Miscellaneous Appeal No. 466 of 2006 **** Against the judgment, dated 28th August, 2006, passed by the Additional District Judge III-cum-Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal, Muzaffarpur, in M.V. Claim Case No. 138 of 2004 **** The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd., Muzaffarpur though Sri Dibakar Bag, Deputy Manager and Duly constituted Attorney, the New India Assurance Company Ltd., Regional Office, 6th Floor, B.S.F.C. Building, Frazer Road, Patna .. Appellant Versus 1. Ranjana Prakash, w/o late Arun Prakash 2. Lili Shrivastava, w/o late Bhuwaneshwar Prasad Srivastav 3. Sonabh Anand, s/o late Arun Prakash 4. Arya Saumitra, s/o late Arun Prakash All residents of village Rajkhand P.O. & P.S. Goraul, distict Vaishali at present C/O Ranjit Kumar “Braj Niwas”, Sought of Zila School, Near Water Tanki, P.S. Mithanpura, P.O. Ramana, district Muzaffarpur 5. Satish Kumar Singh, s/o Sri Ramjeet Prasad Sinha, resident of 12 Pathar Samastipur, P.O. Samastipur, P.S. & district Samastipur .. Respondents **** For the appellant .. Mr. Ashok Priyadarshi, Adv. For respondents 1 to 4 .. Mr. Kukesh Prasad Singh, Adv. For respondent 5 .. Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, Adv. **** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD Gopal Prasad, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 28.08.2006, passed by the Additional District Judge III-cum- 2 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muzaffarpur, in M.V. Claim Case No. 138 of 2004, by which the Tribunal has allowed the compensation to the tune of Rs.24,12,936/- out of which Rs.50,000/- having been paid and, hence, ordered to pay rest amount. 3. From the perusal of the record, it appears that the claim for compensation that the deceased, Arun Prakash, by bus bearing registration no. B.R.33/7507 met with an accident at Musharigharari in which he succumbed to injury as the said bus turned turtle in a ditch and the Tribunal after going into the fact that the deceased died out of the accident from the said vehicle due to rash and negligent driving and the claimants produced the salary slip issued by the Assistant General Manager of the State Bank of India, which mentions the gross salary of the month of October of late Arun Prakash, Deputy Branch Manager, Musharigharari, was Rs.23,130/- per month and computing the claim on the basis of his monthly income. The Tribunal assessed the claim with a multiplier of 13 as the age of the deceased as mentioned in Exhibit „1‟, the matriculation certificate as 14th December, 1957, and the Tribunal has held in the impugned judgment that he was in the age group of 46-50 and, hence, have given the multiplier of 13 and, hence, assessed the income as Rs.24,12000/- and odd. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, contends that it is apparent on the face of the judgment that there is no deduction for the income tax and, hence, contended that the deduction on the head of the income tax though apparent on the said salary the appellant was an assessee and, hence, the compensation granted was excessive and required consideration regarding deduction of the tax just 3 and proper. It is, further, contended that the deduction may be shown for the gross salary and there is nothing on the record to suggest that what the net salary was. It has, further, been contended that the claimants shall also receive the pension and, hence, that also required to be taken into consideration for computing the compensation. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, contended that it is true that the deduction of the deceased regarding income tax has not been deducted, however, raised the point that the Tribunal while assessing the claim has not been considered the future prospect and has contended that if future prospect is considered the claim may have gone up by 30% and, hence, 30% should be added as the additional income for future prospect. Both the appellants and respondents have relied upon the decision reported in (2009) 6 S.C.C., 121 (Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. Vrs. D.T.C. & Anr.). The learned counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance upon an unreported decision of Civil Appeal No. 5316 of 2010 arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 668 of 2008. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance upon decision reported in 2009 A.I.R. S.C.W, 493 (Syed Basheer Ahmad & Ors. Vrs. Mohd. Jameel & Anr.). 7. Hence, in view of the submissions made, the question for consideration is whether the quantum and compensation is just and proper. However, the evidence adduced for income is the only evidence brought on record is Exhibit „3‟, a salary certificate issued by the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Musharigharari, in which it has been mentioned that the gross salary of the deceased, Arun Prakash 4 was Rs.23,130/-. P.W. 1 in her evidence has proved this Exhibit „3‟, as the last pay certificate, though has stated that this last pay certificate is issued by the Treasury. However, the alleged last pay slip, Exhibit „A‟, does not mention the details of salary, like basic pay, D.A. and other salary details. However, from the bare perusal of the record it appears that gross salary was taken into consideration for computing the salary and nothing mentioned about deductions from the salary, if any. However, the insurance company also did not adduce any evidence to show that what was the deduction nor the complainant has come forward to bring in evidence details of the pay slip and, hence, it is difficult to say that what was the deduction and what was the net salary or whether the pay slip was for gross income or net income. However, Exhibit “3” it can well be inferred that the deceased was an assessee and required to have pay the income tax and must have been filing the income tax return. The salary details suggest that there must be a computation for the tax paid and is ought to have been deducted. However, the claimant has not preferred any appeal or challenged the finding on the part of the computation of the annual income or the monthly income or even not challenged the quantum of compensation for any enhancement of quantum of future prospect. The insurance company has also not challenged the income, but, only has stated that the deduction for the income, income tax not been shown and from perusal of both the decisions relied upon by the parties it is apparent the deduction of 30% from the final compensation amount regarding taxes have been computed by the Supreme Court when there was no material on record to suggest the details of deduction. In Civil Appeal No. 5316 5 of 2010 the annual income of the claimant was assessed as Rs.27/- lakhs and odd whereas in the is the annual income assessed at Rs.24/- lakhs and odd and the case of the appellant in the Civil Appeal was of the year 2002 and the present case is of the 2003 and, hence, the computation of 30%, in present case just and proper as of the said judgment the compensation was allowed from the date of the claim petition, dated 21.02.2002, and, hence, 30% were deducted taking into consideration the date of application as 21.02.2002 and, hence, deduction of 30% in the present case regarding the head for salary towards taxes appears to be in consonance with the standard fixed by the Supreme Court and is not unreasonable rather just and proper and, hence, 30% is deducted from the compensation allowed by the Tribunal is hereby deducted to compute the final compensation entitled by the claimants and, hence, impugned order is set aside and it is hereby ordered that the Claimants are entitled to Rs.16,89,055/- with interest of at the rate of 9% as granted by the Tribunal and, hence, the appeal is allowed. 8. The appellant has deposited Rs.25,000/-, in this Court, at the time of filing of the Miscellaneous Appeal, let it be sent to the lower Court for satisfaction of the appellant. ( Gopal Prasad, J. ) The Patna High Court, The 09th day of September, 2010, N.A.F.R./Cp:3/S.A.