), which comes to Rs.2,450/- per month. 20. As such, the amount per annum will come to Rs.2,450/-x 12 = Rs.29,400/-(annual income). 21. Considering the age of the victim to be 28 years multiplier of 17 is applicable. As such, total amount will be Rs.29,400/-(annual income) x 17 = Rs.4,99,800/-and Rs.70,000/-under the conventional head in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) at para 59.8. 22. Thus, total compensation amount comes to Rs.4,99,800/-+ Rs.70,000/-= Rs.5,69,800/- 23. The interest should be awarded @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim application in view of Section 171 MV Act and in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Dharmpal (supra) as no reason has been assigned by the learned Tribunal for not paying interest from the date of filing of the claim application, but this interest shall only be calculated till the date of filing of the appeal before this Court on 25.11.2013. 24. 24. However, no interest shall be granted on any amount after the date of filing of the appeal i.e. 25.11.2013 till on 14.09.2019 when the matter remains pending before this Court and the copy was not served upon the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company, but the same shall be paid from the date of service of copy i.e. 14.09.2019 to the counsel for the Insurance Company till the date of realization of money. New calculation chart is as follows:- Income Rs.3,500/- Future Prospect Rs.3,500/- + Rs.3,500/- x 40% = Rs.4,900/- 1/2 Deduction towards Rs.4,900/- minus Rs.2,450/- = Rs.2,450/- personal and living expenses Total annual Income Rs.2,450/- x 12 = Rs.29,400/- Multiplier of 17 ( as the Rs.29,400/- x 17 = Rs.4,99,800/- deceased was in the age group of 30 years) Conventional Head Rs.70,000/- Total Compensation Rs.4,99,800/- + Rs.70,000/- = Rs.5,69,800/- Amount 25. Accordingly, the instant appeal is hereby allowed. 26. The Insurance Company is directed to indemnify the enhanced amount after deducting the payment already made within a reasonable time.