CAV JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J. [1.0] Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 12.05.2006 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1263/2000 by which the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the said claim petition and has awarded a total sum of Rs.11,95,000/towards compensation for the death of deceased Rajubhai @ Rajendrabhai Patel under different heads with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. thereon from the date of application till realization, the appellants herein – original claimants have preferred the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. [2.0] The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under: [2.1] That in a vehicular accident which took place on 28.04.2000, the deceased who at the relevant time was driving his scooter met with an accident with Jeep No.MH30B23 which at the relevant time was being driven by the original opponent No.1 and sustained serious injuries and died on the spot. Therefore, the original claimants – parents, widow and children of the deceased file the claim petition before the learned Tribunal claiming Rs.50 lacs towards compensation under different heads, for the death of the deceased Rajubhai @ Rajendrabhai Patel. [2.2] It was the case on behalf of the original claimants that the driver of the jeep – original opponent No.1 was sole negligent for the accident. It was also the case on behalf of the original claimants that the deceased at the relevant time was aged 39 years and was serving with the GSFC and was earning Rs.13,000/per month. It was also the case on behalf of the original claimants that the deceased was also earning Rs.1,500/per month by way of overtime. Therefore, the original claimants claimed Rs.50 lacs towards compensation for the death of the deceased. [2.3] The claim petition was opposed by the original opponent No.2 – owner of the jeep by filing the written statement at Exh.20 as well as the insurance company – opponent No.3 – insurer of the jeep involved in the accident by filing the written statement at Exh.14. Both, the opponent Nos.2 and 3 denied all the averments in the claim petition including the contention on behalf of the original claimants that the driver of the jeep was sole negligent. Therefore, it was requested to dismiss the claim petition. Both, the opponent Nos.2 and 3 denied all the averments in the claim petition including the contention on behalf of the original claimants that the driver of the jeep was sole negligent. Therefore, it was requested to dismiss the claim petition. [2.4] That the claimants led the following evidences, oral as well as documentary. List of Oral evidence: Sr.No. Documents Exh.No. 01. Deposition of Neemaben Rajendrakumar Patel – original applicant No.3 – widow of the deceased 29 02. Deposition of Ismailbhai A. Ghanchi 33 03. Deposition of Ashokbhai R. Patel 37 List of documentary evidence Sr.No. Documents Exh.No. 01. Copy of the FIR 27 02. Copy of the panchnama of the place of accident 28 03. Copy of the P.M. Note 26 04. Statement as well as the pay slip of the deceased 38 05. IT Form No.16 of the deceased 46 06. Ration Card 49 That the learned Tribunal framed the issues at Exh.24. [2.5] That on appreciation of evidence the learned Tribunal has held the original opponent No.1 – driver of the jeep sole negligent for the accident due to which the deceased sustained injuries and ultimated died. On appreciation of evidence the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.11,70,000/under the head of future economic loss considering the income of the deceased at the relevant time at Rs.6,500/per month. That thereafter awarding a further sum of Rs.10,000/towards pain, shock and suffering to the deceased, Rs.10,000/towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/towards funeral expenses, by impugned judgment and award, the learned Tribunal has awarded total Rs.11,95,000/towards compensation under different heads with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of application till realization. [2.6] Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, the original claimants have preferred the present appeal to enhance the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. [3.0] Shri Vishal Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Shri Mehul Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs.11,95,000/only towards compensation for the death of the deceased. [3.1] It is further submitted by Shri Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants that while awarding future economic loss the learned Tribunal has materially erred in considering the income of the deceased at Rs.6,500/per month. [3.1] It is further submitted by Shri Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants that while awarding future economic loss the learned Tribunal has materially erred in considering the income of the deceased at Rs.6,500/per month. It is submitted that while considering the income of the deceased at the time of accident, the learned Tribunal has not at all considering the perks/allowances which were received by the deceased, which if the deceased would not have died, the family members would have continued to receive the same. It is submitted that at the time of accident over and above the basis pay and the dearness allowance, the deceased was getting other perks/allowances such as stipend, HRA, city allowance, washing allowance, shift allowance, overtime allowance, compensatory allowance, education allowance, conveyance allowance, LIC, pension contribution, PF contribution etc. It is submitted that as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Indira Srivastava and Ors. reported in AIR 2008 SC 845 (1) in an accident compensation case while considering the income of the victim, not only pay package but perks which are beneficial to his family are also required to be considered. It is submitted that therefore the learned Tribunal after deducting the income tax as well as the professional tax, ought to have considered the income of the deceased atleast at Rs.12,000/p.m. and thereby ought to have awarded the future economic loss accordingly. [3.2] It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has further materially erred in awarding Rs.10,000/only towards the loss of estate. It is submitted that as such the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of consortium. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.26,95,000/towards compensation under different heads with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization instead of the interest awarded by the learned Tribunal at 7.5% p.a. Making above submissions, it is requested to allow the present appeal and enhance the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. [4.0] Present appeal is opposed by Shri K.K. Nair, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original opponent No.3 – insurance company. It is submitted that it is true that along with basic pay and the dearness allowance the deceased was also getting other perks/allowances. [4.0] Present appeal is opposed by Shri K.K. Nair, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original opponent No.3 – insurance company. It is submitted that it is true that along with basic pay and the dearness allowance the deceased was also getting other perks/allowances. However, all the perks/allowances which the deceased was receiving are not required to be included while considering the income of the victim while awarding the future economic loss. It is submitted that there are certain allowances which go with the person and/or they were paid to the employee for his personal use. It is submitted that therefore the allowances like washing allowance, conveyance allowance are not required to be included in the “income” of the victim. It is submitted that similarly even the overtime allowances is also not required to be included in the “income” as the overtime is paid to the employee for the overtime work done by him and therefore, as such the same cannot be included in the “income” of the victim for the purpose of awarding future economic loss. In support of his above submissions, Shri Nair, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the insurance company has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Asha and Others vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another reported in (2008)2 SCC 774 as well as the decision of the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of S. Narayanamma and Ors. vs. Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Telecommuincations and Ors. reported in 2002 ACC 582. However, Shri Nair, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the insurance company is not in a position to justify awarding Rs.10,000/only towards loss of estate and not awarding any amount towards loss of consortium. [5.0] Heard learned advocates appearing for respective parties at length. Perused the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal and the entire evidence on record and we have reappreciated the entire evidence on record. At the outset it is required to be noted that by impugned judgment and award a total sum of Rs.11,95,000/is awarded under different heads as under: Rs.11,70,000 Future economic loss Rs. 10,000 Pain, shock and suffering Rs. 10,000 Loss of estate Rs. At the outset it is required to be noted that by impugned judgment and award a total sum of Rs.11,95,000/is awarded under different heads as under: Rs.11,70,000 Future economic loss Rs. 10,000 Pain, shock and suffering Rs. 10,000 Loss of estate Rs. 5,000 Funeral expenses Rs.11,95,000 Total amount From the impugned judgment and award it appears that while awarding the future economic loss the learned Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at the time of accident at Rs.6,500/p.m. and after making double of the same and thereafter deducting by half, the learned Tribunal has considered the prospective income at Rs.9,500/p.m. and thereafter deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has considered the dependency at Rs.6,500/p.m. and applying multiplier of 15, has awarded Rs.11,70,000/under the head of future economic loss. However, it is required to be noted that while considering the income of the deceased the learned Tribunal has not considered at all with respect to the perks/allowances received by the deceased. From the documentary evidences produced on record i.e. salary slip, it is not in dispute that the deceased was also getting other allowances such as stipend, HRA, city allowance, washing allowance, shift allowance, overtime allowance, compensatory allowance, education allowance, conveyance allowance, LIC, pension contribution, PF contribution etc. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indira Srivastava and Ors. (Supra), the amounts which were required to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for computation for his monthly income. It is observed and held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision that while considering the accident compensation and considering the income of the victim, not only pay package but perks which are beneficial to his family, also must be considered. However, at the same time, all the perks/allowances which were received by the deceased employee are not required to be included in the income for the purpose of awarding future economic loss. There are certain allowances which go with the person and which are paid for the personal use and for the concerned employee and they are paid by virtue of his profession. Thus, while considering the income of the victim/deceased employee the allowances like washing allowance, conveyance allowance are not required to be included while determining the income for the purpose of awarding future economic loss. Thus, while considering the income of the victim/deceased employee the allowances like washing allowance, conveyance allowance are not required to be included while determining the income for the purpose of awarding future economic loss. It is required to be noted that in the present case as such even the conveyance allowance was reimbursed on producing the vouchers and conveyance allowances are paid to an employee for the purpose of his conveyance/traveling expenses from his residence to office and office to residence. Under the circumstances, the said conveyance allowance is not required to be included in the income of the victim for the purpose of awarding future economic loss. Similarly, the overtime allowances also is not required to be included in the income of the victim for the purpose of awarding future economic loss, as the overtime allowance changes is paid for the period the employee has worked overtime. Overtime allowance is never steady and/or never claimed as a matter of right. On the death of the employee naturally there will not be any overtime work and therefore, the same was not required to be paid and therefore, the overtime allowance is also not required to be included in the income of the victim for the purpose of awarding future economic loss. It also cannot be disputed and it is not disputed that while awarding the future economic loss and determining / considering the income of the deceased employee the statutory deductions such as income tax and professional tax is also required to be deducted. From the evidence on record, it appears that Rs.6,993/p.a. was being deducted towards the income tax and Rs.700/p.m. was deducted towards professional tax in the entire year and if the same is divided by 12, it would come to Rs.641/p.m. Therefore, while determining the income of the deceased, amount of Rs.641/is also required to be deducted. From the evidence on record, it appears that Rs.6,993/p.a. was being deducted towards the income tax and Rs.700/p.m. was deducted towards professional tax in the entire year and if the same is divided by 12, it would come to Rs.641/p.m. Therefore, while determining the income of the deceased, amount of Rs.641/is also required to be deducted. Under the circumstances and including other allowances which were being paid to the deceased such as stipend, HRA, city allowance, LIC premium, pension contribution, PF contribution and deducting Rs.641/towards income tax and professional tax, the income of the deceased at the relevant time was required to be considered at Rs.9,306/p.m. The deceased at the relevant time was aged 41 years and therefore, 30% of the aforesaid is required to be added towards future rise in income and therefore, the prospective income would come to Rs.12,098/p.m. and thereafter deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased (considering the number of dependents), the loss of dependency would come to Rs.9,073/p.m. and as the deceased was aged about 41 years, applying multiplier of 14, claimants shall be entitled to Rs.15,24,264/under the head of future economic loss instead of Rs.11,95,000/as awarded by the learned Tribunal. Thus, to the aforesaid extent, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is required to be modified. [5.1] The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/only under the head of loss of estate and has not awarded any amount towards loss of consortium. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the claimant shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs.50,000/under the head of loss of estate, loss of consortium in all. The amount of Rs.10,000/awarded under the head of pain, shock and suffering (as the deceased survived for two days and was hospitalized) is not required to be interfered with. Similarly, the amount of Rs.5,000/under the head of funeral expenses also is not required to be interfered with. The sum and substance of the aforesaid would be that the claimant shall be entitled to Rs.15,89,264/towards compensation under different heads with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization. To the aforesaid extent the impugned judgment and award is required to be modified and the present appeal is required to be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. To the aforesaid extent the impugned judgment and award is required to be modified and the present appeal is required to be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. [6.0] In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, appeal succeeds in part. Impugned judgment and award dated 12.05.2006 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Vadodara in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1263/2000 is hereby modified to the extent and it is held that the original claimant shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs.15,89,264/with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. thereon from the date of claim petition till realization from all the opponents more particularly original opponent No.3 – Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Present appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.