JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. This First Appeal From Order has come up under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, arising from the judgment and order dated 26.07.2003, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Judge, SC/ST Act), Farrukhabad, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 206 of 2000. 2. On 12.11.2000 at about 8 A.M., Sri Harbir Singh, claimant no.1 accompanied by his wife boarded Bus No. UP 75/7720, run by U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "UPSRTC") from Bus Stand, Farrukhabad. They were proceeding to Kanpur but having some discomfort in the bus they purchased ticket only upto Kannauj. The bus collided with a tree between Samdhan and Gursahai Ganj. Claimant Harbir Singh and his wife Gurmeet Kaur who were occupying front seat, opposite to dirver seat, received injuries. The injuries sustained by Smt. Gurmeet Singh were quite severe, leaving her unconscious. The Driver and Conductor of the bus ran away from the spot and lodged a report at Police Station taking plea of mechanical defect. The aforesaid couple along with other injured persons rushed to PHC Gursahai Ganj where Sri Harbir Singh and his wife could be provided only first aid and were shifted to Lohia Hospital Barahpur, Farrukhabad. In the process, Smt. Gurmeet Singh lost her life. Sri Harbir Singh lodged an FIR at P.S. Kotwali, Farrukhabad on 13.11.2000, after death of his wife. 3. Sri Harbir Singh, husband of deceased and their two sons Sudeep Singh and Aman Chhabra filed claim petition under Act 1988, claiming compensation etc. In the petition, besides other facts, it was also stated that age of deceased Gurmeet Kaur was around 44 years. She was doing business in electronics being a working partner of M/S Punjabi General Store. She had filed income tax returns for the years 1998-1999, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. Her sons were studying at Ajmer and Delhi and to meet high expenses of the family, deceased had joined LIC as agent in May 2000. She received commission of Rs. 13,630/- upto November 2000. The claimants said that the deceased was earning Rs. 7500/- per month from the two sources i.e., from the business as well as LIC agent. Compensation was claimed on various grounds i.e., loss of income, loss of service, love and affection to minor, loss of consortium to claimant no.1 to 3. 4. 13,630/- upto November 2000. The claimants said that the deceased was earning Rs. 7500/- per month from the two sources i.e., from the business as well as LIC agent. Compensation was claimed on various grounds i.e., loss of income, loss of service, love and affection to minor, loss of consortium to claimant no.1 to 3. 4. The UPSRTC while contesting the claim petition, admitted accident but claimed that it was due to a technical defect (failure of steering wheel) and not on account of rash and negligent driving of bus by the Driver. However, it also denied the very factum of traveling of deceased Gurmeet Kaur in the bus and sustaining any injury on account of the aforesaid accident. Subsequently UPSRTC got its written statement amended and it was also pleaded that claimant no.1 Harbir Singh had remarried, hence not entitled to any compensation. It also denied that Harbir Singh was traveling in the bus. 5. The Tribunal formulated following issues on 11.7.2003: "1. Whether on 12.11.2000 at about 9.15 A.M. Somewhere between Samdhan and Gursahaiganj, P.S. Gursahaiganj District, Farrukhabad a Bus accident occurred involving Roadways Bus No. 75/7720 on account of the rash and negligent driving of the Bus driver and in the accident Smt. Gurmeet Kaur suffered injuries and died as a result thereof? 2. What amount of compensation the claimants are entitled to receive from the opposite party? 3. And other relief?" 6. While adjudicating upon issue no.1, the Tribunal found that claimant no.1 Harbir Singh and his wife both were actually travelling by the aforesaid bus and met accident and on account of injuries sustained by Smt. Gurmeet Kaur therein, she died. With respect to cause of accident, it found that the defendant UPSRTC could not adduce evidence that the bus was properly maintained. UPSRTC neither filed any fitness certificate nor technical inspection report of the bus verifying technical defect, causing accident. Issue no.1 was answered in favour of the claimants. 7. While considering issue no.2, after examining evidence on record, the Tribunal determined annual income of deceased as Rs. 55000/- . Applying multiplier of 13, and deducting 1/3rd income towards personal expenses etc., it computed financial loss to the claimants to the tune of Rs. 4,766,66/-. The Tribunal further awarded Rs. 2000/- towards expenses in the last rites of the deceased, Rs. 5000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 2000/- to claimants no. 55000/- . Applying multiplier of 13, and deducting 1/3rd income towards personal expenses etc., it computed financial loss to the claimants to the tune of Rs. 4,766,66/-. The Tribunal further awarded Rs. 2000/- towards expenses in the last rites of the deceased, Rs. 5000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 2000/- to claimants no. 2 and 3 for the loss of love and affection. Consequently, a total compensation of Rs. 4, 85, 666/- Lacs alongwith interest @ 8% was allowed vide judgment and order dated 26.07.2003. 8. Though several grounds have been taken in this appeal but learned counsel for the appellant confined his challenge to the impugned judgment of the Tribunal on two aspects, namely, (1) the amount of income tax paid by deceased ought to have been deducted from the average income calculated by Tribunal and (2) the interest at the rate of 8% per annum is highly excessive and should have been at par i.e. as prevailed at the relevant time. 9. In this appeal, therefore, this Court is required to consider the following two questions: (i)Whether the Tribunal was required to deduct the amount of income tax paid by deceased while calculating average income. (ii) Whether award of interest @ 8% can be said to be excessive and if so, what rate of interest would be justified in the case in hand. 10. During the course of argument, Sri Sahai, learned counsel for appellant did not dispute that income tax paid by assessee under Income Tax Act 1961, is not deductible under any provision. It is considered to be a part of personal expenses of assessee. In the present case, one third amount has been deducted by Tribunal from the total annual average income. The average income of Rs. 55,000/- per month by applying multiplier of 13 came to be computed as Rs. 7.15 Lacs but after deducting one third amount therefrom, it has been reduced to Rs. 4, 76, 666/-, meaning thereby, about 2.38 Lacs and odd has been deducted towards personal expenses by deceased etc. 11. The appellant has relied on a decision of Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Indira Srivastava AIR 2008 SC 845 but I do not find that the said judgment supports him. 12. 4, 76, 666/-, meaning thereby, about 2.38 Lacs and odd has been deducted towards personal expenses by deceased etc. 11. The appellant has relied on a decision of Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Indira Srivastava AIR 2008 SC 845 but I do not find that the said judgment supports him. 12. While discussing the issue as to what would constitute just compensation, the Court has referred to two decisions of learned Single Judge of Madras High Court and Andhra Pradesh High Court. In Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Padmavathy and Ors (CMA No.114 of 2006 decided on 29.1.2007), a learned Single Judge of Madras High Court held that the Tribunal can make only statutory deductions such as Income tax and professional tax and any other contribution, which is not repayable by the employer from the salary of deceased person while determining monthly income for computing dependency compensation. Similarly, a learned Single Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court in S. Narayanamma and Ors Vs. Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Telecommunications and Ors, 2002 ACC 582, also took similar view. However, relying on Rathi Menon Vs. Union of India (2001) 3 SCC 714 the Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Indira Srivastava (Supra) observed: "The amounts, therefore, which were required to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for computation of his monthly income as that would have been added to his monthly income by way of contribution to the family as contradistinguished to the ones which were for his benefit. We may, however, hasten to add that from the said amount of income, the statutory amount of tax payable thereupon must be deducted." 13. The Court then referred to dictionary meaning of income and said: "If the dictionary meaning of the word 'income' is taken to its logical conclusion, it should include those benefits, either in terms of money or otherwise, which are taken into consideration for the purpose of payment of income-tax or profession tax although some elements thereof may or may not be taxable or would have been otherwise taxable but for the exemption conferred thereupon under the statute." 14. It also noticed its earlier decision in T.N. State Transport Corporation Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya & Ors. It also noticed its earlier decision in T.N. State Transport Corporation Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya & Ors. [ (2005) 6 SCC 236 ],wherein it was said: "The manner of arriving at the damages is to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his dependants, and to deduct therefrom such part of his income as the deceased was accustomed to spend upon himself, as regards both self-maintenance and pleasure, and to ascertain what part of his net income the deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit of the dependants. Then that should be capitalised by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of years' purchase." 15. The Court also referred to New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie & Anr [ (2005) 10 SCC 720 ] & observed that the word "income" used therein would ordinarily mean "gross income minus the statutory deductions". This decision was followed in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kalpana (Smt.) & Ors. [ (2007) 3 SCC 538 ]. 16. Having discussed and referred to the above decisions, the conclusion, in the judgment in Indira Srivastava has been noted in para 24 as under: "In view of our finding abovementioned, the appeal is to be allowed in part in so far as the High Court had directed deduction of medical reimbursement and tax elements on the entire sum which according to the statute constitute income." 17. It is a different thing that the Court did not grant actual relief in this regard after laying down the law for peculiar circumstances of that case. This decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Indira Srivastava (supra) has been followed in Kalpanaraj Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpn. 2014 (3) AWC 2753 (SC) and in para 8 the Court said as under: "In the light of the principle of law laid down by this Court in the Indira Srivastava case mentioned supra, we are of the opinion that the High Court erred in making deductions under various heads to arrive at the net income instead of ascertaining the gross income of the deceased out of the annual income earned from his occupation mentioned in the income tax return submitted for the relevant financial year 1994-1995." (emphasis added) 18. The amount of income tax paid by non-salaried person from income from different sources is not deductible under any head as it is considered to be personal expenses by the person concerned. When one third personal expenses were already deducted from gross income of the deceased, I do not find that there was any justification for making further deduction of amount of income tax from income computed after deduction of one third of gross income. Question no.1 is answered against the appellant. 19. Now coming to question no.2, learned counsel for appellant could not place anything before this Court that interest of 8% awarded by the Tribunal is excessive in any manner. No material has been placed before this Court which may show that the said interest rate is excessive, arbitrary or otherwise unjustified. On the contrary, I find that rate of interest allowed by the Tribunal is quite reasonable and rather on lower side. 20. The question of interest and its reasonableness was considered in Kaushnuma Begum (Smt.) and Ors v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., [2001] 2 SCC 9 wherein the Court said : "Now, we have to fix up the rate of interest. Section 171 of the MV Act empowers the Tribunal to direct that "in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as may be specified in this behalf". Earlier, 12% was found to be the reasonable rate of simple interest. With a change in economy and the policy of Reserve Bank of India the interest rate has been lowered. The nationalized banks are now granting interest at the rate of 9% on fixed deposit for one year. We, therefore, direct that the compensation amount fixed hereinbefore shall bear interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim made by the appellants........"(emphasis added) 21. The aforesaid decision was followed in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others. Vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan and others (2002) 6 SCC 281 , wherein the Tribunal had allowed interest @ 12% per annum, which the Court held on higher side and found it expedient to award interest @ 9% per annum. 22. The aforesaid decision was followed in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others. Vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan and others (2002) 6 SCC 281 , wherein the Tribunal had allowed interest @ 12% per annum, which the Court held on higher side and found it expedient to award interest @ 9% per annum. 22. In view of the above discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that rate of interest 8% per annum allowed by the Tribunal is quite reasonable, just and valid, warranting no interference. Question no.2 is also answered against the appellant. 23. No other argument has been advanced. 24. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed with costs, which is quantified to Rs. 10,000/-(Rs. Ten Thousand only). …………………