JUDGMENT : K. M. Thaker, J. 1. This appeal was admitted by order dated 3.9.2007. At the request of the appellant and with the consent of the opponent the appeal is taken up for hearing and final decision today. 2. Present appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 22.2.2007 passed in Motor Accident Claims Petition. No. 630 of 1995 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,72,640/- towards compensation with interest at the rate of 9%. The appellants - heirs and the legal representatives of the deceased Mr. Jayendrabhai Bhatt - had preferred the said claim petition, claiming Rs. 10.00 lacs towards compensation, with interest and other components. The claim was raised in view of the death of Mr. Jayendrabhai Bhatt on account of the accident which occurred on 10th March 1995. 3. The facts relevant for the purpose of present appeal are that Mr. Jayendrabhai Bhatt (hereinafter referred to as the deceased ) was going to Limbdi in the State Transport bus bearing registration No. GJ-1Z-4604. While the bus was on the way from Gandhipura Patiya, a truck bearing registration No. GJ-4T-6848 collided with the S.T. bus. In the said accident the Mr. Bhatt sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The claimants alleged that the truck, which was on the wrong side of the road dashed with the S.T. bus. The deceased, who held qualification of B.S.M.A., was working in Homeopathy Hospital as Medical Officer and at the time of accident his age was 54 years and he was drawing gross salary of Rs. 8,815/- as per the last pay certificate issued by his employer. Subsequently the widow and his two sons filed the aforesaid claim petition. 4. In pursuance of the notices issued by the learned Tribunal the opponent No. 2 G.S.R.T.C. had appeared and opposed the application by filing its reply and had disputed the allegations made by the claimants. The respondent No. 2- G.S.R.T.C. asserted that the driver of the truck was negligent and rash in his driving and the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the truck driver. The opponent No. 5- Insurance Company (insurer of the truck) also had filed its reply below (exhibit 36) disputing the averments and allegations made by the claimants. The respondent No. 2- G.S.R.T.C. asserted that the driver of the truck was negligent and rash in his driving and the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the truck driver. The opponent No. 5- Insurance Company (insurer of the truck) also had filed its reply below (exhibit 36) disputing the averments and allegations made by the claimants. After recording evidence and upon considering the contentions of the contesting parties the learned Tribunal ascribed 50% negligence to the driver of the S.T. bus also, holding both the vehicles equally negligent. The learned Tribunal, after taking into account the relevant details and evidence regarding the age of the deceased, his income applied multiplier 6 and after allowing certain deductions from the deceased s gross salary, assessed his income at Rs. 3,620/- and on that basis the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,60,640/- towards loss of income, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rupees 2,000/- towards funeral expenses totaling Rs. 2,72,640/-. 5. Aggrieved by the said award the appellants have preferred present appeal claiming enhancement in the awarded amount. 6. Mr. Hiren Modi learned advocate has appeared for the appellant and Mr. Majmudar learned advocate has appeared for the opponent No. 5 Insurance Company. Though process has been served on opponent No. 2-G.S.R.T.C. no one has entered appearance. So far as the driver of the GSRTC bus is concerned he was deleted from the proceedings during the proceedings before the learned Tribunal and the appellants have, in present proceedings sought leave to delete the driver of the truck i.e. opponent No. 3. The owner of the truck has not filed appeal and has not challenged the finding of the learned Tribunal ascribing negligence at the rate of 50% to the driver of the truck hence the request to delete the opponent No. 3-driver is granted. 7. Heard the learned Counsel of the contesting parties. Mr. Modi learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in determining the multiplier and has also committed error in assessing the deceased s income/loss of income. Mr. Modi has also assailed the quantification of the amount towards loss of estate. 7. Heard the learned Counsel of the contesting parties. Mr. Modi learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in determining the multiplier and has also committed error in assessing the deceased s income/loss of income. Mr. Modi has also assailed the quantification of the amount towards loss of estate. He further submitted that having regard to the schedule of the Act and the fact that the age of the deceased, on the relevant date, was 54 years multiplier 11 should have been applied and loss of estate should have been assessed at Rs. 20,000/-. 8. Per contra Mr. Majmudar, learned advocate for the opponent has opposed the contentions and he has submitted that the assessment and quantification by the tribunal are just and proper. He has also supported the decision regarding the deceased s salary and multiplier. He has opposed the appeal and submitted that the same may be rejected. 9. The deceased Mr. Bhatt, as per the evidence obtaining on record, was a qualified Medical Officer and was working in the Ayurvedic Hospital at Village Barol, District Surendranagar. At the time of the accident the age of the deceased was 54 years and as per the last pay certificate the gross salary of the deceased, at the relevant time, was Rs. 8,815/-. 10. It deserves to be noted that the date of the accident or the deceased s age or the factum of the accident are not in dispute. The learned tribunal has come to the conclusion that the case involved contributory negligence and the learned tribunal has ascribed 50% negligence qua each vehicle. The said finding is not under challenge either in this appeal or, as stipulated by the learned counsel of contesting sides, in any other proceedings. The appellants, the widow and the two sons, have claimed that the award is inadequate and the learned tribunal has committed error in fixing the qualifying salary for quantifying the loss of income and consequently in determining the future loss. The appellants have also assailed the learned tribunal s decision in applying appropriate multiplier and in determining the loss to the estate. 11. The appellants have also assailed the learned tribunal s decision in applying appropriate multiplier and in determining the loss to the estate. 11. So far as the salary of the deceased is concerned, the appellants have produced a copy of the last pay certificate issued by the Taluka Development Officer (T.D.O. for short) according to which at the relevant time the deceased was being paid, as gross salary, Basic pay Rs. 3600/-, IR Rs. 100, D.A. Rs. 3,990/-, NPA Rs. 850/-, MA Rs. 75 and H.R.A. Rs. 200/-, totalling to Rs. 8,815/-. 12. The said certificate also gives out that out of the total amount of Rs. 8,815/- a sum of Rs. 3,600/- was being deducted towards general provident fund and Rs. 100 was being deducted towards insurance and Rs. 20/- was being deducted towards Professional Tax. 13. On perusal of the award it also emerges that the learned tribunal has considered Rs. 5,430/- as the net salary amount of the deceased and the award shows that out of said the amount of Rs. 5,430/-, a further sum being ?rd of Rs. 5,430/- has been deducted towards personal expenses. Though the amounts/the total do not tally, it comes out that after deducting ?rd from Rs. 5,430/- the learned Tribunal has arrived at figure of Rs. 3,620/- as the net salary and then the learned tribunal has applied multiplier 6 and determined the future loss of income @ Rs. 2,60,640/- (Rs. 3620 x 12 x 6 =2,60,640). 14. In light of such facts, the appellant has claimed that the learned tribunal has committed error in treating the net income of the appellant at only Rs. 5,430/- and has also erred in adopting multiplier 6. 15. It is pertinent that, as noted above, the total does not tally and the learned Tribunal has not recorded the basis and details of the calculation explaining as to how the Tribunal arrived at the figure of Rs. 5,430/- as the net salary as against the gross salary of Rs. 8,815/- of the deceased. There is no reference of the last pay certificate. The Tribunal has not even clarified which items/heads have been taken-out/deducted while deciding the net salary. 16. 5,430/- as the net salary as against the gross salary of Rs. 8,815/- of the deceased. There is no reference of the last pay certificate. The Tribunal has not even clarified which items/heads have been taken-out/deducted while deciding the net salary. 16. In view of the extent of the deductions allowed by the learned Tribunal, for arriving at the net salary of the deceased, the claimant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has taken out/deducted the contribution made by the deceased towards Provident Fund inasmuch as the learned Tribunal seems to have taken-out/deducted a sum of Rs. 3,385/- from the gross salary of Rs. 8,815/- to arrive at the figure of Rs. 5,430/-. 17. It view of the fact that as per the last pay certificate of the deceased, his gross salary was Rs. 8,815/- and a sum of Rs. 3,600/- was being contributed by the deceased towards the General Provident Fund. 17.1 As there is no reference of Rupees 8,815/- as gross salary in the award, it does not become clear whether the learned Tribunal took into consideration the gross salary of Rs. 8,815/- or not. It also does not become clear that from where and how the figure of Rs. 5,430/- has been arrived at. There is no justification to not to take into account the last pay certificate. Even the opponent Insurance Company has not disputed the said certificate. 17.2 In this light, the appellant appears to be justified in claiming that the learned Tribunal has taken out/deducted the amount contributed by the deceased towards G.P.F. 18. The statutory obligation of the tribunal is to arrive at just compensation and while it is true that the award should not result into undeserved bounty at the same time it should not result into arbitrarily or unjustifiably depriving the claimants of just and reasonable compensation. 19. It is a legal right of the claimant to receive just compensation and it is one of the statutory obligations of the Tribunal to determine just compensation. While allowances like leave travelling allowance or medical reimbursement or allowances for newspaper/periodicals or car maintenance, telephone bills etc. 19. It is a legal right of the claimant to receive just compensation and it is one of the statutory obligations of the Tribunal to determine just compensation. While allowances like leave travelling allowance or medical reimbursement or allowances for newspaper/periodicals or car maintenance, telephone bills etc. may be, in view of and depending on the facts of a given case or service conditions of the person, justifiably not included and may not be treated as the income for the purpose of quantifying just compensation, however, it would be unjustifiable and inequitable to exclude the contribution towards Provident Fund and/or payment towards insurance premium and would frustrate the object of the Act. 19.1 The decision and/or action of deducting, from the salary of the victim, the amount contributed towards Provident Fund, which actually is in the nature of savings, would militate against the principal object of arriving at and awarding just compensation. 20. The amount contributed by the deceased towards P.F. could not have been taken-out or deducted because, (a) the deduction toward Provident Fund Contribution is actually deferred payment, (b) the contribution toward Provident Fund is, in fact, saving and it actually adds to the estate of the deceased, (c) the contribution actually continues to earn interest, and (d) it is actually a contribution and not deduction in stricto senso inasmuch as it does not go out of the kitty of the deceased in form of expenditure (e.g. payment/deduction towards income tax or provisional tax) (e) by any stretch of imagination it cannot be said that the said amount was not earned by the deceased, (f) an employee actually earns the amount and on receipt of the salary he contributes part of it toward fund which accumulates over period of time through employee s contribution and the interest earned on the said amount and that therefore, such contribution does not qualify as expenditure and/or amount not earned. (g) even as per the definition of the term of wages under the provisions of Payment of Wages Act 1948 it is only employers share/contribution which is not included in the wages but the contribution by the employee is not excluded or taken out of terms wages. 20.1 A person would be able to contribute any amount towards provident fund only when he earns enough income from which he can contribute a portion towards Provident Fund. 20.1 A person would be able to contribute any amount towards provident fund only when he earns enough income from which he can contribute a portion towards Provident Fund. Thus, it cannot be said that the amount contributed towards Provident Fund is not or does not form income of the victim of accident and/or that it constitutes an expenditure. 21. The quantification of the compensation by excluding Provident Fund or Life Insurance Corporation s premium from the income is not the correct and justified method of determining just compensation. The said contribution and the payment cannot be deducted from income or cannot be excluded by treating it as expenditure. Determination of compensation, by deducting such contribution, will not lead the Tribunal towards correct and just decision about just compensation. 22. Therefore, in present case, the deduction of deceaseds contribution towards Provident Fund is unwarranted unjustified and unsustainable. 23. The next grievance made by the appellant is about the multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal in present case. The learned Tribunal has applied multiplier-6 and the appellant claims that in the facts of present case and in view of the deceased s age (54 years) and future prospects, multiplier-9 should have been applied. 24. According to the evidence on record the deceased was holding qualification/degree of BSAM. It is claimed that after retirement the deceased could have engaged himself in field of Ayurvedic Medicine and could have continued to earn even after retirement from service. Mr. Modi butteressed the submission stating that the evidence about his good health is not disputed or controverted. 24.1 Having regard to the age and the health of the deceased and his qualification, experience etc. and also upon taking into account the schedule under the Act, which can be adopted as guideline, it appears that the multiplier applied by the learned tribunal is on lower side and does not assist in arriving at just compensation, more particularly because while assessing the loss of estate the learned Tribunal does not appear to have taken into account the loss in total amount i.e. the amount which would have been paid on retirement e.g. gratuity, leave salary etc. If the guidance from the second schedule (though this application is under Section 166) is borrowed, which prescribes multiplier 11 for the age group between 50 and 55 years, then on overall consideration it seems just and appropriate to apply multiplier 8 instead of multiplier 6, as applied by the learned tribunal, for determining the loss of income. 25. Keeping in focus that the Hon'ble Apex Court has emphasised that (a) what is required to be determined is just compensation and (b) in case of salaried employee, only statutory deductions can be taken out from the total income, it needs to be considered whether the tribunal has taken correct view and decision about the net income of the deceased. 25.1 For the aforesaid purpose, it is necessary, even at the cost of repetition, to recall that though as per the last pay certificate the gross salary of the deceased-victim, at the material time, was Rs. 8,815/-, the Tribunal has, without specifying any details as to how deduction from total salary amount is made, considered the deceased-victim s income at Rs.5,430/- and has then also allowed further deduction @ ?rd therefrom towards personal expenses. Accordingly the Tribunal has taken into account Rs.3,620/ as the net income. Unfortunately the Tribunal has not mentioned the details about the deductions made/allowed by it from the salary but it is apparent that the contribution towards provident fund (which was to the tune of Rs.3,600/-) constitutes main chunk of the deductions allowed or made by the learned Tribunal while arriving at the figure of Rs.5,430/-. 25.2 The amount contributed toward Provident Fund, however, could not have been deducted from the salary income of the deceased-victim and the income of the deceased-victim at the relevant time ought to have been determined without deducting the Provident Fund contribution. In present case the Tribunal has allowed such deduction or excluded such part of the income which are not permissible and which should not have been deducted from the gross income- salary of the deceased. 25.3 Hence it has to be held that the decision of the learned Tribunal regarding net salary income of the deceased-victim is not correct and/or justified. 26. In view of the facts of the present case more than Rs. 95 (Rs. 75/- towards Medical Allowance + Rs. 20/- towards Professional Tax) could not have been deducted from the gross salary of Rs. 8,815/-. 26. In view of the facts of the present case more than Rs. 95 (Rs. 75/- towards Medical Allowance + Rs. 20/- towards Professional Tax) could not have been deducted from the gross salary of Rs. 8,815/-. There is no justification in not considering Rs. 8,720/- as the net salary of the victim. 27. The learned Tribunal took into account incorrect base and the said error (determining-assessing the income of the deceased) has led the learned Tribunal to another error viz in determining just compensation. Furthermore as observed and noted hereinabove earlier the learned Tribunal also erred in applying multiplier 6 whereas, for the reasons mentioned above in the facts of the present case the appropriate multiplier would be 8. It cannot be said, in the facts of the case, that the learned Tribunal has arrived at and/or determined just compensation. 28. The appellant has also challenged the decision to award Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate. The appellant had claimed Rs. 15,000/-. So far as the learned tribunal s decision with regard to loss of estate is concerned I do not find any justification to allow the claim for amount beyond Rs 12,500/- In the facts discussed above the loss of estate deserves to be put at Rs. 12,500/-. 29. Having regard to the facts discussed above, the learned Tribunal, in present case, after deducting ?rd i.e. Rs. 2,877/- towards personal expenses from the salary-income of Rs. 8,720/- ought to have considered Rs. 5,843/- as the net income of the deceased. 30. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon considering the material including the documents pertaining to salary of the deceased and having regard to the facts discussed above, it appears appropriate to modify the award by considering Rs. 8,720/- as the salary income of the deceased-victim at the relevant time and deducting ?rd therefrom and thereby taking Rs. 5,843/- as net income and by applying multiplier 8. Hence, the future loss of income would come to Rs. 5,60,928/- (Rs. 5,843 x 12 x 8). For the reasons noted above the loss of estate deserve to be assessed, at Rs. 12,500/- (instead of Rs. 10,000/- as determined by the learned Tribunal in the impugned award). 30.1 Thus, the appellants would be entitled for Rs. 5,60,928/- towards future loss of income and Rs. 12,000/- toward loss of estate. The learned Tribunal has passed award to the tune of Rs. 12,500/- (instead of Rs. 10,000/- as determined by the learned Tribunal in the impugned award). 30.1 Thus, the appellants would be entitled for Rs. 5,60,928/- towards future loss of income and Rs. 12,000/- toward loss of estate. The learned Tribunal has passed award to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- toward funeral expenses which is not disturbed. Consequently, the appellant would be entitled for payment of Rs. 5,75,428 (Rs. 5,60,928 + Rs. 12,500/- + Rs. 2,000/-). 31. Since the insurance company has not preferred any appeal and even the appellant has not challenged the other deductions, including the deduction towards rate of interest, the other directions are not disturbed. In absence of any challenge, the direction regarding apportionment is also not disturbed. Likewise the direction regarding disbursement and investment is also not disturbed. 32. In the result the appellants would be entitled Rs. 5,74,928/- with interest @ 9% per annum. The apportionment and disbursement shall be as per the directions in the award of the Tribunal. 33. The impugned award is directed to be modified accordingly. The decree shall be drawn accordingly. There shall be no cost, in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed. Order and decree accordingly. Appeal partly allowed.