ORDER 1. This order shall govern also the disposal of M.A. No. 225/2012 as in both the appeals award under challenge is dated 11.11.2011 passed by 10th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore in claim case No. 297/2010. By impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 18,44,659/- with interest to the claimants for the death of one Rao Sahib, who died in a vehicle accident. According to claimants, the compensation awarded is on lower side and hence, need to be enhanced. According to respondent No. 3 amount awarded is on higher side. So the question that arises for consideration is whether any case for enhancement/reduction in compensation awarded by the Tribunal on facts/evidence adduced is made out and if so what extent? 2. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how the accident occurred, who was negligent in driving the offending vehicle, who is liable for paying compensation etc. It is for the reason that firstly all these findings are recorded in favour of claimants by the Tribunal. Secondly, none of these findings though recorded in claimants’ favour are under challenge at the instance of any of the respondents such as owner/driver or insurance company either by way of cross appeal or cross objection. In this view of the matter, there is no justification to burden the judgment by detailing facts on all these issues. 3. As observed supra, it is a death case. On 17.1.2010 deceased/Rao Sahib, who was aged 46 years, met with a motor accident and died, giving rise to filing of claim petition by legal representatives (appellants herein) out of which this appeal arises seeking compensation for death. The case was contested by the respondents. Parties addued evidence. The Claims Tribunal by impugned award partly allowed the claim petetion filed by claimants and as stated supra, awarded a sum of Rs. 18,44,659/-, break-up of which is as under:- Towards loss of dependency Rs. 18,29,659/- Towards loss of estate Rs. 5,000/- Towards funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Towards loss of consortium Rs. 5,000/- Total :- Rs. 18,44,659/- 4. Learned counsel for Insurance Company submits that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on higher side. It is submitted that deceased was working as daily rated employee and his salary was being paid as daily rated employee which was differing in each of the month. 5,000/- Towards loss of consortium Rs. 5,000/- Total :- Rs. 18,44,659/- 4. Learned counsel for Insurance Company submits that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on higher side. It is submitted that deceased was working as daily rated employee and his salary was being paid as daily rated employee which was differing in each of the month. It is submitted that academic qualification of the deceased is not on record. There is absolutely no evidence about the future prospects of the decased. The income assessed by the learned Tribunal is taxable but no amount has been deducted by the learned Tribunal on that account. It is submitted that the interest on the total amount is more than the income of the deceased while the expenses of family was reduced because of the death of Rao Sahib. It is submitted that the appeal filed by the appellants be dismissed and the appeal filed by the respondent No. 3 be allowed and the amount awarded be reduced. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that amount awarded and income assessed is on lower side. It is submitted that since the deceased was in a secured job, therefore, future prospects ought to have been taken into consideration by the learned tribunal. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Co. MACD 2012 (SC) 97 wherein Hon’ble apex Court has held that a person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30% increase in his total income, which he would have earned in future. Learned counsel submits that appeal filed by the appellants be allowed and amount awarded be enhanced by taking into consideration the future prospects. 6. In the mater of Raghuvir Singh Matolya Vs. Hari Sigh Malviya IV (2009) ACC 933 (SC) wherein Hon’ble apex Court has held that dearness allowance and house rent allowances payable to deceased are being paid for the benefit of family members and not for employee alone, therefore, the same is required to be included in the income of deceased. In the matter of National Insurance Co. LTD. Vs. Indira Shrivastava (2008) 2 SCC 763 wherein the word income has been taken into consideration by the Hon’ble apex Court and it was held that:- “The term “income” has different connotations for different purposes. In the matter of National Insurance Co. LTD. Vs. Indira Shrivastava (2008) 2 SCC 763 wherein the word income has been taken into consideration by the Hon’ble apex Court and it was held that:- “The term “income” has different connotations for different purposes. A Court of law, having regard to change in societal conditions must consider the question not only having regard to pay-packet an employee carries home at the end of the month but also other perks which are beneficial to the members of the entire family. Loss caused to the family on the death of a near and dear one can hardly by compensated on monetary terms. Section 168 of the Act uses the word “just compensation” which should be assigned a broad meaning. The Court cannot, in determining the issue involved in the matter, lose sight of the fact that private sector companies in place of introducing a pension scheme take recourse to payment of contributory provident fund, gratuity and other perks to attract people who are efficient and hard-working. Different offers made to an officer by employer, same may be either for benefit of employee himself or for the benefit of the entire family. If some facilities are being provided whereby entire family stands to benefit, the same must be held to be relevant for the purpose of computation of total income on the basis whereof the amount of compensation payable for the death of the kith and kin of the applicants is required to be determined. Superannuation benefits, contributions towards, gratuity, insurance medical policy for self and family and education scholarship were beneficial to the members of the family. Medical reimbursement which provides for a slab and which keeping in view the terminology used, would mean reimbursement for medical expenses on production of medical bills and, thus, the same would not come within the purview of the aforementioned category. What would be “just compensation” must be determined having regard to the facts and cicumstances of each case. The basis for considering the entire pay-packet is what the dependants have lost due to death of the deceased. It is in the nature of compensation for future loss towards the family income. What would be “just compensation” must be determined having regard to the facts and cicumstances of each case. The basis for considering the entire pay-packet is what the dependants have lost due to death of the deceased. It is in the nature of compensation for future loss towards the family income. The amounts which were required to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included by computation of his monthly income as that would have added to his monthly income by way of contribution to the family as contradistinguished to the ones which were for his benefit. However, statutory amount of tax payable thereupon must be deducted. 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 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. The expression “just” must 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.” 7. From perusal of the record it is evident that deceased was in a secured job and was working since last 20 years. The income of the deceased was Rs. 11,773/-. Deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses appears to be on lower side, as the dependents are three in number, who are appellant Nos. 1 to 3. No doubt appellant No. 4 who is mother of the deceased is aged 90 years, but she is dependent on appellant No. 5 who is younger brother of the deceased. In the circumstances deduction ought to have been 1/3rd towards personal expenses. Since deceased was in a secured job, therefore, 30% of the income ought to have been taken towards future prospects, Appellants are entitled for following amount:- Towards loss of dependency Rs. 15,91,615/- Towards funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Towards loss of consortium Rs. 5,000/- Towards love and affection Rs. 20,000/- Towards loss of consortium Rs. 5,000/- Total :- Rs. 16,26,615/- 8. Thus, the appellants are entitled for a total sum of Rs. 16,26,615/- instead of Rs. 18,44,659/-. 15,91,615/- Towards funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Towards loss of consortium Rs. 5,000/- Towards love and affection Rs. 20,000/- Towards loss of consortium Rs. 5,000/- Total :- Rs. 16,26,615/- 8. Thus, the appellants are entitled for a total sum of Rs. 16,26,615/- instead of Rs. 18,44,659/-. Thus, the amount is reduced by Rs.2,18,044/-. 9. With the aforesaid appeal filed by the appellants stands dismissed and appeal filed by respondent No. 3 stands allowed in part. Copy of the order be placed in the record of connected appeal. No order as to costs.