IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M. A. No. 199 of 2011 ----- 1. Smt. Sarita Devi, W/o Late Dr. Lok Mani Sahu 2. Miss Chanchala Kumari 3. Miss Anchala Kumari 4. Miss Priya Kumari 5. Miss Radha Kumari 6. Miss Juhi Rani @ Juhi Kumari 7. Mast. Abhishek Kumar, Appellant Nos. 2 to 6 are the daughters and appellant No.7 is son of late Dr. Lok Mani Sahu. The appellant Nos. 5 to 7 are at present minor and as such they are being represented through their mother and natural guardian i.e. Mrs. Sarita Devi- appellant no. 1, all R/o Village-Sukurhutu, P.O & P.S.-Kanke, Dist.- Ranchi … …. Appellants Versus 1. Arun Kumar Yadav, S/o Sri Mahabir Yadav, Village & P.O- Umedanda, P.S.-Burmu, Dist.-Ranchi 2. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. City Branch Office No. 4, Radium Road, Near Court Compound, Ranchi through Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Divisional Office No. 1, Kutchery Road, Ranchi, Dist.-Ranchi 3. The United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Shanti Bhawan, Albert Ekka Chowk, P.S.-Kotwali, Main Road, Ranchi, Dist.-Ranchi … …. Respondents ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ----- For the Appellants : M/s Arvind Kr. Lall & Shivam Lath, Advocates For the Insurance Co. : Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate ----- Oral Order 22 / Dated : 27.01.2025 1. The claimants are in appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act for the death of Dr. Lok Mani Sahu who died in motor vehicle accident involving the scooter on which he was driving and a truck bearing Registration No. BRN-6991. Learned Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 35,29,500/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of settlement by taking the age of the deceased to be 45 years, his net income to be Rs. 40,000/- per month and a multiplier of 11. 2. It is argued by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2 claimants that as per the pay slip for the month of May, 2006, the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs. 31,375/-. However, Jharkhand Government implemented Sixth Pay Commission report from 01.01.2006 and after the pay scale revision, the revised pay scale of the deceased of Rs. 57,000/-, but the compensation has been computed by taking Rs. 40,000/- as his monthly income. Further, learned Tribunal fell in error as the applicable multiplier for 45 to 50 years was 14, whereas multiplier of 11 has only be taken. The future prospect has not been reckoned for computing the annual income. The deceased left behind altogether 7 dependents, therefore, the loss of earning capacity should have been deducted as 1/5th for determining the annual dependency. The Tribunal had taken 1/3rd as the living expenses of the deceased. The compensation under conventional head is also not as per the ratio laid down by National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680. 3. Mr. G.C. Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Insurance Company, has defended the award of compensation and submitted that the revised pay scale as per Sixth Pay Commission of Rs. 46,100/- has been considered for computing the compensation after the statutory deductions. The Tribunal has assessed Rs. 40,000/- as the monthly income of the deceased, however, the income tax deduction to only Rs. 2,500/- per month has been taken, whereas as per the existing rate of income tax at that time, the annual deduction should have been Rs. 94,209/-. Although the deceased was a salaried person, but no document has been filed in proof of the age and the Tribunal has assessed the compensation on the basis of age assessment made in the postmortem examination report. The penal rate of interest has also been awarded which is impermissible. It is also submitted that the Insurance Company had appeared in this case in 2019 and therefore, should not be saddled with liability to pay interest thereafter. 4. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides and the materials on record, this Court does not find any error so 3 far as taking Rs. 46,100/- as the monthly income of the deceased which was the amount that he would have drawn pursuant to the Sixth Pay Revision. In absence of any contrary evidence regarding the age of the deceased, there was no error in taking 45 as his age at the time of accident. However, a multiplier of 14 will apply as per the ratio in Pranay Sethi case (supra) for this age group. 5. Taking Rs.46,100/- the annual income of the deceased shall work out to Rs. 46,100 x 12 after income tax deduction, the gross income of the deceased will be Rs.5,53,200. In view of seven dependents, the annual dependency will be computed on deducting 1/5th from the annual income. Since the deceased was in the age group of 45, therefore, his future prospect will come to 30% of the annual income. Taking all this, the final compensation will work out as under: Monthly Income Rs. Rs.46,100/- Annual Income Rs.46,100/- x 12 Rs.5,53,200 Income after deducting income Tax Rs. 433761/- Future Prospect Rs.4,33,761 x 30% Rs.1,30,128/- After adding income and future prospect Rs.4,33761/- + Rs.1,30,128/- Rs.5,63,889/- Deduction (1/5th as total nos. of dependents are 7) Rs.1,12,778/- After deduction 5,63889-112778 Rs. 4,51,111/- Multiplier x 14 (Rs.451111 x 14) Rs.63,15,554/- Total loss of dependency Rs.63,15,554/- Conventional Head Rs.70,000/- Total compensation Rs. 63,85,554/- The Insurance company is liable to pay total compensation with interest @ of 6% from the date of claim application. Payment shall be made within one month from the date of the order before the learned Tribunal and the same shall be disbursed to the respective claimants on proper identification as per the terms of disbursement decided by the 4 Tribunal. This Misc. Appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The statutory amount, which was deposited before this Court at the time of filing of this appeal, shall be remitted to the Tribunal for disbursement to the claimants, which will be adjusted against the compensation amount. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Satendra