JUDGMENT : Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the named appellant-Reliance General Insurance Company Limited for setting aside the judgment/award dated 12.10.2018 passed by learned District Judge-IV-cum-MACT Judge, Deoghar in Motor Accident Claim Case No.14 of 2014, whereby and whereunder the claim case filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 under section 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 was allowed and the appellant has been directed to pay compensation amount of Rs.35,47,712/-. 3. The facts giving rise to this appeal in narrow campus is that on 03.02.2014 at about 5:30 PM, one Pankaj Kumar Mandal @ Guddu was going to Deoghar from his village Pelwa by his own motorcycle and when reached near Saint Francis School, Jasidih main road then, he was dashed from behind by a truck bearing Reg. No.JH-17F-6811 which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, resulting the said Pankaj Kumar Mandal sustaining grievous injuries and was taken to hospital by passersby but was declared dead. 4. As regards upon the accident, Jasidih P.S. Case No.34 of 2014 was registered on the basis of fardbayan of one Balkrishna Modi against the driver of the offending truck bearing Reg. No.JH-17F-6811 under sections 279, 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is further alleged that the deceased whose age about 29 years was a permanent employee of Union Bank of India and his salary was of Rs.18,267/-per month left behind his widow Rinky Kumari and mother Gayatri Devi who was applicants in this case, as such, total Rs.34,40,500/-has been claimed along with interest @ 12% per annum by the applicants from the date of occurrence/accident till the date of actual payment. 5. Upon service of notice, the owner of the offending vehicle bearing Reg. No.JH-17F-6811 appeared and filed his written statement with usual plea that the vehicle was insured with Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, which is liable to satisfy the compensation amount as per the terms and conditions of the policy which was valid from 25.09.2013 to 24.09.2014. 6. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, the appellant appeared and filed detailed written statement stating inter alia that the offending vehicle was registered with this company but disputed the factum of the accident as pleaded by claimants. 6. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, the appellant appeared and filed detailed written statement stating inter alia that the offending vehicle was registered with this company but disputed the factum of the accident as pleaded by claimants. It was further pleaded that the deceased was driving his motorcycle at the time of accident in violation of provisions under section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 as he had no valid and effective driving license to drive two wheelers, hence, the amount of compensation as claimed is exorbitant and excessive. It was further pleaded that the driver of the offending truck bearing Reg. No.JH-17F-6811 was not having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident, hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation towards the death of the deceased. 7. On the basis of pleadings of the parties following issues were settled for adjudication by learned Tribunal:- (i) Whether the suit has been framed is maintainable? (ii) Whether there is any cause of action for filing the present claim case? (iii) Whether the death of deceased Pankaj Kumar Mandal occurred in road traffic accident caused by truck bearing Reg. No.JH-17F-6811 due to rash and negligent driving by its driver? (iv) Whether the driver of truck bearing Reg. No.JH-17F-6811 was driving the same with valid and effective driving license? (v) Whether truck bearing Reg. No.JH-17F-6811 was insured at the time of the accident? (vi) Whether the claimants are entitled to get any compensation? If so what will be the quantum of compensation? (vii) Whether the claimants are liable to get any other relief or reliefs? 8. In order to substantiate their claims, the claimants have examined three witnesses namely P.W.1 Rinky Kumari (wife of the deceased), P.W. 2 Umesh Kumar Agrawal and P.W. 3 Gayatri Devi( mother of the deceased). Apart from the testimony following the documents have been adduced in evidence; Ext.1: certified copy of F.I.R. of Jasidih P.S. Case No.34 of 2014. Ext.2: Certified copy of charge sheet of Jasidih P.S. Case No.34 of 2014. Ext.3: Certified copy of post mortem report of deceased Pankaj Kumar Mandal @ Guddu. Ext.X: Photo copy of insurance policy. Ext.X1: photocopy of registration of truck. Ext.X2: photocopy of driving license of deceased. Ext.X3: Photo Copy of salary slip of deceased. Ext.X4: Photo Copy of S.L.C. of deceased. Ext.X5: Photo Copy of driving license of the driver Ajit Chand. Ext.3: Certified copy of post mortem report of deceased Pankaj Kumar Mandal @ Guddu. Ext.X: Photo copy of insurance policy. Ext.X1: photocopy of registration of truck. Ext.X2: photocopy of driving license of deceased. Ext.X3: Photo Copy of salary slip of deceased. Ext.X4: Photo Copy of S.L.C. of deceased. Ext.X5: Photo Copy of driving license of the driver Ajit Chand. 9. Learned Tribunal after considering the rival submission of the learned counsel for the parties and evaluating the evidence available on record arrived at conclusion that the claimants are entitled for compensation as mentioned in the tabular chart draw as under : Sl. No. Head Calculation Amount 1. Monthly Income of the deceased Pankaj Kumar Mandal at the time of this unfortunate road traffic accident. - Rs.18,265.29/- 2. Annual Income of the deceased Pankaj Kumar Mandal after addition of 40% of his annual income towards his future prospects and after deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses of deceased (Rs.18,625.29/-x12)+40% of annual income =30,6586.87/- - (1/3rd of Rs.3,06,856.87/-)=Rs.2,04,571.26/- Rs.2,04,571.26/- 3. The age of deceased assessed by this court/tribunal about 30 years at the time of unfortunate road traffic accident. Hence, multiplier 17 is applicable so total loss of dependency 17X Rs.2,04,571.26/- +Rs.34,77,711.54/- Rs.34,77,711.54/- 4. Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- 5. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- 6. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Total loss of dependency Rs.35,47,711.54/- round of Rs.35,47,712/- Accordingly, the appellant-insurance company was directed to pay Rs.35,47,712/-as compensation amount to the claimants within 60 days from the passing of the award along with interest @ 6 % per annum. In case, the insurance company fails to satisfy the awarded amount along with interest within 60 days then entire amount shall be realized with penal interest @ 9 % per annum. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned award on the following grounds amongst others:- (i) There was violation of terms and conditions of the policy in as much as the driver of the offending vehicle bearing Reg.No.JH-17F-6811 did not have license to drive the heavy goods carrying vehicle. The deceased was not having driving license to drive the motorcycle. The deceased was driving unregistered motorcycle which is itself an offence under Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. (ii) There was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as he was not wearing helmet at the time of alleged accident. The deceased was not having driving license to drive the motorcycle. The deceased was driving unregistered motorcycle which is itself an offence under Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. (ii) There was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as he was not wearing helmet at the time of alleged accident. (iii) The salary slip of the deceased shows as net monthly salary of Rs.15,077/-but gross salary was of Rs.18,267/-, which was wrongly assumed to be monthly salary of the deceased in computation the compensation amount and penal interest @ 9 % per annum has also been awarded improperly, as such, the impugned award is fit to be set aside. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the above arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company and submitted that learned Tribunal has very wisely and aptly apprised and scanned the evidence available on record. As the income of the deceased includes his allowances as well, hence, there is no illegality in taking into consideration the monthly income of the deceased as his gross salary on the date of accident. The deceased had a driving license which includes MCWG i.e. motorcycle with or without gear along with LMV. It is further submitted that admittedly the accident took place while the deceased was proceeding ahead and he was dashed from behind by the truck bearing Reg. No.JH-17F-6811, therefore, no question of contributory negligence arises. Learned Tribunal has not recorded any findings regarding violation of terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, the present appellant has no cause of action to prefer this appeal. There is no merits in this appeal, which is fit to be dismissed. 12. I have gone through the record along with impugned judgment/award in the light of submission raised by the learned counsel for the parties. The main point emerged in this appeal for adjudication as to whether impugned judgment/award suffers from any illegality or infirmity, calling for any interference by way of this appeal or not? 14. It appears from the FIR and charge-sheet (Ext.1 & 2) that the deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle after discharging his duty, in the way he was dashed from behind by the offending truck bearing Reg. No.JH-17F-6811 which was being driven rashly and negligently by its drive, namely, Ajit Chand, which resulted in death of the said Pankaj Kumar Mandal @ Guddu. No.JH-17F-6811 which was being driven rashly and negligently by its drive, namely, Ajit Chand, which resulted in death of the said Pankaj Kumar Mandal @ Guddu. 15. The post mortem-report of the deceased (Ext.3) also fortifies the cause of death of the deceased and the manner of occurrence as depicted in the FIR as well as testified by the eye-witness namely, Umesh Kumar Agrawal (P.W.2) establishes that the motorcycle was dashed from behind and the eyewitness have also stated in cross-examination that the deceased was wearing helmet which was seized by the police. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination even by way of suggestion to prove the stand taken by the insurance company. It is also evident from the copy of the driving license of the deceased that the same was also valid for driving motorcycle with or without gear. The appellant has brought nothing on record to show any violation of terms and conditions of the policy in the instant case rendering itself not liable to satisfy the award amount. 16. The plea of the appellant regarding the income of the deceased and quantum of compensation amount cannot form the ground for appeal, in view of the provision under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Moreover, the owner of the offending truck bearing Reg. No.JH-17F-6811 has also contested the case by filing written statement and no permission was taken by the present appellant under section 170 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 to contest, the case on the grounds which were available to the insured. 17. It appears that learned Tribunal has properly applied the income of the deceased and calculated the amount on the basis of applicable multiplier and other conventional amount was added. 18. So far, interest component is concerned, the penal interest due to failure of payment of award amount within time appears to be not justified under law as the statutory period for filing the appeal under Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is 90 days. Therefore, the Tribunal should have at least waited for 90 days before directing the Insurance Company to pay penal interest. Thus, the part of the order imposing penal interest @ 9 % is set aside. 19. Therefore, the Tribunal should have at least waited for 90 days before directing the Insurance Company to pay penal interest. Thus, the part of the order imposing penal interest @ 9 % is set aside. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussions and reasons, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned award and no merits in this appeal on the grounds as raised by the appellant-insurance company. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed subject to aforesaid observations. The Insurance Company is directed to satisfy the award passed by the Tribunal. 20. Learned Registrar General of this Court is directed to remit the statutory amount deposited, while preferring an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act at the time of filing the Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court, to the Claim Tribunal within a period of six weeks from today so as to pay the same to the claimants after due notice and verification. 21. Pending I.A. No.790 of 2021 is disposed of accordingly.