JUDGMENT : These two appeals arise out of judgment and award dated 14.05.2012 in M.V.C.No.60/2012 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – IX, Bellary (‘Tribunal’ for short). Insurer has filed M.F.A. No.24620/2012 challenging the quantum. Claimants have filed M.F.A. No.24380/2012 for enhancement. 2. One Shailesh succumbed to injuries sustained in a road traffic accident which occurred on 19.11.2011 involving an offending Tractor Trailer and the motorcycle which the victim was riding. 3. Claimants presented the instant petition for compensation. During trial, three witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimants and 23 exhibits were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no witness was examined. Insurance policy was marked by consent. After framing relevant issues and considering material on record, Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.47,20,116/- with 6% interest. Both Insurer and claimants are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation. Hence, these appeals. 4. Heard Sri Lakshmikant Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri S.K. Kayakamath, learned counsel for the insurer. 5. Sri S.K. Kayakamath submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded is disproportionately high. The evidence brought on record by the claimants does not conclusively establish the earning capacity. Deceased Shailesh was on probation and not a permanent employee. Tribunal erred in construing conveyance allowance as a part of salary. Adverting to Ex.P7, he submitted that Tribunal has deducted only components, namely, Income Tax and Professional Tax and taken the earning capacity of the deceased as Rs.34,431/- per month. According to him, the payment made to the deceased under the heads Conveyance Allowance, Medical Reimbursement, Fixed Production Incentive and Special Allowance ought to have been deducted while computing the net earning capacity. Assailing the award with above submissions, he prayed for allowing the appeal filed by the insurer and to dismiss the appeal filed by the claimants. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants contended that the salary of deceased was in fact revised with effect from 01.04.2011 as is evidenced by Ex.P20, a communication dated 12.05.2011 issued by the employer. Therefore, according to him, Tribunal erred in accepting Ex.P7 and considering the gross salary as only Rs.37,054/-. So far as the deductions are concerned, he contended that except Income Tax and Professional Tax, all other components reflecting in the salary slip are part and parcel of remuneration to which deceased was entitled. Therefore, according to him, Tribunal erred in accepting Ex.P7 and considering the gross salary as only Rs.37,054/-. So far as the deductions are concerned, he contended that except Income Tax and Professional Tax, all other components reflecting in the salary slip are part and parcel of remuneration to which deceased was entitled. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have noted the revision in pay while computing compensation. He further contended that deceased was an young Engineer aged 29 years, holding a B.E. degree and had a promising career. Consequently, loss of future prospects also ought to have been added by the Tribunal. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing his appeal by enhancing compensation and to dismiss insurer’s appeal. 7. Occurrence of accident and liability of insurer are not in dispute. Thus, only the aspect of quantifying ‘just compensation’ remains for consideration. 8. Ex.P7 is the pay slip of the deceased issued by the employer. It shows that he was earning Rs.37,054/-. Rs.7,611/- have been deducted under various heads. Net pay is indicated as Rs.29,443/-. 9. The intention of the legislature in enacting Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 among other things is to ensure that victim in a road traffic accident is awarded a ‘just compensation’. Learned counsel for the insurer has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Indira Srivastava and others, (2008) 2 SCC 763 in support of his appeal. We have carefully perused the said judgment. Hon’ble Supreme Court after adverting to several judgments which included judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court, Madras High Court and Andra Pradesh High Court held that the expression ‘just’ must be given a logical meaning and it cannot be a bonanza for source of profit and while considering as to what would be just and equitable, all facts and circumstances must be taken into consideration. 10. Assailing the permanent nature of employment, learned counsel for the insurer submitted that deceased was still under probationary period and therefore, the quantum of income earned by him could not be construed as steady and permanent. 11. In the light of the rival contentions of the parties, following points arise for our consideration: “(i) Whether the perquisites such as HRA, Conveyance Allowance, Incentive, Fixed Production Incentive and Special Allowance could be considered as a part of remuneration while computing the compensation? 11. In the light of the rival contentions of the parties, following points arise for our consideration: “(i) Whether the perquisites such as HRA, Conveyance Allowance, Incentive, Fixed Production Incentive and Special Allowance could be considered as a part of remuneration while computing the compensation? (ii) Whether income of deceased could be considered as permanent and steady in nature?” Re: point No.1: 12. Accident has occurred on 19.11.2011. Ex.P7 is the pay slip for the month of October, 2011 and the same can be considered as relevant for the purpose of assessing the income. The total earnings of the deceased as per the said pay slip is Rs.37,054/per month and the same has been bifurcated under various heads such as Basic, HRA, Conveyance Allowance, Medical Reimbursement, Incentive, Fixed Production Incentive and Special Allowance. Deductions include PF, Income Tax, Professional Tax, Salary Advance, Telephone Deduction and Transport. In case of death of a victim in a motor vehicle accident case, compensation towards loss of dependency is awarded to the dependants. While computing this component, what is required to be deduced is the quantum of money that would have been available for the benefit of the family if the victim was alive. Exs.P5, P6 and P7 are the pay slips for the months August 2011, September 2011 and October 2011. A careful perusal of these three pay slips reveal that earnings categorized under the heads Basic, HRA, Conveyance Allowance, Medical reimbursement, Fixed Production Incentive and Special Allowance have remained constant. The portion of salary paid under the head ‘incentive’ is different in each month and is thus a variable. The minimum incentive earned is Rs.300/for the month October 2011. A logical analysis of these pay slips would lead us to infer that the constant factors are being paid under different nomenclature. The variable factor is the sum paid under the head ‘incentive’. In the circumstances, except ‘incentive’ sums paid under all other nomenclature, namely, HRA, Conveyance Allowance, Medical Reimbursement, Incentive, Fixed Production Incentive and Special Allowance can be considered as the wages earned by the victim and the same would be available for the benefit of the family. Accordingly, we hold that wages earned by the deceased under various nomenclatures described in the pay slip except ‘incentive’ formed part of his earning. Re: point No.2: 13. Accordingly, we hold that wages earned by the deceased under various nomenclatures described in the pay slip except ‘incentive’ formed part of his earning. Re: point No.2: 13. The next ground urged in support of this appeal by the learned counsel for the appellant is with regard to the permanent nature of the job of the deceased. It was contended that as on the date of accident, the deceased was still on probation which was extended from time to time and therefore, the wages earned by him ought not to be construed as regular and permanent in nature. Admittedly, the deceased was a Mechanical Engineer with a B.E. degree, as evidenced by Ex.P9. He was appointed on 01.09.2008 to the post of Graduate Engineer Trainee, as per Ex.P18. Ex.P20 is a communication by the Management indicating that while appreciating and recognizing the contribution and services of the deceased, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Manager with effect from 1st April 2011. In the backdrop of Ex.P20, the argument of the learned counsel for the insurer that the deceased did not have a permanent job and steady source of income is rendered untenable and is noted only to be rejected. Accordingly, we answer this point in favour of the claimants holding that the deceased had a permanent job and a good prospect in his career. Consequently, respectfully following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others reported in (2012) 6 SCC 421 , we hold that 50% of income of the deceased at the time of his death will have to be added towards loss of future prospects. 14. In furtherance of our answers to the points for consideration, what remains is quantification of compensation. Perusal of the judgment shows that compensation awarded under different heads are inadequate and need enhancement. 15. To quantify the loss of dependency, in our view it would be just and appropriate to keep Ex.P7 as the bench mark to assess the earning capacity. The total earnings of the deceased per month as per Ex.P7 is Rs.37,054/-. The variable factor namely the Incentive of Rs.300/-, Income Tax of Rs.2,423/- and the Professional Tax of Rs.200/- requires to be deducted from out of the earnings. Deceased had three dependants. Therefore, 1/3rd of his earning will have to be deducted towards his personal expenses. The total earnings of the deceased per month as per Ex.P7 is Rs.37,054/-. The variable factor namely the Incentive of Rs.300/-, Income Tax of Rs.2,423/- and the Professional Tax of Rs.200/- requires to be deducted from out of the earnings. Deceased had three dependants. Therefore, 1/3rd of his earning will have to be deducted towards his personal expenses. After deducting Incentive, Income Tax and Professional Tax, the earnings of deceased would come to Rs.34,131/-. Adding 50% (Rs.17,065/-) towards loss of future prospects, the earning capacity of the deceased at the time of his death works out to Rs.51,196/-. He was aged 29 years. Hence, applicable multiplier is 17. With these inputs, we quantify the compensation as under: Sl. Nos. Particulars Amount 1. Towards loss of dependency (51,196 – 1/3 X 12 X 17) Rs.69,62,656/­- 2. Towards loss of consortium Rs. 1,00,000/-­ 3. Towards loss of love and affection Rs. 50,000/­- 4. Towards transportation of body and funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/­- Total Rs.71,37,655/-­ Less: Compensation awarded by Tribunal Rs.47,20,116/-­ Total enhancement Rs.24,17,540/­- 16. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we pass the following: ORDER (i) Appeal filed by the insurer in M.F.A. No.24620/2012 is dismissed. The amount in deposit, in this appeal shall be transferred to the Tribunal. (ii) Appeal filed by the claimants in M.F.A. No.24380/2012 is allowed in part. Respondent-insurer is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.24,17,540/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of deposit within a period of eight weeks from today. (iii) The disbursement of the compensation shall be made in terms of the award of the Tribunal. No costs.