R. SUBHASH REDDY,J. ( 1 ) THIS civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by United india Insurance Co. Ltd. under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act ), aggrieved by the award of the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy district (for short, the Tribunal ) dated 28. 2. 2004 passed in O. P. No. 1188 of 2000. ( 2 ) THE respondents herein filed claim petition before the Claims Tribunal below under section 166 of the Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 8,00,000 on account of death of one Valluri Venumadhav in an accident on 28. 4. 2000. Claimant No. 1 is the wife, claimant No. 2 is minor son and other claimants are parents of the deceased. ( 3 ) AS averred in the claim application, it was the case of the claimants that on 28. 4. 2000, when the deceased, who was working as Service Executive in Ashco industries Limited, Panjagutta, Hyderabad, was proceeding from Ramachandrapuram to Bollaram on his scooter bearing No. AP 28-N 6360 and when he reached near Dulchand Textile Factory, water tanker bearing No. ADT 3159 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the deceased. In the said accident, he was crushed under the wheel. It was the case of the claimants that the deceased was aged 26 years and was earning a salary of rs. 5,430 per month as Service Executive in Ashco Industries Limited, Panjagutta, hyderabad. As such, in view of the sudden and untimely death of the deceased, they lost dependency. Thus compensation was claimed for an amount of Rs. 8,00,000 on account of loss of dependency, loss of consortium, loss to estate, etc. ( 4 ) OWNER of the vehicle, respondent No. 1, remained ex pane before the Tribunal. The insurer, respondent No. 2, has filed counter affidavit. The claim was resisted generally denying the allegations of the claimants and further, pleaded that the compensation claimed was excessive and exorbitant. ( 5 ) BASING on the above pleadings, the tribunal has framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tanker No. ADT 3159? (2) Whether the vehicle involved in the accident is insured with respondent No. 2? (3) Whether there is any violation of policy conditions by respondent No. 1? (2) Whether the vehicle involved in the accident is insured with respondent No. 2? (3) Whether there is any violation of policy conditions by respondent No. 1? (4) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount? ( 6 ) TO prove the claim on behalf of claimants, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and exhs. A1 to A11 were marked. On behalf of respondents, no oral evidence was let in, but a copy of insurance policy was marked as Exh. B1. ( 7 ) THE Tribunal below, having regard to the evidence on record, has recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the water tanker. Further, taking into account the gross salary which the deceased was drawing at Rs. 5,430 per month and by applying the multiplier of 18 , the Claims tribunal below awarded compensation of rs. 7,92,000 on account of loss of dependency. The Tribunal below also awarded compensation of Rs. 20,000 on account of loss of consortium, Rs. 2,500 on account of funeral expenses and another Rs. 2,500 on account of loss to estate. Thus, in total, tribunal below awarded compensation of rs. 8,17,000 with proportionate costs and interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. ( 8 ) THE appellant insurer, by obtaining permission under section 170 of the Act in LA. No. 3188 of 2003, has filed this appeal mainly on the ground that the Tribunal below erred in taking into account the gross salary of the deceased for the purpose of computing the compensation on account of loss of dependency. It is submitted by Mr. R. Brizmohan Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurer that in view of the judgment of the supreme Court in a case of Asha v. United india Insurance Co. Ltd. , 2004 ACJ 448 (SC), only net salary is to be taken into consideration. Even Mr. B. Parameshwara rao, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, fairly submits that the judgment of the Apex Court referred above applies to the facts of the case as per which, net salary is to be taken into consideration. As per salary particulars of the deceased, he was drawing a gross salary of Rs. 5,500 per month and net salary of Rs. 4,903 per month. As per salary particulars of the deceased, he was drawing a gross salary of Rs. 5,500 per month and net salary of Rs. 4,903 per month. If the net salary is taken into consideration, by deducting one-third of the same for personal living expenses of the deceased, dependency can be at Rs. 3,269 per month and Rs. 39,228 annually. If the said annual dependency is multiplied with relevant multiplier 18 , the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 7,06,104. In that view of the matter, the judgment referred by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurer clearly applies to the facts of the case and having regard to the same, the claimants are only entitled for net salary to be taken into account but not gross salary, as taken into consideration by the Tribunal below. By taking net salary into consideration, the compensation payable to the claimants on account of loss of dependency is fixed at Rs. 7,06,104 and in addition to the same, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal below on account of loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss to estate at Rs. 20,000, Rs. 2,500 and Rs. 2,500 respectively is hereby confirmed. Thus, in total, compensation payable to claimants is fixed at Rs. 7,31,104 and the judgment and decree of the Claims tribunal below stands modified to the extent indicated above. Claimants are entitled for the said compensation with interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation. As much as claimant No. 3, father of the deceased, died during pendency of the proceedings, the compensation is to be apportioned among claimant Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Accordingly, the compensation of Rs. 7,31,104 is apportioned among them with proportionate costs and interest as follows: Claimant No. 1 (wife of the deceased) Rs. 4,00,000 Claimant No. 2 (son of the deceased) Rs. 2,00,000 Claimant No. 4 (mother of the deceased) Rs. 1,31,104 the civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.