R. M. DOSHIT, J. ( 1 ) THIS Appeal is preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the appellant-New India Assurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Insurer ), the insurer of the offending tanker bearing registration No. GJ-12-T-9253. The Appeal arises from the judgment and award dated 26th April, 2002 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gandhidham-Kutch in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1243 of 1999. ( 2 ) IN the motor accident occurred on 27th November, 1997 between the Maruti Car bearing registration No. GJ-12-C-9034 and the offending tanker on National Highway No. 8 near Anjar, the driver of the Maruti Car, Jayantilal Bhimji Kapdi, lost his life. The respondent nos. 1,2 and 3, the widow and minor children of the deceased Jayantilal, lodged the above referred Claim Petition No. 1243 of 1999 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gandhidham-Kutch (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ) for compensation in the sum of Rs. 30 lakhs. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the claimants, they were dependent family members of the deceased Jayantilal Kapdi. The claimant no. 1, the widow of the deceased Jayantilal Kapdi, was a housewife. The claimant nos. 2 and 3 were the minor children pursuing their studies. At the relevant time, the claimant no. 2, the son was around 17 years old. He was studying in an Engineering College. The claimant no. 3, the daughter was around 12 years old. According to the claimants, the deceased Jayantilal was 56 years of age. He was Deputy Executive Engineer employed by the State Government and was earning around Rs. 20,000/- a month. On account of his untimely death, he lost opportunity of promotion and higher salary. Had he survived, he would have received full pension and terminal benefits. After retirement he would have pursued his profession. Thus, considering the loss of income and the loss of consortium, etc. , the claimants prayed for compensation in the sum of Rs. 30 lakhs. The claim was contested by the Insurer by written statement Ex. 9. ( 4 ) IN support of their claim, the claimants have produced salary certificate (Ex. 40 ). Thus, considering the loss of income and the loss of consortium, etc. , the claimants prayed for compensation in the sum of Rs. 30 lakhs. The claim was contested by the Insurer by written statement Ex. 9. ( 4 ) IN support of their claim, the claimants have produced salary certificate (Ex. 40 ). The claimants have also produced the certificate given by the employer of the deceased to establish that the deceased Jayantilal Kapdi had a service of around three years and that the actual loss of salary by the time he reached the age of superannuation in the month of August, 2000 was Rs. 5,31,927/ -. The Tribunal has held the driver of the offending tanker wholly responsible for the said accident. To compute the amount of compensation, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the salary the deceased would have earned till his retirement; the income he would have earned after his retirement and the amount of difference in pension. The Tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 13,70,450/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and proportionate cost. ( 5 ) FEELING aggrieved, the Insurer has preferred the present appeal. ( 6 ) MR. NANAVATI has appeared for the appellant-Insurer. He has assailed the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. He has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not attributing part of negligence to the deceased and in not reducing the award to the extent of the negligence of the deceased. He has submitted that it is on record that the deceased had visited Gandhinagar on the previous day. After working at Gandhinagar for the whole day, he started for Anjar-Kutch and had reached near Anjar in the wee hours. It is evident that the deceased was exhausted and had dosed off while driving which resulted into accident. He has also submitted that the Tribunal has erred in computing the dependency factor. Though the Tribunal has taken into consideration the actual salary the deceased would have earned till the date of his retirement, no provision has been made for the taxes which he would be required to pay. The Tribunal has also erred in presuming that after retirement the deceased would have continued to work and would have earned some money till he reached the age of 70 years. The Tribunal has also erred in presuming that after retirement the deceased would have continued to work and would have earned some money till he reached the age of 70 years. The Tribunal has ignored the possibility of natural death before the deceased reached the age of 70 years and the medical expenses the deceased would be required to incur with advancing age. The Tribunal has also erred in deducting 1/4th income of the deceased for his personal maintenance and expenses. He has submitted that ordinarily 1/3rd of the total income is deducted as the personal expenses, more particularly when the deceased had not to maintain a large family. He has submitted that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal requires to be suitably reduced. In support of his submissions, Shri Nanavati has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan and others, reported in 2002 (4) GLR 2900. ( 7 ) THE Appeal is contested by Mr. Sandeep N. Bhatt. He has supported the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. He has submitted that the deceased had professional qualification. The Tribunal has rightly held that even after his retirement from service, he would have continued to carry on his profession and would have earned at least a sum of Rs. 10,000/- every month. He has submitted that the Tribunal has rightly adopted the multiplier of 8. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the judgments in the case of Champaben w/o. Chandrasinh Dhulabhai Rathod and another v. Anopsinh Somabhai Baria and another, reported in 2007 (15) GHJ 449 and in the case of Jyoti Kaul and others v. S. Rajapriya and others, reported in AIR 2000 SC 3582 . Date :04/12/2007 before the Tribunal the claimant no. 1 the widow and the passenger Lagdhirsinh Jhilubha Jhala gave evidence at Ex. 34 and Ex. 44 respectively. According to the eye-witness Lagdhirsinh, he was subordinate to the deceased working as Assistant Additional Engineer; he had accompanied the deceased from Gandhinagar; he was sitting on the passenger seat in front. When the car reached near Anjar, the luxury coach was parked on the side of the road at some distance. The offending tanker first overtook the Maruti car but when the tanker driver noticed the luxury coach lying in the front, came to a sudden halt. When the car reached near Anjar, the luxury coach was parked on the side of the road at some distance. The offending tanker first overtook the Maruti car but when the tanker driver noticed the luxury coach lying in the front, came to a sudden halt. In the process, the Maruti car ran under the offending tanker. He, thus, attributed the entire blame upon the tanker driver. ( 8 ) WE have our own doubt about the genuineness of the claim. Not that the accident did not occur, but certainly not in the manner explained by the eye-witness. The involvement of the offending tanker is also doubtful. According to the eye-witness, on the fateful day he was travelling with the deceased from Gandhinagar. He was seated in the front passenger seat. Considering the extent of damage caused to the car, it is hard to believe that the deponent was travelling in the car and escaped unscathed. Further the panchnama reveals that the front of the car was totally destroyed. The bonnet bore the marks of spare wheel attached to the rear end of the truck. It is a matter of common knowledge that the tankers do not carry spare wheel at its rear. Thus, it is evident that the offending tanker was not involved in the accident. To us it appears that the presence of the deponent in the passenger seat, the luxury coach lying parked at some distance and the involvement of the offending tanker are parts of the concocted story. In all probabilities, the deceased was travelling alone, as recorded hereinabove had started late at night from Ahmedabad and had reached Anjar in the early morning, quite likely he dosed off and ran under some heavy vehicle. However, with a view to avoiding the question of contributory negligence, the story has been concocted in connivance with the tanker owner. Nevertheless, the appellant-Insurance Company, the insurer of the offending tanker did not make any investigation of its own nor did it raise such a defence. We, therefore, do not propose to interfere in connection with the finding recorded in respect of involvement of the offending tanker and the negligence of its driver. ( 9 ) THE salary certificate produced on record discloses that the deceased was the Deputy Executive Engineer. At the time of his death, the Basic Pay of the deceased was Rs. 11,300/ -. ( 9 ) THE salary certificate produced on record discloses that the deceased was the Deputy Executive Engineer. At the time of his death, the Basic Pay of the deceased was Rs. 11,300/ -. With dearness allowance and medical allowance, his salary was Rs. 16,640/ -. Considering the annual increment, his salary from the Month of December 1997 till August 2000 has been computed to be Rs. 5,31,927/- (consisting of the basic pay, dearness allowance, medical allowance, house rent allowance ). It has also come on record that since the death of the deceased, his family was paid a monthly family pension of Rs. 6693/ -. Considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal has held that the accident in question occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending tanker. To compute the compensation payable to the claimants, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the actual loss of income of Rs. 5,31,927/- till 31st August, 2000. The Tribunal has assumed that with his professional qualification the deceased, after his retirement, would have earned about Rs. 10,000/- every month. To that the Tribunal has added the sum of Rs. 3,007/-, the amount of difference in pension. Considering 56 years of age of the deceased at the time of his death, the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 8 years. Thus, the Tribunal has computed the actual loss of income to Rs. 17,80,599/-; from that a sum of Rs. 4,45,149/-, 1/4th of the amount is deducted as the amount which the deceased would have required for his personal maintenance and expenses. The actual loss of income has thus been calculated to Rs. 13,35,450/ -. To that has been added the conventional amount of Rs. 35,000/ -. The Tribunal has, thus, awarded the compensation in the sum of Rs. 13,70,450/ -. ( 10 ) MR. NANAVATI has appeared for the appellant-Insurer. He has assailed the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. According to Mr. Nanavati, the Tribunal has erred in adopting the multiplier of 8 years. He has submitted that the statutory table under Section 163 (A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 cannot apply to the present case where the compensation is far greater than a sum of Rs. 40,000/ -. According to Mr. Nanavati, the Tribunal has erred in adopting the multiplier of 8 years. He has submitted that the statutory table under Section 163 (A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 cannot apply to the present case where the compensation is far greater than a sum of Rs. 40,000/ -. He has also submitted that considering that the deceased did not have a large family, 1/3rd of the total amount should have been deducted for his personal maintenance and expenses. The award made by the Tribunal, therefore, requires to be modified to that extent. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal has erred manyfold. Considering 56 years of age of the deceased, the Tribunal has adopted a multiplier of 8 years and has also taken into consideration the actual loss of income till the date of retirement of the deceased. Thus, the loss of dependency till the deceased would have reached the age of superannuation has been computed twice. The Tribunal has also not considered the taxes which the deceased would have been required to pay and the amount of family pension paid to the family of the deceased. The difference in amount of pension and family pension also cannot be treated as loss of estate/ dependency. The pension is paid to a retired servant for maintenance of himself and his family. The amount of difference is the amount the deceased would have received for his personal maintenance. ( 11 ) WE are of the opinion that from the sum of Rs. 5,31,927/- towards the actual loss of income, the Tribunal was required to deduct the taxes the deceased would have paid, the amount required for the maintenance and expenses of the deceased and the family pension in the sum of Rs. 2,30,770/- received by the family of the deceased. We note that the claimants have not produced the pay-slip of the deceased or the Income-tax returns filed by the deceased, assessment orders made on such returns, etc. to prove his total income. We, therefore, proceed on the basis that the salary income brought on record was the only income of the deceased. The deceased would have, therefore, paid around Rs. 30,000/- by way of taxes. That leaves the loss of salary to Rs. 5,01,927/ -. As the son of the deceased was pursuing professional course, we allow 1/4th amount i. e. Rs. We, therefore, proceed on the basis that the salary income brought on record was the only income of the deceased. The deceased would have, therefore, paid around Rs. 30,000/- by way of taxes. That leaves the loss of salary to Rs. 5,01,927/ -. As the son of the deceased was pursuing professional course, we allow 1/4th amount i. e. Rs. 1,25,481/- for personal maintenance and expenses of the deceased. From that the sum of Rs. 2,30,770/-, the amount of family pension paid to the claimants, is required to be deducted. Had the deceased earned salary till his retirement the said amount of family pension would not have been paid. That leaves a sum of Rs. 1,45,676/ -. The actual loss of income to the family of the deceased, till the date of retirement of the deceased, therefore, would be Rs. 1,46,000/ -. We do presume that after his retirement, for some years the deceased would have pursued some profession and earned a sum of Rs. 10,000/- every month. We can fairly estimate that the deceased would have worked uptill the age of 65 years i. e. for 7 (seven) years after his retirement. We, therefore, compute the income of the deceased after his retirement to be Rs. 8,40,000/ -. With advancing age of the deceased, we consider it fair to deduct 1/3rd of the amount as the personal maintenance and expenses of the deceased. That brings the future financial loss to the family of the deceased after his retirement from service to Rs. 5,60,000/ -. Thus, the claimants were entitled to compensation for the loss of dependency in the sum of Rs. 7,06,000/ -. The impugned award of the Tribunal is required to be modified to that extent. The award made in respect of conventional amount of Rs. 35,000/-, interest and cost is confirmed. ( 12 ) THE Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with proportionate cost. The award made by the Tribunal be modified accordingly. ( 13 ) THE appellant-Insurance Company will be entitled to remittance of the difference in amount of compensation with proportionate interest and cost. The appellant be allowed to withdraw the said amount after expiry of the period of limitation. The remaining amount be remitted to the claimants. The registry will draw award in terms of the above judgment.