JUDGMENT (Sanjay Karol, J.) (Oral) - The present appeal arises out of an impugned Award dated 1.8.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan, in M.A.C. Petition No. 8-S/2 of 2002, awarding compensation of Rs. 4,40,000/- to the claimants of deceased Shri Lekh Ram Sharma. 2.The claimants, wife and four minor daughters of deceased Lekh Ram Sharma filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), claiming compensation on account of the death of the deceased in an accident which occurred on 9.1.2001. 3.On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues :- (1) Whether Lekh Ram Sharma had died in the said accident on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No. 1 ? OPP (2) If issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioners, whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, how much and from whom ? OPP (3) Whether the respondent No. 1 was not having a valid and effective driving licence, if so its effect ? OPR-3 (4) Whether the vehicle in question was not having valid documents, if so its effect ? OPR-3 4.Based on the material on record, the Tribunal found that the deceased had died in an accident which occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question by respondent No. 1 Shri Muni Lal Verma. 5.On issue No. 2, the Tribunal returned its findings that the deceased, 38 years of age, who was working as a Laboratory Technician with the State Government was drawing a gross-salary of Rs. 9,308/-. However, since his carry home salary was Rs. 5278/-, therefore, applying the multiplier of 12 on the income for dependency was determined to be Rs. 4,32,000/- and Rs. 8,000/- was awarded towards loss of consortium and conventional charges. The total sum of Rs. 4,40,000/- was awarded along with interest @ 9% per annum. 6.Since the vehicle was insured, therefore, the liability was fastened on respondent No. 3, the United India Insurance Company. 7.The claimants have assailed the Award, seeking further enhancement of the compensation. No appeal or cross-objections have been filed by any of the respondents. 8.I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 9.The scope of the present appeal is narrow. That the deceased was a Govt. 7.The claimants have assailed the Award, seeking further enhancement of the compensation. No appeal or cross-objections have been filed by any of the respondents. 8.I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 9.The scope of the present appeal is narrow. That the deceased was a Govt. employee and receiving a gross salary of Rs. 9,308/- stands proved by Shri Sanjeev Kaushik (PW-3), clerk from the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Solan, who has proved the pay bill register Ext.PW-3/A. However, it is in his cross-examination that he has deposed that the carry home salary of the deceased was Rs. 5,278/-. 10.Claimant Smt. Amita Sharma (PW-1) has deposed that her late husband used to contribute 8000/- to 9000/- per month for the house hold expenses. 11.The Tribunal has determined the compensation on the basis of the carry home salary as deposed by PW-3. However, from the perusal of the salary register, it is evident that Rs. 4,000/- was being deducted as contribution towards the G.P.F. of the deceased. The income of the employee was not subject to deduction of any income tax. 12.In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava and others, 2008(2) SCC 763, the Apex Court has held that expression “just compensation”, should be assigned a broad meaning. If dictionary meaning of the word “income” is taken to its logical conclusion, it should include those benefits, either in terms of money or otherwise, which are taken into consideration for the purpose of payment of income tax or professional tax although some elements thereof may or may not be taxable or would have been otherwise taxable but for the exemption conferred thereupon under the statute. 13.The Gratuity Provident Fund is contribution made by the employee which in fact is a saving and is not statutory deduction to which the employee would have no right at all. In my view, the Tribunal has seriously erred in ignoring this aspect of the matter, therefore, the impugned Award needs interference. 14.The undisputed income is of Rs. 9,308/- being rounded off at Rs. 9,300/- and after deducting 1/3rd, the income for the purpose of dependency would be Rs. 6,200/- multiplied by 12 = Rs. 74,400/- per annum. In my view, the Tribunal has seriously erred in ignoring this aspect of the matter, therefore, the impugned Award needs interference. 14.The undisputed income is of Rs. 9,308/- being rounded off at Rs. 9,300/- and after deducting 1/3rd, the income for the purpose of dependency would be Rs. 6,200/- multiplied by 12 = Rs. 74,400/- per annum. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 12, but however, keeping in view the attending facts and circumstances as also the latest trends of the Apex Court in its various decisions, in my view, multiplier of 11 would be just and fair. Therefore, the compensation for the total loss of income is determined to be Rs. 9,300/- divided by 2/3rd = Rs. 6200/- x 12 = Rs. 74,400/- x 11 = Rs. 8,18,400/-. 15.The loss of consortium and other conventional charges, in my view, needs to be enhanced from Rs. 5000/- plus Rs. 3000/- = Rs. 8000/- to Rs. 21,000/- in lump sum. 16.The claimants shall be entitled to interest as awarded by the Tribunal. The apportionment on the enhanced amount shall be on the same lines as directed by the Tribunal. 17.The appeal is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent. M.R.B. ———————