2025:JHHC:23943 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M. A. No. 786 of 2018 Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., having its office 4th at Reliance Centre, 19, Walehand @ Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, PO + PS & District-Mumbai, PIN 400001 (Maharashtra) through its Associate Segment Head (Legal Claims) Sri Jitendra Kumar Pandit, residing at 47A1/2, R.K. Ghoshal Road, PO & PS-Kasba, District- Kolkata, PIN 700042 (West Bengal) .... .... Appellant Versus 1. Akbar Ansari, S/o Late Usman 2. Md. Hakim Ansari, S/o Late Usman Both are residents of village-Gopalpur, PO & PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih (Jharkhand) 3. Mahendra Mandal, S/o Nakul Mandal, R/o Village-Pandra Upper Bahiyar, PO & PS-Sarath, District-Deoghar, Jharkhand 4. Jai Prakash Chowdhary, S/o Late Beni Choudhary, R/o Village-Lodharia, PO- Tundi, PS- Tundi, District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand 5. Sakima Bibi, W/o Ashraf Mian, R/o Village Ambatand, PO & PS Gandey, District- Giridih 6. Khutiya Bibi, W/o Munna Ansari, R/o Village-Genro, PO-Luppi, PS-Bengabad, District-Giridih 7. Hasina Bibi, W/o Moin Ansari, R/o Village-Tekra PO & PS Madhupur, District- Giridih … …. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Appellant : Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Advocate Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate For the Resp. No. 1 &2 : Mr. Prabhash Ch. Sinha, Advocate For the Resp. No. 3 Mr. Prashant Kr. Rai, Advocate For the Resp. No. 4 to 7 Mr. Parwez Ahmed Khan, Advocate ------ Order No.11 / Dated : 14.08.2025. 1. Insurance-Company is in appeal against the judgment and award of compensation under Section 166 of the M.V. Act in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 41/2016, whereby and whereunder, a compensation of Rs. 38,66,941/- awarded in favour of the claimants along with interest @ 6% per annum is allowed. In the event of amount not paid within 60 days, then interest to be 9% per annum. 2. The award of compensation has been assailed inter alia on the ground that although in para 11 of the impugned judgment, wherein a finding has been recorded that no valid permit was produced with regard to the said offending truck, therefore, the Insurance-Company was at liberty to recover the said amount. However, this finding has not been dictated in the operative part of the impugned order. 3. Secondly, it is argued that there is no provision of awarding penal interest in view of the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Keshav Bahadur & Ors. (2004) 2 SCC 370 at para13. It is also argued that while assessing the income, the learned Tribunal has omitted to take into account the income tax deduction on the gross salary of the deceased. As per the income slip, 2025:JHHC:23943 the appellant was drawing a salary of Rs.26,696/- which was taxable at that time and in the year 2010, the income tax slab was for income up to Rs.1,60,000/-. Therefore, in computing the annual income, the income tax accruing thereon need to have been deducted. Reliance is placed on Yerramma & Ors. Vs. G. Krishnamurthy & Anr. (2014) 15 SCC 65, at para 15, wherein, it has been held that the income tax deduction needs to be made from the gross salary. 4. Learned counsel on behalf of the claimants has defended the impugned order. However, he is unable to show that how the assessment of income was made after deduction of the income tax amount. At the relevant time, the taxable income tax slab applicable was for annual income above Rs.1,60,000/-. However, it is submitted that as per the pay slip, monthly income was Rs.31,658/- and deductions were wrongly made under the head of PPF/CMPF. 5. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent nos. 5 to 7 that they being daughters of the deceased were also impleaded in the claim case by way of amendment and the award was also passed in their favour. 6. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, I find merit in the plea of the appellants-Insurance Company with regard to the assessment of income, wherein the income tax deductions has not been reckoned by the learned Tribunal. It is not clear as to why Rs.26,696/- has been considered, although there was a pay slip of Rs.31,658/- per month. 7. In this view of matter, taking Rs.31,658/- as monthly income and the income tax slab of Rs.1,60,000/-, and the applicable income tax on this amount @ 10% the annual income will be 3,49,829/-taking multiplier of 14 and dependency of 1/3rd ,the final compensation will work out as under: Annual Income after deducting income tax = Rs. 31,658/- X 12 Rs.3,79,896/- Annual income after income tax deduction-Rs 3,79,896-1,60,000=2,19,896(-)21,989 Rs 1,97,907/- Future Prospect Rs. 1,97,907/- X 30% Rs. 59372/- After adding annual income and future prospect Rs.2,57,279/- Dependency after deduction of 1/3rd as personal and living expense of the deceased Rs.2,57,279 – 85,760 =Rs1,71,519 After deduction Rs. 1,71,519/- Multiplier of 14 taking the age of the deceased to be 45 as per post-mortem report Rs1,71,519 X 14 Rs. 24,01,266/- Conventional Head Rs.77,000/- Total Compensation Rs. 24,78,266/- 8. Further, since no permit has been produced as is evident from the para 11 of the impugned judgment, the Insurance-Company is entitled to right of recovery and 2025:JHHC:23943 the claimants will be entitled to a compensation of Rs. 24,78,266/-with 7.5% interest on the compensation amount from the date of the claim application. There will be no order with regard to penal interest. 9. Statutory amount deposited at the time of preferring the instant Misc. Appeal be remitted to the Tribunal to be disbursed along with compensation to the claimant and adjusted against the final compensation amount within two months of this order. It goes without saying that any payment already made to the claimant(s) shall be adjusted from the final compensation amount. 10. Learned Tribunal shall disburse the compensation amount to the claimants (Appellants No.1,2 & Respondents No.5,6 and 7) in equal share, who were also parties before the Tribunal. Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly allowed. Pending I.A (s)., If any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pawan/ -