C.R. Sarma, J.— The above two appeals have arisen out of the same judgment and order, dated 26.6.2001, passed by the learned Member, MACT, West Tripura, Agartala in TSMAC 320/1999. As both the appeals, involving same parties, are represented by the same sets of Advocates, for the sake of brevity and with the consent of' the learned counsel, appearing for both the parties, I have heard these appeals, together and propose to dispose of by this common judgment and order. 2. On 9.2.1999 at about5.30 P.M., Sujit Kumar Pal (since deceased), predecessor in interest of the claimants, while riding his Scooter, through the Laxminarayan Bari Road, Agartala, was hit by the offending vehicle i.e. vehicle No. AS-25-4387, as a result of which the deceased, along with his Scooter had fallen into a road side drain and sustained injuries on the little finger of his right hand. Due to the said accident, the deceased became unconscious and he was taken to the IGM Hospital, wherein he was given first aid. Subsequently, he was attended by Dr. Dilip Kumar Debbarma (Surgeon), under whose treatment he was upto 26.2.1999. On being advised by Dr. Dilip Kumar Debbarma, the deceased attended the Peerless Hospital,. Kolkata, wherein he was treated, as an Indoor Pattent, till 1.3.1999. From Peerless Hospital, he was referred to ID & BG Hospital, Beliaghata, Kolkata. While undergoing treatment in the said Hospital, he expired on 6.3.1999, due to the injuries sustained by him. 3. In connection with the said accident, an FIR was lodged with the Police, at Agartala and the same was registered as East Agartala P.S. Case No. 44/1999, under Section 2797 338 IPC. 4. On the death of the deceased aforesaid, the appellants of MAC Appeal No. 36/2001, claiming to be legal representatives and dependants of the deceased, filed a claim case, claiming and dependants of the deceased, filed a claim case, claiming compensation of Rs. 16,12,000/-. The claimants alleged that the deceased, who was aged about 43 years, was a Contractor by profession and that his monthly income was Rs. 8,700.00. 5. The said claim was contested by the owner of the vehicle i.e. respondent No. 1 of MAC Appeal No. 36/2001 and appellant of MAC Appeal No. 73/2012. 16,12,000/-. The claimants alleged that the deceased, who was aged about 43 years, was a Contractor by profession and that his monthly income was Rs. 8,700.00. 5. The said claim was contested by the owner of the vehicle i.e. respondent No. 1 of MAC Appeal No. 36/2001 and appellant of MAC Appeal No. 73/2012. Admitting the accident, the owner of the said offending vehicle stated, in his written statement, that though the deceased sustained injuries, in the said accident, there was no negligence or fault on the part of the answering respondent and that the deceased sustained injuries due to his own laches and negligence. Terming the compensation claimed by the claimants, to be exorbitant, the said respondent stated that as the vehicle was insured, with the insurer i.e. National Insurance Company Limited, the insurer was liable to pay the compensation, if any. The said owner of the vehicle also submitted all the relevant documents, including the insurance certificate, along with his written statement. 6. The insurer i.e. respondent No.2, of, MAC Appeal No. 36/2001, in the claim case, while denying the claim of the claimants, averred, that the claimants were liable to substantiate that the vehicle was driven by a person having valid route permit, tax token, fitness certificate and registration certificate etc. and that the owner was liable to produce the certificate of insurance. The Insurance Company also filed an application, under Section 170 and 149 of the M.V. Act. 7. Upon the pleadings of both the parties, the learned MACT framed the following issues: - (1) Whether Sunjit Kr. Pal died in a vehicular accident, on 6.3.1999, due to rash and negligent driving of the Vehicle No. AS-25/4387? (2)Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation, if so what should be the amount of compensation and who shall be liable for payment? 8. In order to establish their claim, the claimant No. 1 i.e. the mother of the claimant No.2 and 3, (both minors) examined herself as PW1 and another person as PW2. The Insurance Company examined two witnesses, namely Shri Soroj Kumar Roy, an Investigating Officer of the Insurance Company and DW2, Shri Nishith Ranjan Bhattacharjee, an Assistant Manager of the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company examined two witnesses, namely Shri Soroj Kumar Roy, an Investigating Officer of the Insurance Company and DW2, Shri Nishith Ranjan Bhattacharjee, an Assistant Manager of the Insurance Company. The claimants, during her examination as PW1 produced certain documents i.e. the copy of the FIR, death certificate of the deceased, prescription, Air Tickets; IT returns and Pathological test reports and those were exhibited as Exhibit-1 series. The respondent Insurance Company exhibited the certified copy of the record of the Police Investigation, made in respect of East Agartala P.S. Case No. 44/1999 aforesaid as Exhibit A series. 9. Though the owner of the vehicle failed to adduce any evidence, he produced the photo copies of the driving licence of the driver namely Shri Prabir Datta, Registration Certificate of Vehicle No. AS-25/43 87, route permit, tax token and insurance certificate. 10. Considering the evidence on record and the arguments, advanced on behalf of both the parties, the learned Member, MACT came to the findings that the deceased sustained injury in the said vehicular accident and that developed gangrene resulting tetanus, which was the cause of his death. The learned Member also found that the deceased was initially treated in the IGM Hospital on 19.2.1999 i.e. date of the accident and that he was released after injecting tetanus to xide injection and thereafter he was treated by Dr. Dilip Debberma, privately, from 21.2.1999 to 26.2.1999. On 26.2.1999, he was advised to consult an or thopaedic surgeon as well as a physician. On being so advised, the petitioner attended the Peerless Hospital, Kolkata from 27.~2.1999 to 1.3.1999 as an Indoor Patient. It has also been found by the learned Member, MACT, that the deceased was a diabetic patient. Considering entire aspect of the matter, the learned Member came to the conclusion that the deceased sustained injury in connection with the said vehicular accident, which occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The learned Member also came to the findings that the deceased, though sustained simple injury in connection with the said accident, failed to take appropriate care and treatment for the injury and that the negligence as well as delay in treatment developed gangrene, resulting formation of tetanus, followed by death of the deceased, on 6.3.1999. The learned Member also came to the findings that the deceased, though sustained simple injury in connection with the said accident, failed to take appropriate care and treatment for the injury and that the negligence as well as delay in treatment developed gangrene, resulting formation of tetanus, followed by death of the deceased, on 6.3.1999. It has also been observed that there was direct nexus between the cause of death and the offending motor vehicle, inasmuch as the injury sustained in the said vehicular accident led to the death of the deceased. 11. While computing the compensation, the learned Member, considering the copies of the Income Tax Return statements, found that the average annual income of the deceased was Rs. 98,000/- and also that the age of the deceased was 43 years at the time of his death. The learned Member, MACT, held that the deceased, being a highly diabetic patient, he developed tetanus due to his negligence and as such, he was also responsible for his death. With the above observation, 50% of the said annual income was deducted, on account of negligence, on the part of the deceased, from his annual income, and thus the total loss of income per year was calculated at Rs. 49,000/-. 12. As the deceased had five members in his family and claimant No. 1 and 4 being adult and claimants No.2 and 3 being minor, the learned Member fixed two units for each of the three adult members of the family and one unit for each of the two minors and accordingly, held that the family of the deceased consisted of eight units. The total income was divided with eight units and Rs. 6,125/- was fixed for each unit. Excluding the amount for 2 units i.e. Rs. 6,125 x 2 = Rs. 12,250/-, being personal expenses of the deceased, the learned Member fixed the loss of dependency of the surviving members at Rs. 36,750/- per year. The deceased being a contractor, an amount of Rs. 1,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 12,000/- per year was also deducted towards pocket expenditure of the deceased. Thus, the total loss of dependency was fixed at Rs. 36,750/-. Considering the age of the deceased (43 years), the learned Member used the multiplier 15 and quantified the total loss of dependency at Rs. 3,71,250/-. An amount of Rs. 1,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 12,000/- per year was also deducted towards pocket expenditure of the deceased. Thus, the total loss of dependency was fixed at Rs. 36,750/-. Considering the age of the deceased (43 years), the learned Member used the multiplier 15 and quantified the total loss of dependency at Rs. 3,71,250/-. An amount of Rs. 10,000/-, as loss of consortium and another amount of Rs. 6,000/- towards loss of love and affection etc. were also awarded. Medical expenses towards the treatment of the deceased was fixed at Rs. 15,000/- and accordingly, total compensation of Rs. 4,02,250/- (Rs. 3,71,250.00+ RS. 15,000/-+ Rs. 10,000/-+ Rs. 6,000) was awarded. 13. The learned Member, MACT, considering the plea of the Insurance Company and the insurance policy documents, filed by the owner of the vehicle, which the Insurance Company did not oppose, came to the findings that the driving licence of the driver was a valid one and that the Insurance Company could not shelve its liability of paying the compensation. The learned Member observed "however, I cannot ignore the facts and circumstances of the case. It is a case of deliberate instance that the owner of the vehicle was also negligent in taking appropriate step. It might happen that the owner of the vehicle thought that he is not supposed to help the Tribunal in ascertaining the truth and that if he has an insurance, his liability is over. So in such a situation, where the owner of the vehicle is found so negligent, in taking proper steps in the claim case, I think a substantial amount should be imposed on the owner of the vehicle to make payment." 14. With the above observation, the learned Member, MACT, while granting compensation of Rs. 4,02,250/- with interest @ of 9% from the date of application i.e. 12.7.1999, payable by the Insurance Company, directed that out of the said compensation, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-should be paid by the owner of the vehicle. It was also directed that the payment should be made within 45 days, failing which the award would carry interest @ 16% per annum from the date of application. The claimants were granted the said compensation in equal share with the direction that the shares of the minors should be kept in fixed deposits till they attain majority. It was also directed that the payment should be made within 45 days, failing which the award would carry interest @ 16% per annum from the date of application. The claimants were granted the said compensation in equal share with the direction that the shares of the minors should be kept in fixed deposits till they attain majority. However, the claimant No. 1 was allowed to draw the monthly interest out of the fixed deposits of the minors for their maintenance. It was also directed that 50% of the share of the claimant Nos. 1 and 4 should be kept in fixed deposit. 15. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the claimants, by filing MAC 36/2001, has challenged the award on the ground that the learned Member of the Tribunal committed error, by arbitrarily reducing 50% of the yearly income of the deceased and misconceiving the real facts of the accident that the same occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, that the said accident was the actual cause of the death of the deceased. It is also contended by the appellants aforesaid that the learned Member, MACT, committed error by concluding that the deceased developed gangrene resulting his death, due to his negligence, despite the fact that he was all along under treatment of Medical Practitioner both at Agartala and Kolkata. 16. In view of the above, the appellants/claimants, contending that the learned Member, MACT, committed error in calculating the actual compensation, have prayed for enhancing the compensation by increasing 30% of the total income of the deceased. 17. The owner of the vehicle, aggrieved by the order, which required him to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation, out of the total amount of the compensation, on the ground of negligence, in taking proper steps, as appellant, has challenged the impugned judgment and award by preferring MAC Appeal No. 73/2002, to the extent it required the owner also to pay a part of the compensation. Both the appeals have been contested by the insurer. 18. Mr. S. Deb, learned Sr. Both the appeals have been contested by the insurer. 18. Mr. S. Deb, learned Sr. Counsel, appearing for the appellants, in MAC No. 36/2001, has submitted that as the deceased i.e. predecessor-in-interest of the claimants was, all along, under medical treatment, immediately after the accident till his death, the learned Trial Judge committed error by holding that the deceased neglected in taking proper care and by deducting 50% of his total income, on account of his negligence and also by not increasing the last income of the deceased by 30%, as increment. It is also submitted that the learned Trial Judge committed error, by again deducting Rs. 1,000/-, per month, from the income of the deceased, on account of his pocket expenditure, and by dividing the total income by 8 units and deducting Rs. 12,250/- from the income of the deceased. Referring to the case of Sarla Vern (Smt.) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the deduction towards personal expenditure of the deceased ought to have been one fifth of the total income. In support of his contentions, regarding strict liability and contributory negligence, the learned counsel has relied on the case of Clover Clayton Co. Ltd. Vs. Houges, [1910] AC 242, Fife Coal Co. Ltd. Vs. William Young [1940] 2 All ER 85 HL, [1940] AC 479, Project Officer, Saunda Colliery & Anr. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hazaribagh & Anr., 1997 ACJ 91, Lalo Devi Vs. Superintendent of Mines 1988 ACJ 886 (SC), M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 395 , Union Carbide Corporation Vs. Union of India (1991) 4 SCC 584 . 19. Ms. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (owner of the vehicle) in MAC No. 73/2002, has submitted that, as the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company and the learned Trial Judge also came to the affirmative finding in this regard, the direction to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- by the owner of the vehicle, on account of negligence in taking steps, was not lawful and as such the said direction is liable to be set aside. 1,00,000/- by the owner of the vehicle, on account of negligence in taking steps, was not lawful and as such the said direction is liable to be set aside. It is submitted, by the learned counsel, appearing for the owner of the offending vehicle, that as the Insurance Company never denied the claim, of the owner, regarding insurance cover, in respect of the offending vehicle, the entire compensation amount is required to be paid by the insurer and that no fault could be found with the owner of the vehicle. 20. Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent insurance company, in both the appeals, has submitted that the deceased, being a diabetic patient, ought to have taken proper care and his failure to take proper medical treatment and care aggravated the injury, sustained by him, resulting development of gangrene and tetanus, as a result of which he died. Therefore, it is submitted that the learned Trial Judge has rightly deducted 50% of the income of the deceased, on account of his contributory negligence. The Learned counsel for the insurer has also contended that, the total units of the family of the deceased being 8, the learned Trial Judge committed no error by dividing the income of the deceased by 8 units and thereafter multiplying the result by two units (as two units were taken for one adult member) and thus, deducting Rs. 12,250/- per month from the monthly income of the deceased towards his personal expenses and that, the deceased being a self employed person, there cannot be any increment in respect of his income. It is also submitted that the deduction of Rs. 1,000/- per month, on account of pocket expenses, was quite reasonable. The learned counsel has also submitted that, as the owner of the vehicle neglected in taking proper steps, the learned Trial Judge rightly directed the owner of the vehicle to pay Rs. 1,00,000/-, out of the total amount of compensation. In -view of the above, the learned counsel; appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company, has submitted that the impugned judgment and award does not require any interference. 21. 1,00,000/-, out of the total amount of compensation. In -view of the above, the learned counsel; appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company, has submitted that the impugned judgment and award does not require any interference. 21. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials, on record, it is found that the owner of the vehicle, in his written statement, clearly stated that the offending vehicle was insured with the National Insurance Company Limited and he submitted the certificate of insurance along with his written statement. The insurer i.e. the National Insurance Company, in their written statement, nowhere denied the said claim of the owner. 22. The Insurance Company, by filing their written statement, contested the claim on the ground of non-availability of, valid drying licence, route permit, tax token, fitness certificate and registration certificate etc. Two witnesses were examined, on behalf of the Insurance Company as DW1 and DW2. DW1 was the Investigator, engaged by the Insurance Company. The said witnesses did not state anything about non-existence of insurance cover. DW2, who was an Officer of the Insurance Company, stated that, as per the investigation report, submitted by the Company's investigator, driving licence of the driver was issued from the office of the Transport Officer, Kohima, and that the said driving licence was duly renewed from the Office of the Transport Officer, Kamrup. 23. The learned Trial Judge, also, on the basis of the pleadings of both the parties and the evidence adduced by them, came to the findings that the offending vehicle was covered by the insurance policy, issued by the insurer aforesaid. 24. I have already quoted the relevant observation made by the learned Member of the Tribunal. Though the learned Trial Judge has held that the owner of the vehicle was negligent in taking appropriate steps, there is no mention as to what steps, which was required to be taken by the owner, under the law, were not taken and what was the difficulty in arriving at a finding regarding liability of the insurer, for such lapse, if any, on the part of the owner. 25. 25. There was no denial regarding existence of the insurance policy and the insurer had challenged the claim on others grounds, i.e. non-existence of valid driving licence, route permit, tax token, fitness certificate etc., there was no difficulty, on the part of the Tribunal, to come to the conclusion that the offending vehicle was duly insured by the insurer, at the relevant time. That apart, from the written statement, it has been clearly revealed that the owner of the vehicle had submitted the policy document by a firisti. Therefore, as the owner of the vehicle had contested the claim by producing the policy document, there existed no scope to come to the conclusion that the owner of the vehicle had neglected in taking steps. As the vehicle was found to be duly insured by the insurer aforesaid, the findings of the learned Trial Judge that the owner of the vehicle neglected in taking steps is not correct and the same cannot be sustained. 26. As the vehicle was duly insured with the insurer and the learned Tribunal came to the positive findings in this regard, it was the liability of the insurer to indemnify the owner. Therefore, the insurer is liable to pay the entire compensation amount, inasmuch as it has been held by the learned Trial Judge that the deceased sustained the injury in connection with a vehicular accident involving the offending vehicle, which was insured with the insurer and driven by a driver having valid driving licence. Therefore, the order directing the owner to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- out of the total compensation cannot be maintained. In view of the above, the impugned order directing the owner of the vehicle to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation is set aside. Accordingly, MAC Appeal 73/2002 is allowed on contest. 27. Now taking up the MAC Appeal No. 36/2001, I find that the dispute raised in this Appeal is with regard to deduction of 50% off the income of the deceased on the ground of his negligence in taking proper medical care and also non-increase of the yearly income by 30% as increment. 28. 27. Now taking up the MAC Appeal No. 36/2001, I find that the dispute raised in this Appeal is with regard to deduction of 50% off the income of the deceased on the ground of his negligence in taking proper medical care and also non-increase of the yearly income by 30% as increment. 28. It is not disputed that the claim proceedings, being an inquiry to be conducted by the Tribunal, notwithstanding the amount i of the claim, made by the claimants, the .Tribunal is required to take initiative to award compensation, which is found to be just and proper under the law. 29. The learned Trial Judge held that the yearly income of the deceased, who was an income tax payee contractor, was Rs. 98,000/-. It has also been observed, by the learned Trial Judge, that the deceased died due to the injury sustained by him, in the said vehicular accident. Of course, it has been observed that the injury sustained by him, due to his negligence in taking proper care, developed gangrene resulting his death. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge has deducted 50% of the total amount on account of negligence, on the part of the deceased. Now the question is whether there was any negligence, on the part of the deceased in taking proper care after sustaining the injury in the said vehicular accident. 30. As observed, by the learned Trial Judge, the deceased, immediately after the accident i.e. on 19.2.1999, was taken to IGM Hospital for treatment, wherefrom he was discharged after providing first aid i.e. first dose of tetanus and thereafter he was treated by Dr. Dilip Debberma from 21.2.1999 till 27.2.1999, on which date he left for Kolkata for better treatment in Peerless Hospital. In the Peerless Hospital, he was undergoing treatment till 1.3.1999 and therefrom he was referred to IO and BG Hospital, Beliaghata, wherein he had undergone treatment from 1.3.1999 till 6.3.1999, on which date, he expired. The learned Trial Judge has observed that the deceased, who was a diabetic patient did not take proper treatment, in respect of the simple injury, sustained by him, in the said vehicular accident and due to his negligence, gangrene had developed. There is no dispute that, due to the said injury, the deceased suffered from gangrene and tetanus, as a result of which he died on 6.3.1999. There is no dispute that, due to the said injury, the deceased suffered from gangrene and tetanus, as a result of which he died on 6.3.1999. The medical papers i.e. exhibit series support the same. It is not a case that the petitioner, immediately after the accident, had not taken any medical aid. From the record and as observed by the learned Trial Judge, immediately after the accident, he had attended IGM Hospital and the concerned Medical Officer had discharged him, after providing necessary first aid. The learned Trial Judge also came to the findings that the deceased attended Dr. Debberma, on 21.2.1999 and on being advised he got admitted in the Peerless Hospital, on 27.2.1999. From Peerless Hospital where from he was referred to IO and BG Hospital, Beliaghata, on 1.3.1999 and while, undergoing treatment in the said Hospital, he died on 6.3.1999. A close scrutiny of the above events, will lead to the findings that the petitioner, right from the time of accident till his death, was under medical care and treatment. Therefore, it cannot be held that the deceased, after the accident, had not taken any medical treatment or care in respect of his said injury. 31. In the attending facts and circumstances, the deceased, who attended medical practitioner for medical treatment cannot be held responsible for the quality or nature of treatment provided to him by the Medical Officers, he attended. Therefore, no fault can be found with the deceased for development of gangrene and tetanus, in respect of his injuries. 32. There is no difficulty in understanding that the injury, caused by the said vehicular accident, was the root cause of the death of the deceased. Had there been no such vehicular accident, the deceased would not have sustained the said injury, which developed tetanus, resulting his death. Therefore, considering entire aspect of the matter, I have no hesitation in holding that the deceased had taken necessary medical treatment and as such there was no negligence, on his part. 33. In view of the above, in my considered opinion, the findings of the learned Trial Judge, that the deceased was negligent in taking proper medical care, is not correct. This being the position, the deduction of 50% of his income, on account of contributory negligence, cannot be maintained. 33. In view of the above, in my considered opinion, the findings of the learned Trial Judge, that the deceased was negligent in taking proper medical care, is not correct. This being the position, the deduction of 50% of his income, on account of contributory negligence, cannot be maintained. Therefore, the offending vehicle, being insured, the said insurer was liable to pay the entire amount of compensation to which the claimants are entitled as per law. 34. The claimants exhibited the Income Tax statements of the deceased for the period 1997-1998 and 1998-1999 as Exhibit-1 series. The income during the year 1997-1998 was Rs. H04,'l-20/- and the income during 1998-99 was-Rs. 1,04,413/-. The learned Trial Judge also found that the income during the year 1996-97 was Rs. 87,800/-. The learned Trial Judge, taking the average of the income during the said period, fixed the yearly income of the deceased at Rs. 98,000/- and also observed that the deceased who was a young man, died due to the said accident. In the case of Sarla Verma (supra), it has been held that, in the case of self employed person or person having fixed salary, the actual income, at the time of death, is to be taken as the income of the deceased. Admittedly, in the present case, the accident took place on 19.2.1999 and the deceased died during the same year i.e. on 6.3.1999. Therefore, the income shown during the period 1998-1999 should have been accepted as the income of the deceased. As specific amount was shown, as the income, before the death of the deceased, there was not necessity of taking the average of the income during the period 1996-99. 35. Calculation of the loss of income taking the last income i.e. income during the year 1998-99 would have been the just and fair compensation. Therefore, I find it appropriate and just to accept Rs. 1,04,413/- i.e. the income during the year 1998-1999, as the actual income of the deceased at the time of his death. In my considered opinion, the learned Trial Judge committed error by quantifying the compensation, taking Rs. 98,000/- as the income of the said young contractor, who maintained a trend of increase in respect of his income. 1,04,413/- i.e. the income during the year 1998-1999, as the actual income of the deceased at the time of his death. In my considered opinion, the learned Trial Judge committed error by quantifying the compensation, taking Rs. 98,000/- as the income of the said young contractor, who maintained a trend of increase in respect of his income. The learned counsel, for the appellant, has strenuously argued that the deceased being a young contractor, with fairly rising trend in his business, 30% of his income should have been added as increment. In the case of Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Limited & Ors. reported in (2012) 6SCC 421, the Supreme Court, considering the case of Sarla Verma (supra), made clarification with regard to increase in respect of the total income of self employed or those on fixed salary. In the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the Supreme Court,; at paragraph 24 (last part) observed that in case of self employed or persons having fixed salary, the Court shall take only the actual income at the time of the death. Referring to the said paragraph, the Supreme Court, in the case of Santosh Devi (supra) observed as follows:- "Therefore, we do not think that while making the observations in the last three lines of para 24 of Sarla Verma judgment, the Court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in the income of a person who is self employed or who is paid fixed wages. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30% increase in his total income over a period of time and if he/she becomes the victim of an accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation." In view of the above, the annual income of the deceased, who was a self employed person is to be increased by 30% of Rs. 1,04,413/-, i.e. by adding Rs. 31,323.90, which can be rounded of to Rs. 31,324/-. If this amount is added to the annual income, the total income would come to Rs. 1,35,737/-(Rs. 1,04,413.00+ Rs. 31,324.00). 36. 1,04,413/-, i.e. by adding Rs. 31,323.90, which can be rounded of to Rs. 31,324/-. If this amount is added to the annual income, the total income would come to Rs. 1,35,737/-(Rs. 1,04,413.00+ Rs. 31,324.00). 36. Now coming to the question of deduction, on account of personal expenditure, it is found that, in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the Supreme Court observed as follows:- "Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6 and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six." The said Principle has been accepted in the case of Santosh Devi (supra). In view of the above, as the deceased had left four family members, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be V4th of Rs. 1,35,737/-, which would come to Rs. 33,934.25 say Rs. 33,934/-. Deducting this amount from the total income, the loss of dependency would come to Rs. 1,01,803/- (Rs. 1,35,737.00-Rs. 33,934.00). As V4th from the total income of the deceased has already been deducted towards his personal and living expenses, deduction of another amount of Rs. 1,000/- as his pocket expenses is not lawful, inasmuch as the pocket expenses etc. has already been included in the expenditure towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. 37. In the case of Santosh Devi (supra), the Supreme Court, considering the case of Sarla Verma (supra), reiterated that the multiplier for age group 41 -45 should be 14, as mentioned in column 4 of the table, prescribed in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). The learned Trial Judge committed error by applying the multiplier 15 instead of multiplier 14. Therefore, the multiplier 14 is to be used in the present case. Thus the just and appropriate compensation would come to Rs. 14,25,240/- (1,01,803/- x 14 =14,25,242/-). The learned Trial Judge has also added an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as loss of consortium, Rs. The learned Trial Judge committed error by applying the multiplier 15 instead of multiplier 14. Therefore, the multiplier 14 is to be used in the present case. Thus the just and appropriate compensation would come to Rs. 14,25,240/- (1,01,803/- x 14 =14,25,242/-). The learned Trial Judge has also added an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as loss of consortium, Rs. 6,000/- towards loss of love and affection etc. and Rs. 15,000/- towards Medical expenses. I find no error in awarding the said amount of Rs. 31,000/- (10,000+6000+ 15,000) and as such no interference is warranted in respect of the same. Thus, the total amount of compensation payable by the Insurer, in favour of the claimants, would come to Rs. 14,56,242/-. Accordingly, the insurer aforesaid would be liable to pay the entire amount of compensation. 38. The direction made by the learned Trial Judge regarding the manner of payment and disbursement of the awarded amount is maintained. It is made clear that the enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 9%, if not paid, within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment and order. The interest @ 9%, on the enhanced amount, shall be payable on and from the date, on which the said period of two months will expire. With the above direction, both the appeals are allowed, on contest. The amount, if any, paid or deposited by the owner of the vehicle i.e. the appellant in MAC Appeal No. 737 2002 shall be returned to him. Similarly, the amount, if any, paid by the insurer will stand adjusted against the total award. Return the L.C.R. _____________