By The Court—Heard Sri T.J.S.Makker, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri R.P.Singh, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents and perused the record. 2. The New Indian Assurance Company Ltd. has preferred the present F.A.F.O. against the impugned judgment and award dated 28th May, 2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Barabanki in Claim Petition No. 157 of 2001. 3. The brief facts of the case, are that the claimant, Parmeshwar Mishra, when the accident occurred alongwith his wife Kiran Mishra, daughters Abha and Divya, son, Ashutosh Mishra and Km. Manu Mishra were travelling in Ambassador Car No. U.P. 32 A/1246. One Rafiquddin was driving the car carefully. At about 12.30 O’ Clock on 2nd June 2002 on Faizabad-Lucknow Road when the car reached near village-Jarela Bazar, Police Station-Patranga, District-Fiazabad, the vehicle D.C.M. Truck No. U.P. 15 F/1020 coming from reverse direction, hit the car. In consequence thereof, the claimant suffered injuries. The D.C.M. Truck was driven rashly and negligently at the time of accident. In the said accident, Rafiqudduin, Driver of the Car suffered grievous injuries and the F.I.R. No. 117/2004, under sections 279,338,304-A & 427 I.P.C. was lodged. The claimants-respondents approached the Tribunal by preferring the Claim Petition and the Tribunal had awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,96,000/- after considering evidence led by the parties including the injury report and medical expenses etc. 4. While assailing the impugned award, the solitary argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal had not deduced 1/3rd amount in terms of Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act. 5. On the other hand, Sri R.P.Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that in case of injury, deduction is not permissible under the Motor Vehicles Act. He has relied upon a case reported in 2009 AIR SCW 1430, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Prasad Varma & Ors. 6. In the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra), their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that where the claim is preferred on account of injury caused in an accident, then deduction of 1/3 amount towards personal expenses is not permissible. Relevant portion from the judgment of the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra), is reproduced as under:- “11. One-third amount is deducted from computation of compensation from the total income on the premise that some expenses were necessary for one’s own survival. Relevant portion from the judgment of the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra), is reproduced as under:- “11. One-third amount is deducted from computation of compensation from the total income on the premise that some expenses were necessary for one’s own survival. Incidentally, we may notice that in the note appended to the Second Schedule, the amount of compensation arrived in the case of fatal accident claims is required to be reduced by one-third in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive. A person, although alive, but when he is not in a position to move and even for every small thing he has to depend upon the services of another, in our opinion, a direction to deduct 1/3rd of the amount from his total income need not always be insisted upon. 12. Our attention , however, has been drawn to a decision of this court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie and Anr. (2005) 10 SCC 720 ) where 1/3 rd was directed to be deducted towards personal expenditure, we do not find that any legal principle was laid down therein. It also does not appear that the premise on which such deduction is allowed and what would happen in a case, where such a premise does not exist, did not fall for consideration. In Charlie (supra), this court itself opined that in a case, where the injured had suffered 100% disability, the legal principle for determination of compensation applicable to a deceased can, in appropriate cases, taking note of all relevant factors be reasonably applied even in a case of totally permanent disabled person. This court referred to Halsbury’s Laws of England, Volume 34, para 98 wherein it was held that the multiplier may be increased where the plaintiff is a high tax payer. That principle is also applicable in this case. In Halsbury(supra), it was stated that in applying the structured formula it is assumed that the return on fixed interest bearing securities is so much higher than 4 to 5 per cent that rough and ready allowance for inflation is thereby made. It was stated: “14. The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. It was stated: “14. The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased(or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed-up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last. 18. Following the aforementioned precedents, we are of the opinion that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it is not necessary to interfere either with the application of multiplier of eight or non-deduction of 1/3rd from his net salary. However, what was the next salary of the respondent for the said purpose should have been determined. An employee when not in employment is not to pay his tax. Income-tax payable from the salary, therefore, was required to be deducted. It was so held in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava and Ors(2008)2SCC 763),stating: “17.This Court in Asha (Supra) did not address itself the questions raised before us. It does not appear that any precedent was noticed nor the term’ just compensation’ was considered in the light of the changing societal condition as also the perks which are paid to the employee which may or may not attract income-tax or any other tax. What would be ‘just compensation’ must be determined having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. The basis for considering the entire pay packet is what the dependents have lost due to death of the deceased. It is in the nature of compensation for future loss towards the family income. 19. The amounts, therefore, which were required to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for computation of his monthly income as that would have been added to his monthly income by way of contribution to the family as contradistinguished to the ones which were for his benefit. 19. The amounts, therefore, which were required to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for computation of his monthly income as that would have been added to his monthly income by way of contribution to the family as contradistinguished to the ones which were for his benefit. We may, however, hasten to add that from the said amount of income, the statutory amount of tax payable thereupon must be deducted.” 7. Incidentally, we may notice that in that case also this Court held: “21. If the 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 profession 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. 25. The expression ‘just’ must be also be given its logical meaning. Whereas it cannot be a bonanza or a source of profit but in considering as to what would be just and equitable, all facts and circumstances must be taken into consideration.” 8. In view of settled proposition of law, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant seems to be not sustainable. No other ground has been raised by learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the impugned award. Even otherwise also, the application moved under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been rejected, hence, no interference is called for under the appellate jurisdiction. The appeal is devoid of merits. It is dismissed accordingly. 9. Let the amount, in case already not deposited, be deposited before the Tribunal within a period of two months which shall be released in favour of the claimants-respondents within a period of one month. The amount, if any, deposited in this court, shall be remitted to the Tribunal by the registry. _____________