JUDGMENT : I.A. No. 2776 of 2010 in M.A. No. 165/2010. 1. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. D.C. Ghose and learned counsel for the claimants, Mr. Arvind Kr. Lall. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that this miscellaneous appeal has been preferred with delay of 70 days and for condonation of the same, I.A. No. 2776 of 2010 has been preferred. 3. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and also after being satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the Interlocutory Application, the delay of 70 days in preferring the miscellaneous appeal is condoned. 4. Accordingly, I.A. No. 2776 of 2010 is disposed of. M.A. No. 86 of 2010 & M.A. No. 165 of 2010 5. The claimants have preferred M. A. No. 86/2010 for enhancement, whereas the National Insurance Co. Ltd. has preferred M. A. No. 165/2010 against the same impugned Award dated 15.02.2010 passed by 1st Additional Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Giridih in M.V. Claim Case No. 73 of 2003, whereby learned Tribunal has awarded compensation to the claimants to the tune of Rs. 10,03,320/-to be paid within 45 days of the receipt of the copy of the Judgment, failing which, the Insurance Company will have to pay the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of Judgment. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants in M.A. No. 86/2010 preferred by the Claimants, Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall has assailed the impugned Award for enhancement on six grounds: (i) That the salary of the deceased has been wrongly considered by the learned Tribunal and not appreciated Exhibit-2 in right prospective, though deceased Md. Mustakim, was permanent employee of CCL. (ii) That the tax amount can only be deducted from the gross salary of the person and not from other heads. The learned Tribunal has wrongly deducted excess tax while computing the amount of compensation to the claimants. (iii) That the loss of consortium, as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (paragraph-59.8) as reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , has not been paid to the claimants. As per the judgment passed by the Apex Court, the claimants are entitled for loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-, loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/- and funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-, altogether Rs. 70,000/-. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (paragraph-59.8) as reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , has not been paid to the claimants. As per the judgment passed by the Apex Court, the claimants are entitled for loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-, loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/- and funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-, altogether Rs. 70,000/-. (iv) That the future prospect of the deceased has not been paid in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (paragraph-59.4), which ought to have been 30% as the deceased was 42 years. (v) That the deduction towards personal and living expenses has been wrongly made by learned Tribunal as 1/3rd which ought to have been 1/5th in view of judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 (paragraph-30). (vi) That the learned Tribunal has wrongly awarded interest @ 6% from the date of judgment, which is contrary to Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dharampal and Sons Vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation reported in 2008 (4) JCR 79 (SC). The interest ought to have been awarded @ 7.5% from the date of filing of claim application or the prevalent rate of interest of a nationalized bank on the date of Award. No reason has been assigned by the learned Tribunal for awarding interest @ 6% per annum and that too from the date of judgment. Though, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the delay has never been caused because of latches on the part of the appellants / claimants, rather it is because of the Insurance Company, who took several days in preferring an application Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act and thus, the matter delayed because of the Insurance Company, for which the claimants cannot be debarred from the interest from the date of filing of claim application. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant in M.A. No. 165/2010, Mr. D.C. Ghose has submitted that it is a case where the deceased was passing by side of Giridih-Jamua road on bicycle on 23.02.2003. An unknown truck hit Sri Shiv Ganga Bus bearing registration no. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant in M.A. No. 165/2010, Mr. D.C. Ghose has submitted that it is a case where the deceased was passing by side of Giridih-Jamua road on bicycle on 23.02.2003. An unknown truck hit Sri Shiv Ganga Bus bearing registration no. BHY-5236 and because of the hit made by the unknown truck, the accident took place and actual cause of accident is hit by unknown truck, for which the State Authority shall bear the part of compensation to the Insurance Company so as to indemnify the compensation to the claimants. 8. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants, Mr. Arvind Kr. Lall and learned counsel for the Insurance Company, Mr. D.C. Ghose, in M.A. No. 86 of 2010 and learned counsel for the appellant Mr. D.C. Ghose and learned counsel for the claimants, Mr. Arvind Kr. Lall in M.A. No. 165 of 2010. 9. The Insurance Company has preferred this appeal on the ground that there was responsibility of the State in the present incident as it is a case of hit and run. This Court has considered the submission made by learned counsel for the Insurance Company. This issue has never been raised by the Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal, though there is averment in the written statement. A point which has never been agitated by the Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal for framing the issue, cannot be allowed to take in any appeal. However, without going into the discussion on the issue of liability of State in a hit and run case, this Court gives liberty to the Insurance Company to prefer an application before the learned Tribunal, if so advised to adjudicate on that issue, as there was averment in the written statement but issue has never been framed before the learned Tribunal as the same was never agitated by the Insurance Company. As such, the court of appeal shall not allow such prayer in the present appeal. 10. Accordingly, M.A. No. 165 of 2010 is hereby dismissed with aforesaid liberty. So far the compensation is concerned, as prayed by the claimants in M.A. No. 86/2010, this Court has perused the judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) (paragraph-59.3) and found that actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. Admittedly, Exhibit-2 shows gross salary of Rs. So far the compensation is concerned, as prayed by the claimants in M.A. No. 86/2010, this Court has perused the judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) (paragraph-59.3) and found that actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. Admittedly, Exhibit-2 shows gross salary of Rs. 9,625.81 and the said amount was taxable at that relevant time i.e. for the assessment year 2003-04, as the tax slab was Nil for the income upto Rs. 50,000/-, 10% for income of Rs. 50,000-60,000/-, 20% for income of Rs. 60,000-1,50,000/-and 30% for income more than Rs. 1,50,000/-. 11. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the total amount of salary to the tune of Rs. 9,625.81 is rounded off as Rs. 9626/-multiplied by 12 comes to Rs. 1,15,512/-and the tax limit was 10% and 20%, as the amount falls in the slab of Rs. 50,000- 60,000/- and Rs. 60,000- 1,50,000/- respectively. 12. As such, 10% of Rs. 50,000-60,000/-and 20% of Rs. 60,000-1,15,512/-shall be deducted as tax amount which comes to Rs. 12,102/-and the same shall be deducted from total income of Rs. 1,15,512/-as tax amount. 13. Under the aforesaid circumstance, the income shall be Rs. 1,03,410/-per annum, out of which 1/5th shall be deducted towards personal and living expenses, in view of Sarla Verma Case (Supra) (paragraph-30) as the family comprises of more than six persons including the deceased. 14. So far future prospect is concerned, the same cannot be denied because of compassionate appointment in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar & Others Vs. Kishore Dan & Others reported in (2013) 7 SCC 476 and in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) (paragraph-59.3), the claimants are entitled for 30% as future prospect, as the deceased was 42 years which falls in the bracket of age group of 40-50 years. 15. So far conventional head is concerned, the claimants are entitled for Rs. 70,000/-under the conventional head i.e. Rs. 15,000/-as loss of estate, Rs. 40,000/-as loss of consortium and Rs. 15,000/-as loss of funeral expenses in view of judgment passed in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) (paragraph-59.8). 16. 15. So far conventional head is concerned, the claimants are entitled for Rs. 70,000/-under the conventional head i.e. Rs. 15,000/-as loss of estate, Rs. 40,000/-as loss of consortium and Rs. 15,000/-as loss of funeral expenses in view of judgment passed in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) (paragraph-59.8). 16. So far interest is concerned, this Court has taken a consistent view of 7.5% from the date of filing of the application in view of Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Dharampal & Sons (Supra), though the Tribunal has right to vary, but there must be some explanation and reason for awarding such award from the date of judgment. 17. In the present case, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, submitted that it was never delayed because of the claimants which has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. Accordingly, this Court revise interest from 6% to 7.5% from the date of filing of application till date of actual payment. 17. Now the exact calculation for compensation is as follows:- 1 Gross Annual Income Rs. 9626 (x) 12 = Rs. 1,15,512/- 2 Net Annual Income Rs. 1,15,512/- (-) Rs. 12,102/- (Tax) = Rs. 1,03,410/- 3 Future Prospect (30%) Rs. 31,024/- Total (2) + (3) Rs. 1,34,434/- 4 Deduction towards Personal and Living Expenses (1/5th) Rs. 26,887/- Total (3) -(4) Rs. 1,07,547/- 5 Multiplier 14 Total (4) x (5) Rs. 15,05,658/- 6 Conventional Head Rs. 70,000/- Total (5) + (6) Rs. 15,75,658/- 7 Total Compensation Rs. 15,75,658/-alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim application i.e. 27.09.2003. 18. Accordingly, M.A. No. 86 of 2010 is allowed with aforesaid enhancement. 19. Insurance Company is directed to indemnify the amount. 20. Statutory amount shall be remitted to the learned Tribunal within four weeks from today by Registrar General of this Court and the rest amount shall be indemnified by the Insurance Company in view of the enhancement with interest.