Judgment :- 1. The Insurance Company disputes the compensation awarded on the ground of liability as well as quantum. 2. One Thangavelu, on 23.10.2005, died in a road accident. On account of his death, his dependents were awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,64,000/-. 3. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company/Appellant contended that the Tribunal had not properly appreciated the evidence. A close scrutiny of the evidence would show that the deceased himself was at fault. He has contributed to the road accident. No amount towards income-tax has been deducted. The Tribunal also taken excessive income and that has resulted in granting them excessive compensation. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants would contend that though sufficient records has been produced to show that the deceased earned a lot by running power looms and by doing agriculture only less income has been taken. Learned counsel cited SARLA VERMA & OTHERS Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER, (2009(6)SCC 121) and pointed out that inasmuch as there are five dependents the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4 from the income of the deceased. But, it had deducted 1/3. 5. I have considered the rival submissions, perused the materials on record and the impugned judgment. 6. On 23.10.2005, on the Sankagiri-Salem Main road, one Thangavelu came riding his two-wheeler, keeping one Natesan, as his pillion rider, met with an accident. In this accident, the Honda City Car, insured with the appellant is involved. Natesan reported the accident to police. Ex.P.1 F.I.R. has been registered. P.W.2 Sivasamy spoken about his witnessing the road accident. In his evidence, he had stated that at about that time the Honda City car came driven in a rash and negligence manner behind the bike and hit on the rear side of the motor-bike and Thangavelu was thrown out, got injured and died. Though a different manner of accident has been pleaded by the Insurance Company no evidence has been let in to that effect. In the circumstances, based on the positive evidence on record, the Tribunal has rightly fastened the negligence on the part of the driver of the Honda city car. 7. Now, we go to the quantum aspect. At the time of accident, the deceased was 47 years old (see Ex.P2 Post Mortem Certificate). He was running power looms and also doing agriculture. 7. Now, we go to the quantum aspect. At the time of accident, the deceased was 47 years old (see Ex.P2 Post Mortem Certificate). He was running power looms and also doing agriculture. Though huge income has been pleaded and many documents were produced (See Exs.P7 to P9), the Tribunal meticulously scanned them and ultimately came to the conclusion that he would have earned a minimum of Rs.6,000 per month. It had taken the multiplier 13' and deducted 1/3 from it towards his pleasure and other expenses and calculated the loss of dependency accordingly. 8. While calculating the income or salary for the purpose of determining compensation under the M.V. Act statutory deductions have to be deducted. The income-tax is deductable from it. All assessees need not be tax payers. Tax evasion is punishable but tax avoidance is permissible. In this case, the Tribunal taken Rs.6,000/- as his monthly income. It is Rs.72,000/- per annum. He will be eligible for the fixed standard deduction. So, it cannot be stated that he is liable for payment of income tax. 9. The accident was in the year 2005. In the facts and circumstances, Rs.6,000/-p.m. appears to be neither less nor more. The Tribunal had deducted 1/3 from it towards the pleasure and other expenses of the deceased. As per the Apex decision in SARLA VERMA & OTHERS Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER, (2009(6)SCC 121) when there are five dependents the deduction should be 1/4. If 1/4th is deducted the claimants will get more. 10. In this connection, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the claimants will get benefit out of the Insurance Company's appeal without filing a cross -appeal or cross-objection and it is impermissible in law. The learned counsel for the claimants repelled him as devoid of any substance. 11. A Tribunal is statutorily bound to grant just compensation to the victims of road accidents. Merely because the claimants have not preferred any cross-objection or cross-appeal when they are entitled to more, as in this case, by effecting 1/4 instead of 1/3 deduction from the income of the deceased, they are bound to get more, a court cannot deny them their eligible compensation, more particularly, in this case, this 1/4 deduction is based on the Apex decision in SARLA VERMA & OTHERS Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER, (2009(6)SCC 121). DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER, (2009(6)SCC 121). It is pertinent here to mention thatwe are constitutionally bound to follow the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.(See Article 141, Constitution of India). Therefore, in tune with the decision of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA (supra), the deduction should be 1/4. 12. Now, calculating on the above lines, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.7,02,000/-(Rs.6,000-1,500=4,500X12X13). In other respects, we are not interfering with the award of the Tribunal. 13. In the result, the total amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified. Now, the respondents are awarded a total compensation of Rs.7,42,000/- together with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing the original petition till deposit. Within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the Appellant shall deposit the entire compensation amount less amount, if any already deposited. Now that the minor also attained majority, on such deposit, the entire amount less amount, if any already withdrawn as allocated by the Tribunal shall be paid to the claimants. The excess Court fee for the enhanced portion of compensation amount awarded in this appeal shall be paid by the claimants within ten days. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.