Judgment 1. Heard. The appeal is admitted on 8.10.2009. Record and proceeding received. Perused. 2. The appellant Insurance company criticized the award recorded by the learned Member, M.A.C.T. Jalgaon in M.A.C.P. No. 267 of 2001 dated 15.9.2008 awarding Rs.16,91,412/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. 3. Mr. Gatne, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company says, the award calls for interference on three counts viz. (a) multiplier was inappropriate, (b) salary details are puzzling and (c) panchnama of spot vibrantly demonstrates the case of contributory negligence of the deceased with the tanker driver. 4. The deceased unfortunately at his 32 years of age while plying his bike, came from the opposite direction of the tanker ran at a right rear wheel. He was crushed over head, succumbed due to fracture at several vital body parts. F.I.R. of the driver was immediately lodged depicting as to what has happened at the spot. 5. The appellant Insurance Company in its written statement did not dispute the Insurance policy. It did not venture to examine the witness. Mr. Gatne says, the driver of the vehicle was attempted to be served by paper publication hence, there was no source to get him examination. He reiterates to rely on the panchnama to explain the situation at the spot. He has said, subsequent pronouncement of Supreme Court in respect of computing loss of future prospects was not in operation and therefore, the said scale could not be a benediction to the claimants (respondents in the appeal). 6. Mr. Dhorde, learned counsel for the claimants says that personal prospects has been lost by drawing of 1/3 deduction, as it is not in consonance with the dependency and the heads on consortium, funeral expenses warrant modification. He says, it is not the case of contributory negligence and he has urged for enhancement though there is no cross objection or cross appeal from the claimants. 7. By the assistance of both learned counsel, original record is perused, including salary certificate Exh.58, produced by the Chief Officer Shri Shinde and also Exh.67 produced at the instance of Court, unfortunately, there is variance in both the salary certificates. First one shows gross salary of deceased of Rs.12,032/- p.m. while Exh.67 shows such gross salary to be Rs.12,943.30, as on September, 2000. Total deductions of Rs.9356.05 was also shown. First one shows gross salary of deceased of Rs.12,032/- p.m. while Exh.67 shows such gross salary to be Rs.12,943.30, as on September, 2000. Total deductions of Rs.9356.05 was also shown. In the light of divergent salary certificate, the one which has been initially produced showing his salary to Rs.12,032/- produced by the official witness, Chief Officer, Shri Shinde at Exh.58, shall have to be accepted. Having gone through the chart of deduction, it is apparent that compulsory deduction from salary of an employee will have the same deduction even for grant of compensation. Such deduction in the instant case are Rs.200/- towards professional tax, Rs.200/- towards income tax, Rs.125/- towards Health Premium. The total deduction of Rs.525/-. Thus, from salary of Rs.12,032/-, Rs.525/- needs to be deducted. The net gross salary of the deceased would be Rs.11,507/-. The deceased admittedly was 32 years old. By applying the scale demonstrated in celebrity judgment in the matter of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another - 2009 (5) Mh.L.J. 775, the multiplier would be 16. Thus, the annual income of deceased by above calculation would be Rs.1,38,084/-. To the said amount, by applying multiplier 16, compensation amount would be Rs.22,09,344/-. Now from this amount, 1/3 personal expenses in the light of very judgment will be required to be deducted, which comes to Rs.7,36,448/-. The net sum receivable by claimants will be Rs.14,72,928/- by way of dependency. The learned Member has awarded Rs.2,000/- as funeral expenses, Rs.5000/- for loss of consortium and Rs.2,500/- for loss of estate, making the figure Rs.9,500/-. Considering the expenses required to be spent even for funeral or loss of consortium or loss of estate, total figure is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-, Thus total comes to Rs.15,22,928/-. 8. The repeated submissions of Mr. Gatne about holding the deceased to be equally negligent in the mishap or the accident cannot be accepted, as even if one reads F.I.R. or the spot panchnama, it does not demonstrate that deceased was at fault. The ordinary optimum precaution expected from the driver of the tanker were seemingly not adhered to. There cannot be an aspect of sentimental cajoling in favour of the claimants. However, at the same time, the scenario at the spot reflected in two documents though cannot be obliterated, will not thwart liability. The ordinary optimum precaution expected from the driver of the tanker were seemingly not adhered to. There cannot be an aspect of sentimental cajoling in favour of the claimants. However, at the same time, the scenario at the spot reflected in two documents though cannot be obliterated, will not thwart liability. In the situation, I am not inclined to accept the theory of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. 9. Conspectus of above facts, calls of interference of the award as under:- I. The appeal is partly allowed. No costs. II. The order of learned M.A.C.T. Jalgaon dated 15.9.2008 is modified from Rs.16,91,412/- to Rs.15,22,928/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. From date of petition. The other details of disbursement, bank deposits, as indicated by the learned Member to remain in force., III. Excess amount with accrued interest be paid over to the appellant. IV. The amount deposited by the Insurance Company with accrued interest receivable by claimants be remitted to the learned Member, M.A.C.T. at Jalgaon with statutory deposit.