M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ URS, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal preferred by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') questioning the correctness and legality of the award made by the Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madikeri (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), in M. V. C. No. 132 of 1987 on its file. ( 2 ) UNDISPUTEDLY, M. K. Muthappa, respondent No. 2 before the Tribunal, was the driver of the motor vehicle belonging to the Corporation bearing registration No. MEF 5672. He drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner causing the death of one D. N. Suresh. Therefore, his wife and children aged 24 years, 10 years, 8 years, 7 years and 5 years respectively preferred claim petition before the Tribunal, inter alia, claiming compensation in a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-, as he was the only earning member of the family. They also pleaded that he was earning Rs. 1,200/- per month and therefore such a heavy claim was made against the Corporation. However, the Corporation resisted the claim, inter alia, on the ground that the vehicle was driven without the knowledge of the Corporation and therefore if the driver drove the vehicle negligently, there was no liability on the part of the Corporation. ( 3 ) ON such pleadings, as many as four issues were framed which include the issue regarding the income of the deceased Suresh and that issue reads as follows: whether the petitioners prove that the deceased was aged 38 years and was earning Rs. 1,200/per month as K. E. B. lineman at the time of accident? we do not propose to refer to the other issues as no ground has been urged before us concerning the other issues. ( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY, as is evident from the award under appeal on issue No. 1 which is in para 5 of the order of the Tribunal, the petitioners did not produce salary certificate of the deceased Suresh, nor did the Corporation produce any material to show that the amount of monthly income pleaded by the petitioners was not what was paid. In the circumstances, the Tribunal referred to exh. P-5, police notice, which showed that the deceased was working as a lineman in K. E. B. and the evidence of petitioner No. 1 (PW 1), widow of the deceased, that her husband was earning rs. In the circumstances, the Tribunal referred to exh. P-5, police notice, which showed that the deceased was working as a lineman in K. E. B. and the evidence of petitioner No. 1 (PW 1), widow of the deceased, that her husband was earning rs. 1,200/- per month, was accepted and the monthly income was fixed at Rs. 1,200/-p. m. for purposes of using the multiplier method to arrive at the general compensation to be awarded for the death of Suresh under the head 'loss of dependency'. After so fixing the monthly income, the tribunal proceeded to hold that the loss of dependency on account of the death of the said suresh would be Rs. 800/- per mensem,. e. , 2/3rd of his income per mensem. That is found fault with by the appellant. ( 5 ) BEFORE us, it is submitted that subsequent to the award by the Tribunal, the Divisional controller found out from the K. E. B. that the last pay drawn by the deceased Suresh was a sum of Rs. 1,080/- and therefore the dependency worked out at Rs. 800/- per mensem would be inaccurate and it should be changed correspondingly holding that the income was Rs. 1,080/- per month. ( 6 ) WE do not think, we should accede to that argument. Firstly, there is no application before us seeking permission to adduce additional evidence on the facts disclosed and stated at the bar. Even if there was an application, it is doubtful, this court would allow that application as no efforts were made to deny the assertion made by the petitioners in their pleadings. Therefore, we do not see any error committed by the Tribunal in fixing the loss of dependency at Rs. 800/- p. m. ( 7 ) WE are fortified in our conclusion that fixation of compensation under the head 'loss of dependency' was proper having regard to the fact that deceased Suresh had sufficient service in the K. E. B. It means he would have earned increments for which he would be entitled to in the pay-scales available to the linemen. Therefore, even if one looks at Rs. 1,080/- as the last pay drawn as submitted by the learned counsel, that only means no more than the 'take home pay' and not actual salary earned by him or to which he was entitled. Therefore, even if one looks at Rs. 1,080/- as the last pay drawn as submitted by the learned counsel, that only means no more than the 'take home pay' and not actual salary earned by him or to which he was entitled. It is common knowledge that in such establishments like K. E. B. or Corporation itself, salaries are subject to many deductions such as life insurance, group insurance, P. F. etc. Therefore, we do not propose to interfere with the award of the Tribunal in that regard. ( 8 ) IT was next urged by Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the Corporation, that having regard to the decision of this court in H. T. Bhandary v. Muniyamma, ILR1985 KAR 2337 , the Tribunal erred in awarding an additional sum of Rs. 5,000/- under the head 'loss of life expectancy'. The thrust of the argument is that, having regard to what has been enunciated by this court in Bhandary's case (supra) in paras 17 and 19 read together, if once the multiplier method is adopted, then awarding compensation under that head would not arise. We are unable to accede to that contention for the following reasons. In para 17 all that the learned Judges have stated is that having fixed compensation, it must be scaled down on account of many uncertainties of life and having enumerated a few of them, they said, the list enumerated by them is not exhaustive. Therefore, nothing in para 19 is suggestive that once the multiplier method is used, then no compensation may be awarded under other heads. On the contrary, we see from the decision relied upon by the learned counsel in Bhandary's case (supra) that the learned Judges have themselves awarded, in addition to the general compensation under multiplier method, compensation under the head 'loss of expectation of life' which is conclusive of the fact that our understanding of the decision is the correct one and not the one by the learned counsel. ( 9 ) WE do not see any merit in this appeal, it is rejected. ( 10 ) WE would have awarded costs to the respondents; but, unfortunately, the learned counsel is absent, despite notice. Therefore, we decline to award costs in this appeal.