JUDGMENT : B. SREENIVAS GOWDA, J. 1. By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, appeals are heard and disposed of finally at the stage of admission. As all these appeals are arising out of a common road traffic accident and a common judgment of the Tribunal, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. It is a case of death of husband and wife in a road traffic accident leaving behind their minor children and aged parents of husband. In the case of death of husband Ashok Jadhav, his two minor children and parents and in the case of death of his wife Meera Jadhav, their minor children filed two separate claim petitions seeking compensation from the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as M.V. Act for short) before the MACT, Bijapur. 2. The Tribunal by the impugned common judgment but separate awards has awarded the compensation of Rs. 20,41,000/- for the death of Ashok Jadhav and Rs. 9,13,400/- for the death of his wife Meera Jadhav with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petitions till realisation. Claimants in both the cases aggrieved by the sum awarded by the Tribunal have preferred two separate appeals seeking enhancement. Similarly, the insurer of the offending vehicle has preferred two appeals challenging the awards of the Tribunal on the grounds of jurisdiction, negligence and quantum. 3. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perusing the judgment and awards of the Tribunal, the points that arise for our consideration are as under: "(1) Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the claim petitions? (2) Whether the finding of the Tribunal on negligence holding that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing Reg. No. MH-13-R-3437 by its driver is sustainable in law? (3) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in each case is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement or reduction?" (4) What order or award?" 4. No. MH-13-R-3437 by its driver is sustainable in law? (3) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in each case is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement or reduction?" (4) What order or award?" 4. Smt. Preeti Patil Melkundi, the learned counsel appearing for the insurer of the truck submits the accident having taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of Maharashtra State, and all the parties being residents of Neelagoan in Tulajapur Taluk of Maharashtra State, the MACT, Bijapur had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petitions and award compensation in favour of the claimants. Her submission is that the MACT, Bijapur should have dismissed both the claim petitions as not maintainable for want of jurisdiction. 5. Regarding negligence she submits deceased Ashok Jadhav was proceeding on his motorcycle along with his wife as a pillion rider on bypass road in a rash and negligent manner and the accident has occurred at the center of the road, as such he had also contributed to the accident, the Tribunal without considering this aspect of the matter has committed an error in holding that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck. by its driver. 6. Regarding quantum, she submits deceased Ashok Jadhav was working as a peon in a private educational institution on a temporary basis and therefore the Tribunal was not justified in adding 50% of his salary to his income towards future prospects while computing loss of dependency. In respect of death of his wife Meera Jadhav, her submission is admittedly she was working as a honorary lecturer on the basis of honorary salary of Rs. 4,000/-p.m. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in adding 50% of Rs. 4,000/- to her income towards future prospects and assessing her income at Rs. 6,000/- p.m. and consequently, the compensation awarded towards loss of dependency in both the cases is on the higher side. With the above submissions she prays for allowing the appeals filed by the insurance company and dismissing the appeals filed by the claimants. 7. Whereas, Sri. C.L. Koujalagi, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal either on jurisdiction or on negligence warranting interference of this Court. 8. 7. Whereas, Sri. C.L. Koujalagi, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal either on jurisdiction or on negligence warranting interference of this Court. 8. Regarding quantum, he submits in the case of death of Ashok Jadhav he had worked in Jawahar Arts, Science & Commerce College, Anadur, Taluk Tuljapur, District Osmanabad, for more than 12 years (from 15.07.1999 to 22.06.2012) up to the date of his death as a peon on permanent basis and in addition to that he was pursuing his education by studying B.A. and after completion of his graduation he could have got promotion as Second Division Assistant with higher pay scale. In the case of his wife Meera Jadhav she had done B.Ed., and M.Sc in Zoology. At the time of death she was working as lecturer in a private P.U. College temporarily on contract basis and she was getting consolidated pay of Rs. 4,000/- p.m. In addition to that she was teaching in Adarsh Caching Classes and earning Rs. 15,000/- p.m. Therefore in both the cases the Tribunal was justified in adding 50% of their salary to their income towards future prospects while confuting loss of dependency, He submits in the case of Ashok Jadhav, the Tribunal was not justified in deducting Rs. 100 p.m. towards P.P.F and taking his income at Rs. 13,340/- p.m. while computing loss of dependency. In the case of his wife Meera Jadhav, considering her educational qualifications the Tribunal was not justified in assessing her income at Rs. 4,000/- p.m. which is on the lower side. Therefore, he prays for allowing the appeals filed by the claimants and dismissing the appeals filed by the insurance company. 9. Regarding point No. 1. It is unfortunate that both husband and wife died in a road traffic accident leaving behind their minor children at their tender age and aged parents of husband. In the case of death of husband- Ashok Jadhav his minor children and aged parents are the claimants. In the case of death of his wife Meera Jadhav their minor children alone are the claimants and they filed two separate claim petitions before the MACT, Bijapur, seeking compensation under Section 166 of the M.V. Act from the owner and the insurer of the Truck. In the case of death of his wife Meera Jadhav their minor children alone are the claimants and they filed two separate claim petitions before the MACT, Bijapur, seeking compensation under Section 166 of the M.V. Act from the owner and the insurer of the Truck. As seen from the cause title of the judgment of the Tribunal, the address of the claimants in both the cases are shown as they are residents of Neelagaon in Tuljapur Taluka now residing at Chanegaon in Indi Taluka. The above facts would show that deceased husband and wife must have been residing at Neelagaon in Tuljapur Taluka, Osmanabad District of Maharashtra State by virtue of their employment and they must be permanent residents of Chanegaon in Indi Taluka of Bijapur District of Karnataka State. Otherwise there was no occasion for the claimants to mention their address as Chanegaon in Indi Taluka as their address at the time of filing of claim petitions. To ascertain the truth or otherwise of the said fact we interacted with the claimants who were present in the Court as to their residence, they replied in Kannada, even the minor claimants also responded to our query in Kannada which is the language of the State of Karnataka stating that after the death of deceased persons, they are residing at Chanegaon in Indi Taluk of Bijapur district of State of Karnataka. If the claimants had not been the residents of Karnataka they could not have responded to our query fluently in Kannada. Further it is pertinent to note that though the insurance company had contended in their written statement, about jurisdiction but they did not press this point at the time of trial and therefore the Tribunal has not framed an issue regarding jurisdiction and address the same in its judgment It is also to be seen that the insurer did not pray for framing of an issue regarding jurisdiction. Therefore, the Tribunal had no occasion to advert to their contentions regarding jurisdiction. Consequently, the claimants had no occasion to lead evidence with regard to jurisdiction. If the insurer had prayed the Tribunal for framing of an issue regarding jurisdiction and lead evidence, perhaps the claimants also could have lead evidence in support of their contention that they are residents of this State. Consequently, the claimants had no occasion to lead evidence with regard to jurisdiction. If the insurer had prayed the Tribunal for framing of an issue regarding jurisdiction and lead evidence, perhaps the claimants also could have lead evidence in support of their contention that they are residents of this State. Therefore, at this length of time the insurer in then- appeals cannot contend that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petitions and award compensation in favour of the claimants. Point No. 1 is answered accordingly and against the insurer. 10. Regarding Point No. 2, the insurer of truck who contends in these appeals that deceased Ashok Jadhav had also contributed to the accident, did not choose to examine the driver of the truck nor they lead any other evidence in this regard. Whereas the claimants in support of their contention that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Truck have not only examined claimant No. 3 father of deceased Ashok Jadhav as PW.3, and an eyewitness to the accident by name Vilas Somaling Gaikwad as PW.4 have also produced the FIR and the charge-sheet, which were marked as Exs. P1 and P5 respectively. The Tribunal considering the oral evidence adduced by the claimants particularly the evidence of PW.4 who is an eye-witness to the accident and the averments made in the FIR wherein it is stated that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Truck and the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed against the driver of the truck was justified in holding that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by its driver. We have carefully gone through the finding of the Tribunal on negligence and we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the said finding of the Tribunal warranting our interference. Hence, we confirm the finding of the Tribunal on negligence and point No. 2 is answered accordingly. 11. Now we have to see whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in each case is just and reasonable or not? 12. MFA No. 200225/2014 is filed by the minor children and parents of deceased Ashok Jadhav seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVC No. 1079/ 2012. 11. Now we have to see whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in each case is just and reasonable or not? 12. MFA No. 200225/2014 is filed by the minor children and parents of deceased Ashok Jadhav seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVC No. 1079/ 2012. Whereas MFA No. 31891/2013 is filed by the insurer of Truck seeking reduction of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the said MVC No. 1079/2012. 13. Claimants in support of their contention that deceased Ashok Jadhav by working as a peon on permanent basis in a private college namely Jawahar Arts, Science and Commerce College, Anadur in Tuljapur Taluka, was getting gross salary of Rs. 13,640/- p.m. have not only examined claimant No. 3-father of the deceased as PW.1 have also produced salary certificate, service register and study certificate of deceased through PW.1 which were marked as Exs. P6, P7 and P8 respectively. Ex. P8 was produced to show that he was pursuing his education by studying B.A. Degree through Open University of Yashavantrao Chavan Maharashtra Vidyapeeth, Nasik. In addition to that they have examined the office superintendent of, the said institution as PW.2 and through him also service certificate and salary certificate of deceased and the letter issued by the said institution in favour of PW.2 authorizing him to depose in the case and the service register extract of deceased were produced and marked as Exs. P16, P17, P18 and P20 respectively. The perusal of Exs. P6, P7, 16, 17 and 20 disclose deceased Ashok Jadhav had joined for service in the aforesaid institution on 15.07.1999 as a peon and worked in the said capacity up, to 22.06.2012 for a period of 12 years and at the time of his death he was getting gross salary of Rs. 13,640/- p.m. of which a sum of Rs. 6,980/- is deducted under various heads namely G.P.E., Professional Tax, L.I.C. P.P.F. and Path Sanstha. It is settled law that only amount paid towards Income Tax and Professional Tax are liable to be deducted/excluded while taking the salary income for the purpose of computing loss of dependency and therefore the Tribunal has committed an error in deducting Rs. 100/- towards PPF and Rs. 200/- towards Professional Tax and taking the gross salary of deceased at Rs. 13,340/- p.m. instead deducting only Rs. 100/- towards PPF and Rs. 200/- towards Professional Tax and taking the gross salary of deceased at Rs. 13,340/- p.m. instead deducting only Rs. 200/- towards Professional Tax and taking the gross salary of deceased at Rs. 13,440/- p.m. while computing loss of dependency. The Tribunal has also committed an error in adding 50% of the salary of deceased to his income towards future prospects on the ground that he was pursuing his studies by studying B.A. and after completion of his graduation he could have got promotion to the next cadre with higher pay scale. The salary certificate, experience certificate, service certificate and the service register extract of deceased produced at Exs. P6, P7, P16, P17 and P20 respectively would disclose deceased joined for service in a private college viz. Jawahar Arts, Science & Commerce College, Anadur, Taluk Tuljapur as peon on 15.07.1999 and he had worked in the said capacity up to 2012 without any promotion. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in adding 50% of his salary to his income towards future prospects and deducting 30% towards income tax. Considering the nature of appointment of deceased in a private college and increase in his future salary justice would be met if his income is taken at Rs. 15,000/- p.m. for the purpose of computing loss of dependency, which comes to Rs. 1,80,000/- p.a. and no amount is liable to be deducted towards income tax as his annual income comes within the exempted slab' of the income tax. 14. All the four claimants are the dependent legal heirs of deceased and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in deducting l/4th of his income towards his personal and living expenses and taking remaining 3/4th as his contribution towards family. The multiplier of 16 applied by the Tribunal based on the age of deceased who was 32 years old at the relevant point of time is also sound and proper.' If that is so the loss also dependency would work out to Rs. 21,60,000/- (Rs. 15,000/- x 3/4 x 12 x 16) and it is awarded against Rs. 20,16,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 15. It is to be seen that claimant Nos. 1 and 2 have lost their father at their young age of 8 and 6 years respectively, therefore, we award a sum of Rs. 70,000/- towards loss love and affection at the rate of Rs. 35,000/- each. Claimant Nos. 20,16,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 15. It is to be seen that claimant Nos. 1 and 2 have lost their father at their young age of 8 and 6 years respectively, therefore, we award a sum of Rs. 70,000/- towards loss love and affection at the rate of Rs. 35,000/- each. Claimant Nos. 3 and 4 who are the parents of the deceased have lost their son at their old age of 65 and 60 respectively and therefore we award a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards loss love and affection at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- each. In addition to that we award a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. The Tribunal having awarded the compensation towards loss of dependency was not justified in awarding Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate and therefore it is disallowed. 16. Considering the year of accident as 2012 we award interest at 9% p.a. on the enhanced compensation. 17. Hence, in the case of death of Ashok Jadhav claimants are entitled to the following compensation: 1 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 21,60,000/- 2 Towards loss of love and affection Rs. 1,00,000/- 3 Towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/- Total Rs. 22,85,000/- 18. Thus, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 22,85,000/- as against Rs. 20,41,000/- awarded by the Tribunal and they are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 2,44,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation 19. MFANo.200224/2014 is filed by minor children of deceased Ashok Jadhav and Meera Jadhav seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVC No. 1080/ 2012. Whereas MFA No. 31899/2013 is filed by the insurer of Truck seeking reduction of compensation awarded in the said MVC No. 1080/2012. 20. The claimants in support of their contention that their deceased mother Meera Jadhav had done B.Ed, and M.Sc. in Zoology and by working as a lecturer at P.U. College run by Indian Educational Institution Vadhal (New High School & Pre-University, Wadala) having subject of Biology from 2011 to 2012 on temporary contract basis was getting salary of Rs. 4,000/- p.m. have not only examined the father-in-law of the deceased that is grandfather of the claimants as PW.1, have also produced B.Ed. graduation certificate, M.Sc. 4,000/- p.m. have not only examined the father-in-law of the deceased that is grandfather of the claimants as PW.1, have also produced B.Ed. graduation certificate, M.Sc. Degree Certificate, experience certificate and, service certificate of deceased at Exs. P11, 12, 13 and P19 respectively. In addition to that they have examined a person from the aforesaid institution as PW.3 who in his cross-examination has stated that deceased was appointed for the academic year 2011-12 only. The claimants in support their contention that deceased Meera Jadhav teaching at Adarsh Coaching Classes was earning Rs. 15,000/- p.m. have not adduced any evidence. Considering the admission made by the claimants that deceased was working as lecturer in a private college on yearly temporary basis the Tribunal was not justified in adding 50% of her salary to her income towards future prospects. However, considering her age as 35 years, the year of accident as 2012, her educational qualification that she had done B.Ed. and M.Sc. and at the time of her death she was working as lecturer in a private P.U. college her income could be easily taken at Rs. 6,000/- p.m. even without adding any amount towards future prospects. As both the claimants are the dependent legal heir of deceased the Tribunal was justified in deducting l/3rd of the income of deceased towards her personal and living expenses and taking the remaining 2/3rd as her contribution towards her children. The multiplier of 16' applied by the Tribunal based on the age of deceased who was 35 years at the relevant of time is also sound and proper. If that is so, loss of dependency would work out to Rs. 7,68,000/- (Rs. 6,000/- x 2/3rd x 12 x 16) and the same has been rightly awarded by the Tribunal. 21. It is to be seen that the claimants have lost their mother at their young age of 8 and 6 yeas respectively and therefore we award a sum of Rs. 60,000/- towards loss of love and affection at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- each as against Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 22. In addition to that we award Rs. 25,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses of deceased. As Rs. 1,20,360/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses of deceased is based on the medical bills and prescriptions produced by the claimants the same is just and proper. 30,000/- each as against Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 22. In addition to that we award Rs. 25,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses of deceased. As Rs. 1,20,360/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses of deceased is based on the medical bills and prescriptions produced by the claimants the same is just and proper. The Tribunal having awarded compensation towards loss of dependency is not justified in awarding Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate and expectation of life and therefore it is disallowed. 23. Considering the year of accident as 20121 we award interest at 9% p.a. on the enhanced I compensation. 24. Hence, in case of death of Meera Jadhav claimants are entitled to the following compensation: 1 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 7,68,000/- 2 Towards loss of love and affection Rs. 60,000/- 3 Towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/- 4 Towards medical expenses Rs. 1,20,360/- Total Rs. 9,73,360/- 25. Thus the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 9,73,360/- as against Rs. 9,13,400/- awarded by the Tribunal and they are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 59,960/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation. 26. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed- in-part. The judgment and awards of the Tribunal are modified to the extent stated herein above. 27. The Insurance company is directed to deposit the additional compensation amount together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of payment within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 28. From out of the additional compensation awarded in MFA No. 200224/2014 a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with proportionate interest is to be invested in Fixed Deposit in the name of the claimants in any Nationalized Bank/Scheduled Bank/Grarneen Bank/Post Office in equal proportion till they attain the age of 21 years. The remaining Rs. 9,960/- with proportionate interest is to be released in favour of their grandparents to meet their educational expenses. 29. From out of the additional compensation awarded in MFA No. 200225/2014, 80% with proportionate interest is to be invested in Fixed Deposit in the name of minor claimants Nos. The remaining Rs. 9,960/- with proportionate interest is to be released in favour of their grandparents to meet their educational expenses. 29. From out of the additional compensation awarded in MFA No. 200225/2014, 80% with proportionate interest is to be invested in Fixed Deposit in the name of minor claimants Nos. 1 and 2 in any Nationalized Bank/Scheduled Bank/Grameen Bank/Post Office in equal proportion i.e. at the rate of 40% each till they attain the age of 21 years. Claimant Nos. 3 and 4 who are the grandparents of minor claimant Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to withdraw interest from the deposits of the minor claimants to meet the educational and other expenses of minor claimants. 30. From the remaining 20%, 10% with proportionate interest is to be invested in Fixed Deposit in the name of claimant Nos. 3 and 4 who are the grandparents of deceased Ashok Jadhav in equal proportion i.e. at the rate of 5% each in any Nationalized Bank/Grameen Bank/Post Office for a period of 3 years with a right of option for them to withdraw interest periodically. 31. The remaining 10% with proportionate interest is to be released in favour of claimant Nos. 3 and 4 in equal proportion. 32. The Tribunal while releasing the amount in favour of claimant Nos. 3 and 4 is also directed to issue FD slips of the claimants so that they can withdraw FD amount on maturity and the Bank/the Post Office in which the amount will be invested in FD is also directed to be released FD amount on maturity without insisting for further order from the Tribunal. The amount deposited, by the appellant- insurance company is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement in favour of the claimants in terms of this order. Office to draw award accordingly. No order as to costs.