JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri N.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Manish Tandon, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This appeal, at the behest of Insurance Company, challenges the judgment and award dated 07.02.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/12th Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No.461 of 2017 awarding a sum of Rs.78,83,928/- with interest at the rate of 7% as compensation.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was in the age bracket of 35-40, therefore, multiplier to be applied would be 16. The fact that the Tribunal has gone by schedule is bad. The schedule has been found faulty and Tribunal ought to have relied on judgment of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 0 Supreme (SC) 1050, which it has referred but not allowed.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the claimants that the claimants can raise objection as far as the question of quantum is concerned, as the appeal is in continuation of the proceedings. He has relied on the provisions of Order 41 rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure and has contended that as held by this Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Vidyawati Devi and others, F.A.F.O. No. 2389 of 2016 the oral cross objection can be raised and it is submitted that the calculations made by the Tribunal are erroneous as the Tribunal has considered the income to be Rs.37451/- added 50% i.e. Rs.18726/- and deducted Rs.9913/-, which was given as personal expenses, income tax and other amounts, which could not be done. It is submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the grant of compensation in its proper perspective.

5. Sri Manish Tandon, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the entire calculation of compensation requires recalculation in view of judgment in case of Manasvi Jain Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Limited and others (2014) 13 SCC 22 and Vimal Kanwar and others Vs. Kishore Dan and others (2013) 7 SCC 476 as well as Pranay Sethi (supra), whereby special allowances could not have been deducted by the Tribunal. As far as income tax is concerned, we are obliged to accept the submissions of Sri Srivastava that deduction of Rs.7000/- towards income tax from the salary of Rs.37451/-per month was erroneous and it has to be at least in the slab of 10% which would mean that we would deduct 10% per annum. It is proved that the salary was Rs.37451/-per month, hence 37451 x 12 and also add 50% of the amount for future loss as per rule 220 A and 220A(i) and decision in Pranay Sethi (supra), we do not disturb the same, but recalculate the same, as the deceased was survived by four people, the deduction of 1/4 is not disturbed. The multiplier of 15 as per judgment of Pranay Sethi is maintained. The rate of interest is maintained. We have perused the salary slip of the deceased as given by Sri Tandon.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal has deducted only Rs.7000/- as tax. It is submitted that tax would be in the slab of 20% and not Rs.7000/-per annum. It is submitted that income has not been properly calculated. The second ground of argument is that there was breach of policy condition as RC book was not valid and, therefore, the Insurance Company should be exonerated. The issue of negligence is not raised by the Insurance Company and it was not pleaded before the Tribunal. However, going by the facts it is clear that the validity of license of the driver is also not under challenge. The Tribunal has perused and returned a findings that the RC book fitness is produced, which was not found to be fabricated or false, therefore, the Tribunal decided the issue nos. 2 and 3 against the Insurance Company. We also concur with the same. The only issue which requires reconsideration