JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan J.(Oral) - The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for death of a male person aged 51 years. The claims were made by the widow and the major sons. It is an admitted case that the Tribunal took the income at Rs.15,000/- per month and worked out a contribution to the family at Rs.10,000/-, after deduction of 1/3rd and assessed the age at 50 years on the basis of post-mortem entry and applied a multiplier of 10. The Court was looking for the formula as set down by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, [2009(3) Law Herald (SC) 2107 : 2010(1) Law Herald (Acc.) (SC) 65] : 2009(6) SCC 121 and although, in the said judgment the recommended value as 13, the Tribunal justified relatively lower multiplier on the ground that the family was being paid the last drawn pay as per the Haryana Compassionate Assistance Scheme enabling a dependent to draw the same salary for rest of the period of service, subject to certain conditions, as was drawn at the time of death. The Tribunal, therefore, took a relatively low multiplier and assessed the compensation. 2. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant states that the entire case of alleged negligence of the insured driver was anchored to FIR lodged by PW-2. The involvement of the vehicle itself was not in doubt although, there had been general denial regarding its involvement. The FIR specifically referred to the insured’s vehicle as having been involved in the accident. 3. Learned senior counsel referred to PW2’s own evidence where he has deposed that he arrived at the spot a few minutes after the incident and he was not a personal witness to the accident. Learned senior counsel would, therefore, argue that no eye-witness was examined to show the rashness and negligence and entitlement to damages on the basis of the FIR and the evidence of PW-2, who was admittedly not an eye-witness cannot sustain the finding of rash and negligent driving of the insured’s driver. The counsel would further argue that the claimants had the benefit of the last drawn pay in terms of the Government Scheme and, therefore, the entire amount of dependence must be properly scaled down by taking note of the salary that was being paid under the State Scheme. The counsel would further argue that the claimants had the benefit of the last drawn pay in terms of the Government Scheme and, therefore, the entire amount of dependence must be properly scaled down by taking note of the salary that was being paid under the State Scheme. There is also cross-objection for enhancement of the claim at the instance of the claimants. 4. As regards the issue of negligence, the element of proof under the Motor Vehicles Act is not the same as the standard of proof necessary in a criminal case. When the FIR refers to the involvement of the insured vehicle and there is a witness, who refers to the fact that he arrived at the spot immediately after the accident, it is not too difficult for any one to make an inference as to what was the vehicle which was involved that resulted in a fatal accident. Even if PW-2 was not a personal witness at the time of collision of the insured vehicle with the deceased, who was riding the motorcycle, it could have been a matter of immediate inference that the vehicle causing the fatal injury, must have been driven by a person had been either rash or negligent. It is inconceivable that a person could drive a vehicle carefully to kill a person. Death of a person on the road and the careful driving do not simply marry. There was a witness, who spoke about the negligent driving by the driver of the truck, which was said to have collided with the motorcycle If such a driver keeps himself away from the witness stand, he surely has something to hide or he has no explanation to what was attributed against him. In this case, significantly the driver was not examined and it concludes the issue of negligent driving. I, therefore, affirm the finding of the Tribunal that the accident was result of a negligent driving of the insured vehicle. 5. As regards the age of the deceased he was an employee in a Cooperative Sugar Factory and there ought to have been service particulars available to give the correct date of his birth. If the petition has made reference about his age as 51 years, it must be taken as the best unless there was sure contra evidence for the same. If the petition has made reference about his age as 51 years, it must be taken as the best unless there was sure contra evidence for the same. A mere reference to the age as 50 years in the postmortem certificate cannot conclude the issue. The postmortem certificate is relevant if there was no evidence or no particulars as to age made in the petition. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would state that the wife herself had given evidence that her husband was only 50 years. She ought to have produced the documentary evidence if she wanted to contradict what was stated in the petition. The petition assertion must be taken as binding and she shall not be permitted to resile from the same. I, therefore, take the age as 51 years. 6. As regards the assessment of the proper income, it is seen that the Tribunal has taken the income as Rs.15,000/- per month. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant would argue that the actual salary earned by the deceased was Rs.13,091/- per month and, therefore, the same ought to have been taken after making due deduction for income tax. The exact entitlement of the deceased to a salary at Rs.13,091/- was brought through an official witness, viz. of an Accountant from the office where the deceased was working. It makes it clear that the scales of the Cooperative Sugar Factory were revised and as per the State Pay Commission recommendations, the scales were revised w.e.f. 01.01.2006. If there was an order issued by the employer applying the scales as provided by the State, it shall be taken as the amount that actually accrued to the deceased. The document PW-5/A reads as an order that was passed by the employer applying the State Government recommendations and, therefore, actual pay must be taken as the pay that accrued to the estate of the deceased. It is seen that the income of the deceased was Rs.14,660/- providing for two increments from 01.01.2006 till the date of his death that occurred on 19.11.2007. The annual income even would have been less than Rs.2 lacs. I see no reason to apply deduction for income tax on Rs.14,660/- itself as monthly income and would apply a 1/3rd deduction and find the annual contribution to his family at Rs.1,17,000/-. The annual income even would have been less than Rs.2 lacs. I see no reason to apply deduction for income tax on Rs.14,660/- itself as monthly income and would apply a 1/3rd deduction and find the annual contribution to his family at Rs.1,17,000/-. The Tribunal has applied multiplier of 10 factoring the payment of the last drawn pay to the dependents as per the Government Beneficial Scheme of Compassionate Assistance. This Court’s view in New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Santosh Devi and others 2010(4) PLR 780 , was expressly found by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in FAO No.1322 of 2010 titled Reliance General Insurance Company Limited versus Purnima and others, rendered on 21.12.2012 as not laying down the correct law and the Court preferred the view taken by yet another Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Saroj Devi and others, [2012(2) Law Herald (P&H) 982 : 2012(1) Law Herald (Acc.) 247] : 2012 (1) PLR 761 . The Division Bench has resolved the controversy and has held that the amount paid under the beneficial scheme of State shall not be liable for deduction. On such a premise, the formula given by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case has to be applied. I will not see any justification for any further discretion for the Tribunal to meddle with the value of the multiplier. The appropriate multiplier for the person aged 51 years shall be 11 and take the dependence to be Rs.12,90,100/-. I will also add the amount under the conventional heads as awarded by the Tribunal already, Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses and last rites and make no modification as regards the same. 7. The award stands altered to the above extent. The appeal filed by the Insurance company in FAO No.909 of 2010 is dismissed. The appeal of the claimants in FAO No.1277 of 2010 is allowed to the above extent. The apportionment amongst the claimants shall be in the same manner as already provided by the Tribunal. 8. No argument was made with reference to FAO No. 910 of 2010 at the instance of the Insurance Company for damage to the vehicle. The appeal of the claimants in FAO No.1277 of 2010 is allowed to the above extent. The apportionment amongst the claimants shall be in the same manner as already provided by the Tribunal. 8. No argument was made with reference to FAO No. 910 of 2010 at the instance of the Insurance Company for damage to the vehicle. Consistent with the finding that the insured vehicle was responsible for the accident, the appeal FAO No.910 of 2010 challenging the award for assessment of damage to the motorcycle would also require to be dismissed and is also dismissed.