Page No.# 1/16 GAHC010083882020 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : MACApp./168/2020 SMTI NILIMA BALA MALI AND 2 ORS W/O- LATE BHADRESWAR MALI, R/O- VILL- SATPAKHALI, P.S- CHHAYGAON, DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM 2: NABANITA MALI D/O- LATE BHADRESWAR MALI R/O- VILL- SATPAKHALI P.S- CHHAYGAON DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM 3: NAYAN MALI S/O- LATE BHADRESWAR MALI R/O- VILL- SATPAKHALI P.S- CHHAYGAON DIST- KAMRUP ASSA VERSUS SRI RANJAN CHANDRA BRAHMA AND ANR S/O- LATE JITENDRA NATH BRAHMA, R/O- VILL- PATGAON, P.S- AZARA, DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM 2:NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD DIVISION NO. 10 FLAT NO. 101-106 NO.1 BMC HOUSE CONNAUGHT PLACE NEW DELHI- 11000 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J SARMAH, MR. T J MAHANTA Advocate for the Respondent : MR. M P SARMA (R1,2), MR. I GOGOI(R-1),MR. A K RAY(R- Page No.# 2/16 1),MS. R D MOZUMDAR (R-2),MS. C MOZUMDAR (R-2),MR. S P SHARMA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN JUDGEMENT & ORDER (CAV) 07.04.2025 Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. J. Sarmah, learned counsel for the appellants; Mr. A.K. Ray, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1; Ms. R.D. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2; and Ms. M.D. Borah,, learned standing counsel for the Transport Department. 2. In this appeal, under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellants have put to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the Judgment and Award dated 12.03.2020, passed by the learned Member, MACT No. 2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, in MAC Case No. 503/2014. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned Judgment and Award dated 12.03.2020, the learned Member, MACT No. 2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, in MAC Case No. 503/2014, has directed the respondent No. 2 to pay a sum of Rs. 37,66,378/- to the appellants being the compensation and also granted liberty to the respondent No. 2 to recover the same from the respondent No. 1. Background Facts:- 4. The background facts, leading to filing of the present appeal, are adumbrated herein below:- “On 23-11-2013, at about 04:55 P.M., one Bhadreswar Mali, who was working as Deputy Ranger in the Environment & Forests Department of Government of Assam at West Forest Division, Bamungaon, was proceeding towards Boko on official duty and on the way, one Maruti Alto K-10 vehicle, bearing Page No.# 3/16 registration No. AS-01-AT-8614, driven by Ranjan Chandra Brahma in a very rash and negligent manner dashed him from behind and as a result, he sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, he was immediately admitted at the Local Primary Health Centre, Gobardhan for his treatment, but the doctor declared him to be brought dead. At the time of accident, he was aged about 54 years old and his monthly salary was Rs. 33,000/-. Thereafter, the appellants herein had preferred one claim petition before the learned Member, MACT No. 2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati and upon the said claim petition, MAC Case No. 503/2014 has been registered. Thereafter, hearing both the parties, the learned Tribunal, vide impugned Judgment and Award dated 12.03.2020, has directed the respondent No. 3 to pay a sum of Rs. 37,66,378/- to the appellants being the compensation and also granted liberty to the respondent No. 3 to recover the same from the respondent No. 2.” Grounds:- 5. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied, the present appellants have approached this Court by filing the present appeal on the following grounds :- (i) For that, the learned Tribunal could not sift the evidence adduced in the case in its proper perspective and arrived at erroneous finding in different heads and thus required to be interfered by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice. (ii) For that, that the learned Tribunal while assessing the compensation adopted the multiplier of 11 holding him to be aged within the Age Group of 51 to 55 years. But the official witness in his evidence stated that the date of birth of the deceased employee as per official record is 1/10/1963 meaning thereby the deceased was 50 years 1 month 23 days Page No.# 4/16 on the date of accident i.e. on 23/11/2013. So the deceased had not attained the age of 51 years on the date of accident/death cannot be treated within the age group of 51-55 years. As per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the multiplier to be used for the age group 46 to 50 years and 51 to 55 years is 13 and 11 respectively. That being so multiplies adopted by the learned Tribunal should have been 13 instead of 11. Hence, warrants interference of this Court. (iii) For that, the learned Tribunal has deducted 10% of the annual salary of the deceased on account of income tax in spite of having knowledge that the deceased was a State Government employee. Where the annual Income is in taxable range, the Income Tax is required to be deducted under Section 192(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Any person responsible for paying any Income tax chargeable under the head "Salaries" shall be at the payment, deduct income tax on estimated amount of income of the employee from salaries for that financial year. Such deduction is commonly known as Tax Deduction at Source (in short "TDS"). So in case of income under the head of "Salaries" presumption would be that the employer under Section 192(1) of the Income Tax Act has deducted at source from the employee's salary. So the finding of the learned Tribunal is untenable in law and is liable to be modified. (iv) For that the learned Tribunal has held that the awarded amount shall carry interest at the bank rate for fixed deposited w.e.f. 26/3/2019. Present rate of interest for fixed deposits is only 6.4% per annum. Whereas, the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court awarded 9% interest per annum considering various factor involved in the issue in several other similarly situated cases. Besides that interest is awarded with effect Page No.# 5/16 from 26/3/2019 instead of date of filing inspite of there is no record of negligence on the part of the claimant in conducting the case. Hence, interference of this Court is necessary to modify the judgment dated 12/3/2020. (v) For that, the learned Tribunal while disposing the case directed to keep the entire awarded amount in fixed deposit not less than for five years except Rs. 1,66,378/-. Hence, the judgment is required to be modified unlading the claimants to utilize the compensation and for bonafide purpose such as, marriage of the Appellant No.2, treatment of the Appellant No.1, etc. Cross-Objection No. 32 of 2021:- 6. The respondent No. 2 i.e. National Insurance Co. Ltd. had filed cross-objection on the ground that on the relevant point of time, the respondent No. 1 had no valid driving license and there was violation of policy condition by him and having arrived at such a clear finding by the learned Tribunal saddling the burden to pay the compensation upon the respondent No.2 is illegal and arbitrary. It is also stated that there was difference of the quantum of salary of the victim in Exhibit-6 and 7 and the same was not taken note of by the learned Tribunal. Further, it was stated that the deceased left behind only three dependent family members and as such deduction towards personnel expenses would have been 1/3rd from the total income not 1/4th as decided by the learned Tribunal. But, this aspect was not looked into by the Tribunal. Further, the learned tribunal had not directed the respondent No. 1 to furnish security before directing the respondent No.2 to pay and recover the amount of compensation. It is also stated that the learned Tribunal ought not to have directed to pay interest from 2014 as the claimant had adduced evidence only on 11.02.2020. Therefore, it is contended to allow the cross-objection. Cross-Objection No. 42 of 2021:- Page No.# 6/16 7. The respondent No. 1 had filed cross-objection on the ground that the learned Tribunal had failed to consider that he had a driving licence, bearing No. AS- 0119990018273, and as per Accident Information Report –Exhibit- 1 and as per report of the MVI-Exhibit-4 the licence was valid till 21.10.2014. It is also stated that the learned Tribunal had not called for any report from the DTO, Kamrup regarding the licence. It is further stated that the learned Tribunal had expressed its doubt about the validity of the licence for the period from 03.05.2009 to 21.10.2014 and without clearing the doubt from the DTO, it had passed the judgment. Therefore, it is contended to allow the cross-objection. 8. As the appeal and the cross-objections are being filed against the same impugned judgment and award dated 12.03.2020, and as the parties involved therein are common and also common questions of law are involved and as agreed upon, it is proposed to dispose of the appeal and the cross-objections, by this common judgment and order. Submissions:- 9. Mr. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment and award is challenged on the following counts: (i) The learned Tribunal while assessing the compensation has applied multiplier of 11 instead of 13 and in this regard, Mr. Mahanta has referred one case law of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra) and another case law in Shashikala and Others vs. Gangalakshmamma and Another, reported in (2015) 9 SCC 150. (ii) The learned Tribunal has deducted 10% of the annual salary of the deceased as income tax and his annual income is in taxable range and therefore, the income tax is required to be deducted under Section 192(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. And that if any person is responsible for paying any income tax chargeable under the head "Salaries" shall be at Page No.# 7/16 the payment, deduct income tax on estimated amount of income of the employee from salaries for that financial year and such deduction is commonly known as Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) and therefore, in case of income under the head of "Salaries" the presumption would be that the employer under Section 192(1) of the Income Tax Act has deducted at source from the employee's salary. So, the finding of the learned Tribunal is required to be interfered with. In this regard, Mr. Mahanta has referred to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vimal Kanwar and Others vs. Kishore Dan and Others, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 476. 10. On the other hand, Ms. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that there is no merit in this appeal and that at the relevant point of time, the respondent No. 1 had no valid driving license and there was violation of policy condition by him. Ms. Mazumdar, further submits that the respondent No.2 herein had also filed one cross-objection, being cross-objection No. 32/2021, and challenged the impugned judgment on several grounds. Ms. Majumdar also submits that the learned Tribunal had committed a mistake by saddling the burden of payment of compensation upon respondent No.2 despite arriving at a clear finding that there was violation of policy condition on account of having no valid driving licence by the respondent No.1 on the relevant date of accident and that it had also directed to pay the amount of compensation without directing the respondent No. 1 to furnish security in terms of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shri Nanjappan and Others, reported in (2004) 13 SCC 224. 11. Whereas, Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that at the relevant point of time, the respondent No. 1 had a valid driving license and the learned Tribunal unnecessarily burdens the respondent No. 1 and that the respondent No. 1 has also filed cross-objection before the learned Tribunal and exhibited the driving license. Therefore, Mr. Ray has contended to remand the matter back to the Page No.# 8/16 learned Tribunal so as to allow the respondent No. 1 to cross-examine the DTO on the report furnished by him. Discussion :- 12. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the memo of appeal as well as the grounds mentioned therein and also gone through the impugned Judgment and Award dated 12.03.2020, passed by the learned Member, MACT No. 2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, in MAC Case No. 503/2014 and also gone through the case laws referred by learned counsel for the parties. 13. Basically, the grievances of the appellants are in respect of the multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal and it appears that the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 11 by holding the deceased to be aged within the Age Group of 51 – 55 years. But, as per the official record, the date of birth of the deceased is 01.10.1963, and meaning thereby, the deceased was 50 years 1 month 23 days on the date of accident. i.e. 23.11.2013. And as the deceased had not attained the age of 51 years on the date of accident/death, he cannot be treated as aged within the age group of 51 – 55 years. And as per the chart of Sarla Verma (Supra) case, the multiplier to be applied for the age group of 46 – 50 years and 51 – 55 years is 13 and 11 respectively. That being so, since the deceased had not completed 51 years on the date of accident, the applicable multiplier would be 13 instead of 11. 14. Indisputably, the learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment and award has applied the multiplier 11. But, admittedly the date of birth of the deceased was 01.10.1963 and on the date of accident his age was 50 years 1 month 23 days and as such, he had not attained the age of 51 years on the date of accident and therefore, the applied multiplier for the age group of 51 – 55 years would not be applicable in the present case, rather the multiplier to be applicable in the present case is for the age group 46 – 50 years, which is 13 as per the decisions of Sarla Verma (Supra). Page No.# 9/16 15. Thus, the submission of Mr. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants appears to be justified and the decision referred by him in the case of Shashikala (Supra) also strengthened his submission. 16. It is to be noted here that in the case of Shashikala (Supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “16. Insofar as appropriate multiplier, the date of birth of the deceased as per driving licence was 16-6-1961. On the date of accident i.e. 14-12-2006, the deceased was aged 45 years 5 months and 28 days and the Tribunal has taken the age as 46 years. Since the deceased has completed only 45 years, the High Court has rightly taken the age of the deceased as 45 years and adopted multiplier of 14 which is the appropriate multiplier and the same is maintained. Total loss of dependency is calculated at Rs 16,82,310 (Rs 1,20,165 × 14).” 17. So in view of the aforementioned decision, this Court is of the view that the applicable multiplier in the instant case would be 13 instead of 11. 18. The other contention of the appellant is that the learned Tribunal has deducted 10% of the annual salary of the deceased as income tax. But, the income tax is required to be deducted as per Section 192(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and in this regard, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vimal Kanwar (Supra) case relying upon the decision of Sarla Verma (Supra), especially paragraph Nos. 20 & 24 held in paragraph Nos. 24 & 25 as under:- “24. In the present case, none of the respondents brought to the notice of the Court that the income tax payable by the deceased Sajjan Singh was not deducted at source by the employer State Government. No such statement was made by Ram Avtar Parikh, PW 2. an employee of the Public Works Department of the State Government who placed on record the last pay certificate and the service book of the deceased. The Tribunal or the High Court on perusal of the last pay Page No.# 10/16 certificate, have not noticed that the income tax on the estimated income of the employee was not deducted from the salary of the employee during the said month or financial year. In absence of such evidence, it is presumed that the salary paid to the deceased Sajjan Singh as per last pay certificate was paid in accordance with law i.e. by deducting the income tax on the estimated income of the deceased Sajjan Singh for that month or the financial year. The appellants have specifically stated that the assessment year applicable in the instant case is 1997-1998 and not 1996-1997 as held by the High Court. They have also taken specific plea that for Assessment Year 1997-1998 the rate of tax on income more than Rs 40,000 and up to Rs 60,000 was 15% and not 20% as held by the High Court. The aforesaid fact has not been disputed by the respondents. 25. In view of the finding as recorded above and the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as discussed, we hold that the High Court was wrong in deducting 20% from the salary of the deceased towards income tax, for calculating the compensation. As per law, the presumption will be that employer State Government at the time of payment of salary deducted income tax on the estimated income of the deceased employee from the salary and in absence of any evidence, we hold that the salary as shown in the last pay certificate as Rs 8920 should be accepted which if rounded off comes To Rs 9000 for calculating the compensation payable to the dependant(s).” 19. In the case in hand, the Exhibit-7 and Annexure- II issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Kamrup West Division, indicate that there was a deduction of Rs.208/ as professional Tax from the Salary of the victim. However, the learned Tribunal had held that since the evidence of P.W.3 does not reveal deduction of income tax from the salary of the victim and since Form 16 is also not produced before the court and since at the relevant time, income tax up to Rs. 2,50,000/ was nil and from Rs.2,50,000/ up to Rs. 5,00,000/- was 10%, it had deducted the said 10% from Rs. 4,06,872/- having assessed the same as his annual income. Page No.# 11/16 20. The finding, so arrived at by the learned Tribunal and the deduction of 10% from the salary of the victim, when examined in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar (Supra), the same is found to be not in conformity with the proposition of law laid down in the said case. In absence of any evidence, the presumption will be that employer State Government at the time of payment of salary deducted income tax on the estimated income of the deceased employee from the salary and the salary as shown in the last pay certificate should be accepted. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was wrong in deducting 10% from the salary of the deceased towards income tax, for calculating the compensation. 21. Another contention of the appellant is that the learned Tribunal has awarded interest @ Bank Rate. But, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Valli and Others vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, reported in (2022) 5 SCC 107 has awarded 9% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. The contention so raised by the appellant herein appears to be justified in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association and Others, reported in (2011) 14 SCC 481, wherein, it has been held that the interest upon the compensation, amount @ 9% per annum, would be justified. This principle was also followed in the case of Kalpanaraj vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, reported in (2014) C.R. 693 (SC). 22. In view of the aforementioned finding of this Court, the compensation which the appellants herein are entitled to, are assessed herein below. 23. As discussed herein above, the date of birth of the deceased was 01.10.1963, and on the date of accident, his age was 50 years 1 month 23 days and as such, he had not attained the age of 51 years on the date of accident and therefore, the multiplier, so applied for the age group of 51 – 55 years, by the learned Tribunal would not be applicable in the present case, rather the multiplier to be applicable in the Page No.# 12/16 present case is for the age group of 46 – 50 years which is 13 as per the decisions of Sarla Verma (Supra) and Shashikala (Supra). Indisputably, the deceased was serving as Deputy Ranger and his salary was Rs. 34,114/ and after deduction of professional tax the same would be Rs. 33,906/ per month. Thus, having accepted the income of the deceased at Rs. 33,906/ per month, 15% of the same has to be added as future prospect, as at the time of accident the deceased was below 60 years, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. After addition of 15% to Rs. 33,906/ the amount would be Rs. 38,992/ (Rs.33,906/+Rs.5,085.9=Rs.38,991.9 (rounded off at Rs. 38,992/). 24. Thereafter, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra), ¼th of the aforesaid amount has to be deducted as personal expenses since he left behind four dependants at the time of accident. Though in cross-objection No. 32/2021 a stand was taken by the respondent No.2 that the deceased left behind three dependant family members, yet it appears from the record that on 28.01.2016 another dependant family member, namely Jitu Moni Mali was impleaded as claimant No.4. That being so, there is no substance in the contention so raised in the said cross-objection. After deducting ¼th of the above, the amount would be Rs. 29,244/- [Rs. Rs.38,992– Rs.9747.975 (rounded off at Rs. 9748/-) = Rs.29,244/-]. After application of multiplier, the amount would be Rs.45,62,064/- (Rs.29,244 x 12 x 13=Rs.45,62,064/-). 25. Besides, under the conventional heads, a sum of Rs. 40,000/ each with 10% increase in every three years has to be awarded under the head - consortium, and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- under head - funeral expenses, and the aforesaid amounts should be enhanced by 10% in every 3 years, and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- under head - loss of estate, and the aforesaid amounts should be enhanced by 10% in every 3 years in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Page No.# 13/16 Sethi (supra). It is to be noted here that after the accident almost 11 years elapsed. That being so, the aforesaid amounts have to be enhanced twice. 26. The whole calculation, after application of the principle laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) and also in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), would be as under:- Sl. No. Heads Calculation I Monthly income Rs. 33,906/- II 15% of (i) to be added as future prospect=(Rs.33,906 + Rs.5,085.9 =Rs.38991.9 (rounded off at Rs. 38,992). Rs.38,992/- III 1/4th of the (ii) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased=(Rs.38992/– Rs.9748/-)= Rs.29,244/- Rs. 29,244/- IV Compensation after multiplier of 13 is applied (Rs.29,244 x 12 x 13=Rs.4562064/- Rs. 45,62,064/- V Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- which has to be increased by 10% in every three years (15,000 x 10/100) = 1500 x 3 = Rs.4500/- Rs.15,000/-+ Rs.4,500/-= Rs.19,000/- VI Loss of Consortium =Rs.40,000/-, which has to be increased by 10% in each three years 40,000 x 10/100 = 4000 x 3 = 12,000. (Rs.40,000 + 12,000 = Rs.52,000/- Rs. 40,000/- + Rs.12000/-= Rs. 52,000/- VII Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-, which has to be increased by 10% in each three years 15,000 x 10/100 = 1500 x 3 =Rs.4500/- Rs.15,000/-+ Rs.4500/-= Rs.19,500/- Total compensation awarded = Rs. 46,91,556/- Page No.# 14/16 27. As discussed herein above, at the relevant time, the vehicle was insured with the respondent/opposite party No.1 i.e. National Insurance Company Limited, vide Policy No. 35101031126132647054 and the same was valid till 15th March, 2014. It also appears that at the relevant point of time the policy was in force. This is an undisputed fact. 28. It also appears that at the relevant time the respondent No.1 had a driving licence, bearing No. AS- 0119990018273. And further, from the evidence of D.W.1 it appears that the said driving licence was valid from 22.10.2024 to 21.10.2019 as per report of District Transport Officer, Kamrup, Assam dated 02.01.2015 i.e. Exhibit-B. Further, it appears from the evidence of D.W.1 that as per report of the DTO, Kamrup, dated 06.02.2015, Exhibit-C, the previous Driving Licence No. 4160/99/K/WZ was valid from 07.08.1999 to 02.05.2009, where as the accident took place on 23.11.2013. And on that date, the respondent No.1 had no valid driving licence. However, on cross-examination by the claimant/appellant herein, the D.W.1 admitted that he had no idea as to whether the Driving Licence was valid from 03.05.2009 till 21.10.2014. 29. It is to be noted here that the respondent No. 1 herein [opposite party No.1 and 2 before the learned Tribunal] had not contested the case before the learned Tribunal though it had entered appearance before the learned Tribunal and filed a petition No. 4109, dated 02.08.2014, seeking time to submit show cause reply, but remained absent thereafter, for which the case was proceeded ex-parte against him. 30. It is also to be noted here that during the course of hearing of the appeal before this Court, the Transport Department was impleaded as respondent No.3 and the learned standing counsel for the department was directed to produce all relevant documents relating to driving licence of the respondent No.1. Thereafter, the learned standing counsel for the respondent No.3 had produced written instruction of the department/report before this Court along with extract copy of driving licence of Page No.# 15/16 respondent No.1 herein. Thereafter, the learned standing counsel for the department was also directed to obtain further written instruction from the department vide order dated 18.02.2025 and thereafter, the learned standing counsel for the department had produced another report before this Court on 19.02.2025. 31. That, a careful perusal of the report dated 19.02.2025 indicates that as on 23.11.2013, when the accident took place, the driving licence No. 0119990018273 was not valid as per record of the District Transport Officer, Kamrup (M) Guwahati. This report appears to be consistent with the evidence of DW-1, who testified that as per report of the DTO, Kamrup, dated 06.02.2015, Exhibit-C, the previous Driving Licence No. 4160/99/K/WZ was valid from 07.08.1999 to 02.05.2009, where as the accident took place on 23.11.2013. That being so, the contention so raised in the cross-objection No. 32/2021 by the respondent No.1 appears to be without any substance. The doubt, so expressed by the learned Tribunal about the validity of the licence for the period from 03.05.2009 to 21.10.2014 stands clear from the report of the DTO dated 19.02.2025. Thus, learned Tribunal had rightly saddled the burden of payment of the compensation upon the respondent No.2 herein and also granted it liberty to the respondent No.2 Insurance Company to recover the same from the respondent No.1. Finding: - 32. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned Judgment and Award, dated 12.03.2020, stands modified to the extent indicated above. The cross-objection No. 32/2021 and 42/2021 stand dismissed. 33. The respondent No.2, i.e. the National Insurance Company Limited, is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 46,91,556/- (Rupees Forty Six lacs Ninety One Thousand Five hundred and Fifty Six) only, being the compensation, which according to this Court is just compensation, here in this case. The amount, if already paid to the claimant has to be deducted from the aforesaid amount. Page No.# 16/16 34. It is further provided that the amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of adducing evidence, i.e. 23.03.2019, till realization of the amount in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association and Others, reported in (2011) 14 SCC 481. In the said case, it has been held that the interest upon the compensation amount @ 9% per annum, would be justified. Same principle was followed in the case of Kalpanaraj vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, reported in (2014) C.R. 693 (SC). 35. The respondent No. 2 shall deposit the aforesaid amount before the learned Tribunal within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment and award. The appellants herein shall obtain a certified copy of this judgment and order and place the same before the respondent No. 2 within a period of one week from today. It is further provided that the respondent No. 1 shall furnish security before the learned Tribunal in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Nanjappan (supra), within 30 days. 36. In terms of above, this MAC Appeal stands disposed of. The Registry shall send down the record of the learned Tribunal with a copy of this judgment and order forthwith. The parties have to bear their own cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant