Judgment K.C.Puri, J. 1. The Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Chandigarh vide award dated 31.1.1997 granted compensation of rs.13,49,502 to the claimants on account of the death of Pritam Singh Bhinder in a motor vehicle accident which had taken place on 2.9.1995. The claimants are aggrieved with the amount of compensation and hence they have filed the instant appeal for enhancement of same. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed claim petition under sec. 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000 on account of death of Pritam Singh Blunder which took place on 2.9.1995 on the averments that Pritam Singh Bhinder was working as a Deputy Manager (Sales) in indian Oil Corporation, Chandigarh. He was drawing about Rs.18,000 per month. He was going in a Maruti car No. PB 08-D 1700 from Chandigarh to Ambala on 2.9.1995 when he was hit by a Haryana roadways bus No. HR 02-A 6862 near dera Bassi on Ambala-Chandigarh Road. 3. It has been further averred that the claimants who are widow and wards of said Pritam Singh Bhinder were living with him and were dependent upon his earnings. The accident resulting in injuries and subsequent death of Pritam Singh Bhinder, was due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3, who was employed as a driver by respondent Nos.1 and 2, on their bus. 4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, in their joint written statement pleaded that the accident took place due to a defect in the bus, which could not be foreseen by the driver of the bus. The driver of the bus had taken all reasonable care to avoid the accident. 5. Respondent No.3, without disputing the factum of accident, pleaded that the deceased himself was negligent and hit the stationary bus as he was driving the car at an excessive speed. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues: (1) Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3? OPP (2) If the issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation, the claimants are entitled to and from whom? OPP (3) Relief. 7. On issue No.1 learned Tribunal held that accident in question was caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.3. OPP (2) If the issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation, the claimants are entitled to and from whom? OPP (3) Relief. 7. On issue No.1 learned Tribunal held that accident in question was caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.3. On issue No.3, monthly dependency of the claimants on the deceased was held at Rs.7,028.66 and by applying multiplier of 16, total amount payable to the claimants was worked out at Rs.13,49,502. The learned Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. The respondents were jointly and severally held liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation. 8. Feeling dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the learned tribunal, the claimants have filed the instant appeal for enhancement. 9. I have heard arguments addressed by the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that while assessing compensation, the learned Tribunal has only taken into account the basic pay and dearness allowance. The appellants have proved the total emoluments amounting to Rs.10,543. Learned Tribunal should have taken into account all the allowances including house rent allowance, CCA, conveyance allowance, professional allowance, bonus, etc. while calculating the amount of compensation. It is further submitted that the learned tribunal has not taken into account future prospects of promotion of the deceased. To fortify his arguments, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the following authorities: (1) Leela Ohri V/s. Punjab State Electricity Board, 1994 ACJ 274 (Pandh); (2) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Patricia Jean Mahajan, 2002 ACJ 1441 (SC); (3) Harindcr Kaur Dhillon V/s. State of haryana.2007 ACJ 779 (Pandh); (4) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Bimla Devi.2008 ACJ 563 (Pandh); (5) Darshana V/s. Raj Shah Singh, 1994 acj 668 (Pandh); and (6) Dayal Singh V/s. State of Haryana, 2006 ACJ 377 (Pandh ). 11. Regarding multiplier it is submitted that in view of authority reported as Vidya rani V/s. Pepsu Road Trans. Corpn. , 2007 acj 2728 (Pandh), multiplier of 16 at the age of 48 years is correct. 12. In reply to the above noted submissions, Mr. 11. Regarding multiplier it is submitted that in view of authority reported as Vidya rani V/s. Pepsu Road Trans. Corpn. , 2007 acj 2728 (Pandh), multiplier of 16 at the age of 48 years is correct. 12. In reply to the above noted submissions, Mr. Sidhu, learned D. A. G. , Haryana, has submitted that the deceased was getting tea/coffee allowance, washing allowance, rationalisation allowance, lunch allowance, professional allowance and the conveyance allowance, as detailed in Exh. P12. All these allowances were personal to the deceased. These allowances cannot be taken into account while calculating the amount of compensation. The LTC allowance is shown in Exh. P12 for the purpose of temporary leave travel concession. The perks shown in Exh. P12 are also personal in nature. So, all these allowances cannot be taken into account for calculating the amount of compensation. 13. It is further submitted that the age of the deceased as per post-mortem report is 52 years. Even, Gulshan Kakkar, PW 5, has stated that the remaining service of the deceased was 10 years. Gulshan Kakkar, pw 5, has not been asked about the age of the deceased as the age must have been mentioned in the service record. So, an adverse inference should be drawn against the claimants. The multiplier of 16 applied by the Tribunal is on the higher side and it cannot be more than 10, even according to the PW 5. A prayer has been made to reduce the amount by invoking Order 41, rule 33, Civil Procedure Code. 14. I have given my careful consideration to the rival submissions made by both sides and have gone through the record of the case. 15. So far as house rent, CCA, bonus amount is concerned, that has to be included in the amount of income while assessing the income, in view of the authorities in cases of Leela Ohri, 1994 ACJ 274 (Pandh); Patricia Jean Mahajan, 2002 ACJ 1441 (SC); Harinder Kaur Dhillon, 2007 acj 779 (Pandh); Bimla Devi, 2008 ACJ 563 (Pandh) and Darshana, 1994 ACJ 668 (Pandh ). 16. So far as tea/coffee allowance, washing allowance, rationalisation allowance, lunch allowance, professional allowance and conveyance allowance are concerned, these are the personal allowances to the deceased. All these expenses have to be incurred by the deceased for doing his job. 16. So far as tea/coffee allowance, washing allowance, rationalisation allowance, lunch allowance, professional allowance and conveyance allowance are concerned, these are the personal allowances to the deceased. All these expenses have to be incurred by the deceased for doing his job. The deceased must have to reach his place of work and for that purpose, conveyance allowance is granted. Similarly, the deceased must have taken tea during office hours and for that purpose, tea allowance is granted. So far as washing and professional allowance, etc. , are concerned, these amounts would have been spent by the deceased. These allowances cannot be added. Similarly, LTC allowance cannot be taken into account as the amount is to be spent by the deceased and his family members for outing. So, the total amount of salary can be calculated as under: Basic pay Rs . 8,815 Dearness allowance Rs . 1,728 House rent Rs . 1,983 CCA Rs . 75 Bonus Rs . 1,282 Employers contribution to PF Rs . 1,054 Total Rs .14,937 17. So, the income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.14,937, say Rs.15,000. The deceased must have been spending V3rd amount for maintaining himself. So, the dependency of the claimants is calculated at Rs.10,000 per month. The yearly dependency therefore will come to rs.1,20,000. 18. Now, the question arises whether multiplier of 16 is correct or not. 19. The learned counsel for the claimants has relied upon the authority reported as Vidya Rani, 2007 ACJ 2728 (Pandh), to justify multiplier of 16. The above said authority is not helpful to the claimants as it is not clear from the said case whether the deceased was in service. In any case, gulshan Kakkar, PW 5, has stated that the deceased had 10 years of service at his credit. The claimants have not examined gulshan Kakkar, PW 5, regarding the age of deceased. In the post-mortem report, the age of the deceased has been mentioned as 52 years. The age of the deceased must be taken as 50 years, in view of statement of gulshan Kakkar, PW 5. In authority reported as Patricia Jean Mahajan, 2002 ACJ 1441 (SC), the Hon ble Apex Court has held that Second Schedule is a safe guide to calculate the amount of just compensation although the court can deviate from it in appropriate cases under sec. 166. In authority reported as Patricia Jean Mahajan, 2002 ACJ 1441 (SC), the Hon ble Apex Court has held that Second Schedule is a safe guide to calculate the amount of just compensation although the court can deviate from it in appropriate cases under sec. 166. Therefore, keeping in view the length of remaining service of the deceased, multiplier applicable in this case should have been 11. So, the amount calculated in this manner will come to Rs.13,20,000. The learned Tribunal has granted an amount of rs.13,49,502, is the just compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 20. So far the argument advanced by the learned Deputy Advocate General to the effect that it is a fit case for reduction of the amount under Order 41, rule 33, civil Procedure Code is concerned, that submission does not carry any weight in view of the calculations, made above. 21. In view of above discussion, no ground for enhancement of compensation amount is made out. Consequently, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.