JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. I.A. No.6731 of 2024 has been filed for condoning the delay of 11 days in filing of the appeal 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in preparation of presenting the appeal, such delay has occurred and in view of that the delay may kindly be condoned. 3. Mr. S.K. Laik, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of opposite party Nos.1 to 3 on caveat. 4. The Court finds that sufficient ground is made out for condoning the delay of 11 days, as such the delay of 11 days is hereby condoned. 5. I.A. allowed and disposed of. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos.1 to 3, who are the claimants. 7. This appeal is preferred against the judgment/award dated 31.01.2024 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.65 of 2019 by learned Principal District Judge-cum-P.O., Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhanbad. 8. Mr. Amaresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that on the ground of wrong assessment of the income, the present appeal has been filed. 9. It transpires from the judgment of the learned Tribunal that the claimants filed the claim case stating that on 23.09.2018 at about 7:00 PM the deceased Sati Nath Ghosh, his wife Sharbani Ghosh, his friend Praveer Majumdar and wife were travelling in a Hyundai I-10 Car No. JH-10AH-8338 and heading towards Dhanbad from Kolkata. At about 7:00 PM when they reached Junglepur More, G.T. Road, P.S. Govindpur, a truck No. HR-37B-4731 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, suddenly applied brake due to which Hyundai I-10 Car dashed against the truck resultantly his friend died on the spot and deceased, who was driver-cum-owner of the car and others occupants sustained severe injuries. They were rushed to PMCH, Dhanbad but after first aid they were referred to Mission Hospital, Durgapur but on the way to hospital the deceased succumbed to his injuries. It is stated that the deceased was a Chief Manager with UCO Bank, Hirapur Branch, Dhanbad and getting Rs.74,807.52/- per month as salary. The Truck bearing No.HR-37B-4731 was insured with the O.P. No.2 vide Insurance Policy No.10003/31/18/331076 from 24.09.2018 to 23.09.2019. 10. It is stated that the deceased was a Chief Manager with UCO Bank, Hirapur Branch, Dhanbad and getting Rs.74,807.52/- per month as salary. The Truck bearing No.HR-37B-4731 was insured with the O.P. No.2 vide Insurance Policy No.10003/31/18/331076 from 24.09.2018 to 23.09.2019. 10. The insurance company contested the said case and common ground is taken that the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license apart from that no other grounds have been taken. 11. With regard to the license, the issue No.5 was framed by the learned Tribunal and while deciding the issue No.5 the learned Tribunal has considered the license of the driver which was marked as Mark-X/5 and found that license was issued on 19.04.1992 and valid till 13.07.2022 and the accident took place on 23.09.2018 on which date the driver of the offending vehicle was possessing a valid and effective license and authorized to drive transport vehicle and only objection was made of validity of the said license but no effort was taken to prove that the license was fake. 12. So far the permit is concerned that has been considered by the learned Tribunal in paragraph No.16 and the learned Tribunal has found that the permit was not there in view of that the recovery has been allowed by the insurance company after satisfying the same from the owner. 13. So far income of the deceased is concerned, the learned Tribunal has relied on the authentic documents like pay slip of of the deceased which was marked as Exhibit-X/15 to X/17. The claimants have also filed Form-16 (Mark-X/18) for the assessment year 2016-17 and for the purpose of assessing his monthly income, he has also looked into the Form-16 which was marked as Exhibit-X/18 and wherefrom he has found that the deceased’s income was Rs.9,10,455/- and the income tax was deducted to the tune of Rs.79,434/- and out of deducting the said he has come to the conclusion that his gross salary was Rs.8,31,021/-. On the valid document the said finding is there. 14. Form-16 was considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Chamundeswari and Others, (2021) 18 SCC 596 wherein at paragraph No.11, it has been held as under :- 11 . On the valid document the said finding is there. 14. Form-16 was considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Chamundeswari and Others, (2021) 18 SCC 596 wherein at paragraph No.11, it has been held as under :- 11 . Even with regard to quantum of compensation, it is clear from the judgment of the High Court that the accident occurred on 14.10.2013, the High Court has correctly taken into account the salary disclosed by the deceased in Form–16 for the Financial Year 2012-2013 and income of the deceased is taken as Rs.12,29,949/- per annum for the purpose of determination of loss of dependency. Though, it was the claim of the respondents-claimants that the deceased was earning Rs.1,33,070/- per month, the same was not accepted and the High Court itself assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.12,29,949/- per annum. As the deceased was in permanent job and having regard to age of the deceased on the date of the accident, the future prospects and the multiplier were correctly applied by the High Court, which is in conformity with the judgment of this Court in the Case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another and also in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others. Even the amount of compensation on other conventional heads is awarded correctly by the High Court. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this Civil Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 15. In view of the above and considering the finding of the learned court with regard to the gross income of the deceased, the Court finds that there is no illegality in the said finding. No case of interference in the said award is made out, as such this appeal is dismissed. 16. The statutory amount deposited by the insurance company will be transmitted back to the learned Tribunal which will be utilized in satisfying the award in favour of the plaintiffs.