JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed on 29th April, 2005 by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional District & Sessions Judge, Alipore, 24-Parganas (South) in MAC Case No.374 of 2004 granting compensation at Rs.18,36,860/-. 2. The claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 arose out of an accident which took place on 22nd January, 2002 at about 11.30 a.m. while the deceased Mrinmoy Ghosh was knocked down by a Truck bearing registration no. BR-13/7437 which was moving in rash and negligent manner. Thus, claim petition was filed with a prayer for compensation to the tune of Rs.26,50,000/-. 3. Respondent no.1 owner of the vehicle and the respondent no.2/Insurance Company contested this case by filing their respective written statements denying all material allegations in the claim petition alleged, inter alia, that no such accident took place by the involvement of the Truck, the claimants are not entitled to any compensation. 4. In course of the trial, three witnesses were examined. Amongst them, PW-1 and PW-3 have stated about the accident and PW-3, being the eyewitness, proved the accident and negligent driving of the Truck. PW-2, Superintendent of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited has deposed in this case and proved the monthly income of the deceased. Salary certificate was admitted in evidence as Ext.14/1. On the other hand, no evidence was adduced on behalf of the opposite parties. 5. In course of argument, learned advocate on behalf of the appellants/claimants assailed the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal on the ground that in assessing salary, learned Tribunal committed wrong in deducting the amount of Rs.8,378.19 showing in the salary sheet instead of deducting statutory tax. In support of this contention, he relied on a case reported in 2008 (1) TAC 424 (National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Indira Srivastava & Anr.). 6. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants/claimants has further argued that the learned Tribunal did not consider the general damages, future prospect and interest on the award. 7. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1/Insurance Company, in his usual fairness, also conceded that according to the settled principles of law, gross salary shall be taken into account in computing monthly income only after deduction of statutory tax. 7. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1/Insurance Company, in his usual fairness, also conceded that according to the settled principles of law, gross salary shall be taken into account in computing monthly income only after deduction of statutory tax. It has further been conceded on behalf of the respondent no.1/Insurance Company that the claimants are entitled to general damages, future prospect as well as interest according to the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act. 8. On careful perusal of the evidence on record together with the judgment, I do not find any reason to raise any question as to the happening of the accident wherein Mrinmoy Ghosh, the husband of the claimant no.1, sustained injury and died and the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Truck bearing no. BR-13/7437. 9. If that be the position, after deduction of tax, Rs.3958/- from the gross salary of Rs.21,072/-, it comes to Rs.17,114/-. 10. In that view of the matter, I find no other option but to compute the compensation in the following manner:- Annual Income (Rs.2,52,864/- – Rs.47.496/-) Rs. 2,05,368/- Add: Future prospect 50% Rs. 1,02,684/- Rs. 3,08,052/- Less: 1/3rd Deduction (Rs.3,08,052/- – Rs.1,02,684/-) Rs. 1,02,684/- Rs. 2,05,368/- Multiplier 17 (Rs.2,05,368/- x 17) Rs.34,91,256/- Add: General Damages Rs. 70,000/- Total Rs.35,61,256/- Less – Awarded by ld. Tribunal Rs.18,36,860/- ENHANCEMENT Rs.17,24,396/- 11. For the reasons, it is seen that the appellants/claimants are entitled to the enhanced compensation Rs.17,24,396/-along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e., on 27th August, 2003, till the deposit of the amount before the office of the learned Registrar General. 12. It is reported that the appellant/claimant has already received Rs.18,36,860/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 13. The respondent no.1/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.17,24,396/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e., on 27th August, 2003, till the actual deposit of the amount before the office of the learned Registrar General of this Court within six weeks from the date of this order. 14. The appellants/claimants will be entitled to withdraw the enhanced amount with interest, subject to additional ad valorem court fees on Rs.9,11,256/-. 15. 14. The appellants/claimants will be entitled to withdraw the enhanced amount with interest, subject to additional ad valorem court fees on Rs.9,11,256/-. 15. The learned Registrar General will disburse the amount among the appellants/claimants in the manner as prescribed in the order of the learned Tribunal on proper identification and subject to verification of the payment of ad valorem court fees on the enhanced amount of Rs.9,11,256/- by the appellants/claimants. 16. With the above observation, the appeal, being FMA 658 of 2008, stands disposed of. 17. All pending applications, if there be any, also stand disposed of. 18. Records of the learned Tribunal be transmitted back immediately. 19. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance of necessary formalities.