JUDGMENT 1. Tipper lorry, bearing Registration No. PY01-AE-5479 and the passenger (Corporation) bus, PY01-Y-9182, collided together at the Cuddalore-Chidambaram Main Road, near Chellakuppam Angeneyar Temple, on 22.07.2007 at 00.50 hrs, causing death of Ravi, the driver working under the fourth respondent/Corporation Bus. 1.1. His wife, Latha, aged 34 years, daughters, Minor. Aruna, aged 13 years and Minor. Devi, aged 2 years and mother, Apporvam, aged 68 years, claimed compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- in a petition filed in M.C.O.P. No. 32 of 2008. 2. The Tribunal, by the order, dated 29.01.2009, awarded compensation of Rs. 4,92,956/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from 13.02.2002, i.e., the date of petition to till the date of deposit. The third respondent was directed to deposit the award amount, into Court, with permission to recover the amount from the second respondent. The first respondent is the driver, second respondent is the owner, third respondent is the insurer of the Tipper lorry, fourth respondent is the owner of the passenger bus and the fifth respondent is the insurer of the passenger bus. 2.1. While making quantification, the Tribunal considered the following aspects: (i) Monthly salary of the deceased was Rs. 9,083/- at the time of accident (Exhibit P-10 service and pay certificate) (ii) Date of birth of the deceased was 26.03.1962. Therefore, age was take as ‘45’. (iii) The deceased was having 14 years 8 months and 9 days of left over service. (iv) From the salary, 50% of the amount was deducted towards family pension, which the family members are entitled to get, after the death of the deceased. Monthly salary was taken at Rs. 4,542/-. (v) Batta per month payable to the deceased was Rs. 1,331/- during April 2007, Rs. 1,427/- during May 2007 and Rs. 1,473/- during June 2007. Therefore, the average batta per day was fixed at Rs. 50/-. This was not included in the monthly income of the deceased on the ground that it would be required for daily expenses of the deceased. (vi) 1/3rd deducted towards his personal expenses and the loss of dependency was calculated at Rs. 5,35,956/-. Loss of income calculated at Rs. 8,03,934/- (Rs. 4,542/- x 177 months). 2.2. Deducting payment of Rs. 90,000/- by the fourth respondent, loss of dependency was calculated at Rs. 4,45,956/-. Awarding a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, consortium at Rs. (vi) 1/3rd deducted towards his personal expenses and the loss of dependency was calculated at Rs. 5,35,956/-. Loss of income calculated at Rs. 8,03,934/- (Rs. 4,542/- x 177 months). 2.2. Deducting payment of Rs. 90,000/- by the fourth respondent, loss of dependency was calculated at Rs. 4,45,956/-. Awarding a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, consortium at Rs. 5,000/- to the first petitioner and loss of love and affection at Rs. 40,000/-, total was quantified at Rs. 4,52,956/-. The Tribunal has made an observation that considering the facts and circumstances, the same is ‘just compensation’. 3. Whether it is the just compensation, as per the settled principles and formula to be adopted, is the issue raised by the claimants in this appeal? 3.1. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides that the Claims Tribunal shall make an award determining the amount of compensation, which appears to be ‘just’. In the case of Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, 1999 ACJ 10 : AIR 1998 SC 3191 : (1999) 1 SCC 90 : LNIND 1998 SC 905 the Supreme Court held that the word ‘just’, as its nomenclature denotes, equitability, fairness and reasonableness having a large peripheral field. The largeness is, of course, not arbitrary; it is restricted by the conscience which is fair, reasonable and equitable, if it exceeds, it is termed as unfair, unreasonable, unequitable, not just. 3.2. The determination of compensation must be based on certain data establishing reasonable nexus between the loss incurred by the dependants of the deceased and the compensation to be awarded to them. 3.3. Whether, in this case, there is such a nexus is the issue raised in this appeal? 3.4. How to assess the income of the deceased is the prime question to be considered. Whether the income of the deceased as on the date of accident should be the criteria or the income of the deceased in future should be the criteria to choose the multiplicand, is the specific issue to be addressed. 3.5. This issue has been answered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Reshma Kumari and Others v. Madan Mohan and Another (Decided on 2 April, 2013), wherein, when the deceased was aged between 40 to 50 years, the addition of 30% of the salary towards future prospective income was found acceptable. 3.5. This issue has been answered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Reshma Kumari and Others v. Madan Mohan and Another (Decided on 2 April, 2013), wherein, when the deceased was aged between 40 to 50 years, the addition of 30% of the salary towards future prospective income was found acceptable. The relevant observations are as follows: “36. The standardization of addition to income for future prospects shall help in achieving certainty in arriving at appropriate compensation. We approve the method that an addition of 50% of actual salary be made to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years and the addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years and no addition should be made where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the actual salary shall mean actual salary less tax. In the cases where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increments, the actual income at the time of death without any addition to income for future prospects will be appropriate. A departure from the above principle can only be justified in extraordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases.” 4. Then the next question is, how much is the deduction to be made towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 4.1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Gopali, 2012 (6) SCALE 534 : AIR 2012 SC 3381 : (2012) 12 SCC 198 : LNIND 2012 SC 437 observed that where the family of the deceased consisted of five persons or more, having the income of Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- it is virtually impossible for him to spend more than 1/10th of his total income upon himself. It is more relevant that it has also indicated where this formula would become inapplicable and the observation is this, “what we have observed hereinabove may not apply to rich people living in urban areas, who can afford to spend a substantial amount of their income in clubs, hotels and on drink parties. It is more relevant that it has also indicated where this formula would become inapplicable and the observation is this, “what we have observed hereinabove may not apply to rich people living in urban areas, who can afford to spend a substantial amount of their income in clubs, hotels and on drink parties. In those cases, there may be a semblance of justification in applying the rule of 1/3rd deduction, but it would be wholly unrealistic to universally apply that rule in all cases”. 4.2. It would be appropriate to quote the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Santhosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Limited, where the Tribunals and the High Courts were directed to not to be oblivious to the hard realities of the life. The relevant observation reads thus: “15. It is also not possible to approve the view taken by the Tribunal which has been reiterated by the High Court albeit without assigning reasons that the deceased would have spent 1/3rd of his total earning, i.e., Rs. 500/-, towards personal expenses. It seems that the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge of the High Court were totally oblivious of the hard realities of the life. It will be impossible for a person whose monthly income is Rs. 1,500/- to spend 1/3rd on himself leaving 2/3rd for the family consisting of five persons. Ordinarily, such a person would, at best, spend 1/10th of his income on himself or use that amount as personal expenses and leave the rest for his family.” 4.3. Here is also, a case of driver, who has four dependants, to maintain. Out of which, one is the aged mother (aged 58), the two minors children, aged 13 and 2 respectively and wife, aged 34, can afford to spend 1/3rd towards the personal expenses, is the issue to be considered. 4.4. In this case, the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased. When the dependants are four in number and when the Tribunal has given a finding that batta, at the rate of Rs. 50/- per day, would go to the benefit of the pocket expenses of the driver, then deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased is justifiable, is the issue to be considered. 4.5. It will be relevant to refer the meaning of the word ‘Batta’. 50/- per day, would go to the benefit of the pocket expenses of the driver, then deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased is justifiable, is the issue to be considered. 4.5. It will be relevant to refer the meaning of the word ‘Batta’. It is defined in Unabridged Dictionary as the amount payable either towards travelling allowances or towards food and the reproduction of the description given is this: “Full Definition of batta 1. India : subsistence money (as for a witness or prisoner) : maintenance or traveling expenses of an employee 2 .India : extra pay; esp : an extra allowance on special grounds to British officers, soldiers, and others serving in India Origin of batta In Hindi, bhatt? means ‘allowance for food’, In Skt bhakta means, ‘something distributed or enjoyed, food’.” 4.6. Such being the case, when the batta paid is towards meeting the personal expenses of the driver (deceased), then the Tribunal is not justified in deducting any amount of money towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Moreover, when the dependants are large in number, deduction of 1/3rd towards the personal expenses is also not justified. 5. The deduction on account of family pension to be received by the members of the family is justifiable is the next issue. 5.1. This issue is straightaway answered by this Court, in C.M.A. (MD) No. 219 of 2012 (S.Vijaya and Another v. K. Karthikeyan and Another), wherein it is held: “4. The basic principle in award of compensation is that what is lost on account of death of the deceased has to be awarded as compensation. Irrespective of the mode of accident, even in case of natural death of the deceased the family pension would go to the benefit of the members of the family. Therefore, the receipt of family pension by the members of the family cannot be construed as a pecuniary advantage derived on account of the death of the deceased in the accident....” 5.2. Therefore, it is clear that the deduction of 50% of the salary towards pension is not justified. The details of calculation with regard to quantum of compensation would be as per the data furnished here-under: Monthly salary Rs. 9,083 (rounded off) Rs. 9,000/- Batta Rs. 1,500/- Total Rs. 10,500/- Deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses-Rs. 7,875/- 30% increase towards future prospective increase in income (Rs. The details of calculation with regard to quantum of compensation would be as per the data furnished here-under: Monthly salary Rs. 9,083 (rounded off) Rs. 9,000/- Batta Rs. 1,500/- Total Rs. 10,500/- Deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses-Rs. 7,875/- 30% increase towards future prospective increase in income (Rs. 7,875/- x 30%) (rounded off) Rs. 2,360/- Total Rs. 10,235/- Multiplier to be adopted ‘13’ (Rs. 15,96,660/-, rounded off) Rs. 15,97,000/- Deduction of 10% towards income-tax Rs. 1,59,700/- Total Rs. 14,37,300/- Loss of consortium to P-1 Rs. 25,000/- Loss of consortium to P-1 Rs. 25,000/- Loss of love and affection to P2 & P3 Rs. 50,000/- Loss of love and affection to P4 Rs. 10,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 15,32,000/- 6. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed, enhancing the total compensation from Rs. 4,92,956/- to Rs. 15,32,000/-, and the enhanced amount is payable with interest at 7.5% per annum, within a period of six weeks, from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The first appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/-, the second and third appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- each and the fourth appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,82,000/-, along with proportionate interest. On such deposit, appellants 1 and 4 are entitled to withdraw their due share and the amount awarded to appellants 2 and 3 shall be kept in fixed deposit, in any one of the Nationalised banks, till they attain majority and the interest on such deposit, would be payable to the first appellant directly by the Bank, once in three months, to be spent for the benefit of minors. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. Appeal partly allowed.