JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal and Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,JJ. 1. Heard Shri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for appellant and Shri Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for respondent. 2. Insurance Company has felt aggrieved by award and decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal in MACP No.225 of 2002. 3. Parties are referred as claimants and respondents as they appeared before the Tribunal. The claimants filed the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.50,60,000.00/- for the death of sole bread earner of the family. 4. The claimants filed the claim petition being MACP No.225 of 2002 against the owner and the appellant-Insurance Company claiming compensation of Rs.50,60,000/- for the death of their/her husband/father on 24.2.2002 at 6.00 AM when the deceased while travelling in U.P.S.R.T.C bearing Registration No.UP-60B-3712 met with a head-on-collusion with Truck No.U.P 52-C-5769 resulting therein deceased sustained injuries. The brief facts as narrated in the claim petition are that the deceased died due to rash and negligence of the driver of the bus. The deceased at the time of the accident was the salaried person and that is how the Tribunal fixed the quantum. 5. The brief facts as narrated in the claim petition are that the deceased died due to rash and negligence of the driver of the bus. The deceased at the time of the accident was a salaried person and that is how the Tribunal fixed the quantum. 6. The respondent-Insurance Company filed its detailed written statement and contested the said case, both on law as well as on facts. 7. Opposite party-owner of the Bus despite the summons being served did not put his appearance and as such the case have proceeded ex-parte against her and thus the appellant-Insurance Company have moved an application under section 170 of Motor Vehicle Act,1988 (hereinafter referred to as "Act,1988") which was allowed vide order dated 15.9.2003. 8. The claimants had examined witnesses to prove the accident. It is not in dispute before us that the accident took place on 24.2.2002 at about 5.30 AM in the morning when the deceased was travelling in bus which dashed with the vehicle of the respondent. 8. The claimants had examined witnesses to prove the accident. It is not in dispute before us that the accident took place on 24.2.2002 at about 5.30 AM in the morning when the deceased was travelling in bus which dashed with the vehicle of the respondent. The witness of the deceased Smt. Nirmalla Chaturvedi was examined as P.W-1 and she has been examined on oath as far as quantum is concerned, PW-2 Satya Nand Pandey was the eye witness to the accident and he was travelling in the Bus in which deceased was travelling. 9. In a recent judgment of the Apex Court in UPSRTC versus Km. Mamta and others, reported in AIR 2016 SCC 948, Apex Court had held that the Appellate Court should decide on every issue and therefore, we propose to decide the issues which have been raised in this appeal. The main plank of submission is that award is on a higher side. In paragraphs 24 and 27, Court observed as under: "24. An appeal under Section 173 of the M.V.Act is essentially in the nature of first appeal alike Section 96 of the Code and, therefore, the High Court is equally under legal obligation to decide all issues arising in the case both on facts and law after appreciating the entire evidence. [See National Insurance Company Ltd.v.Naresh Kumar & Ors.(2000) 10 SCC 198 and State of Punjab & Anr.v.Navdeep Kuur & Ors. (2004) 13 SCC 680 ]. 27. As observed supra, as a first appellate Court, it was the duty of the High Court to have decided the appeal keeping in view the powers conferred on it by the statute. The impugned judgement also does not, in our opinion, satisfy the requirements of Order XX, Rule 4(2) read with Order XLI, Rule 31 of the Code which requires that judgement shall contain a concise statement of the case, points for determination, decisions thereon and the reasons. it is for this reason, we are unable to uphold the impugned judgment of the High Court." 10. Learned counsel for appellant has heavily relied on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Asha and others versus United India Insurance Co.Ltd.another 2004 ACJ 448 and has contended that principles of assessment are not properly appreciated by the Tribunal. Court observed in paragraph 8 as under: "8. Learned counsel for appellant has heavily relied on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Asha and others versus United India Insurance Co.Ltd.another 2004 ACJ 448 and has contended that principles of assessment are not properly appreciated by the Tribunal. Court observed in paragraph 8 as under: "8. Lastly, it was submitted that the salary certificate shows that the salary of the deceased was Rs.8,632. It was submitted that the High Court was wrong in taking the salary to be Rs.6,642. It was submitted that the High Court was wrong in taking the salary to be Rs.6,642. It was submitted that the High Court was wrong in deducting the allowances and amounts paid towards L.I.C, society charges and H.B.A etc. We are unable to accept this submission also. The claimants are entitled to be compensated for the loss suffered by them. The loss suffered by them is the amount which they would have been receiving at the time when the deceased was alive. There can be no doubt that the dependents would only be receiving the net amount less 1/3rd for his personal expenses. The High Court was therefore, right in so holding." 11. The judgment of Asha and others (Supra) categorically states that the claimants are entitled to be compensated for the loss suffered by them. In this case, the Tribunal has not considered any prospective income of the deceased who was serving. The principles of assessment are obviously done properly. The Tribunal has considered the income and has deducted the personal expenses of the deceased. It is submitted that what has not been deducted is the Income Tax. The other deductions amounts would enure for the benefit of the claimants which cannot be said to be non emoluments, and therefore, we feel that the Tribunal has given just compensation to the deceased. The claim even under the other heads is less and therefore, going through the latest decisions, we hold that the Tribunal has granted compensation which can be said to be just compensation. Unfortunately, the Tribunal has considered the multiplier also on the lower side but we are not disturbing the same. The Tribunal's judgment is just and proper. 12. Learned counsel for appellant has heavily relied on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Asha and others(Supra) and has contended that principles of assessment are not properly appreciated by the Tribunal. The Tribunal's judgment is just and proper. 12. Learned counsel for appellant has heavily relied on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Asha and others(Supra) and has contended that principles of assessment are not properly appreciated by the Tribunal. Court observed in paragraph 8 as under: "8. Lastly, it was submitted that the salary certificate shows that the salary of the deceased was Rs.8,632. It was submitted that the High Court was wrong in taking the salary to be Rs.6,642. It was submitted that the High Court was wrong in taking the salary to be Rs.6,642. It was submitted that the High Court was wrong in deducting the allowances and amounts paid towards L.I.C, society charges and H.B.A etc. We are unable to accept this submission also. The claimants are entitled to be compensated for the loss suffered by them. The loss suffered by them is the amount which they would have been receiving at the time when the deceased was alive. There can be no doubt that the dependents would only be receiving the net amount less 1/3rd for his personal expenses. The High Court was therefore, right in so holding.". 13. Reliance is placed on the aforesaid paragraph 8 of the said decision and it is submitted that the Tribunal has erred in considering the income. The Tribunal should have considered Rs.9918/- as the amount admissible to the family or the dependents. 14. It is next contended that the court below has committed manifest error of law in calculating the compensation, taking into account the full salary of the deceased, as it should have been calculated as per the carry home salary and further failed to follow the principles laid down by the Apex Court in a case of Asha and others (Supra). 15. It is submitted that Tribunal should have considered the income as Rs.9918/- as it has not deducted the amount of CPF which is:- 10. G.P.F. 2550.00 11. Life Insurance 622.00 12. Joint Insurance 83.00 13. R.D. Post Office 2000.00 14. Income Tax 5000.00 Total deductions 10255.00 16. This document which is produced, it is not shown whether the said document was ever produced before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal. It is not proved whether the same was proved or not. 17. Though other grounds are alleged in the memo of appeal, they were never pressed before us. Income Tax 5000.00 Total deductions 10255.00 16. This document which is produced, it is not shown whether the said document was ever produced before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal. It is not proved whether the same was proved or not. 17. Though other grounds are alleged in the memo of appeal, they were never pressed before us. Deceased was aged about 55 years and therefore, according to learned counsel Tribunal has committed manifest error even in considering the multiplier admissible to him. The Tribunal has according to the learned counsel miscalculated the entire amount and the amount should have been Rs.9918/- as out of Rs.20,173/- the deductions are not considered by the Tribunal. Before Tribunal, we find that it was not even argued by Insurance Company or anybody which the deductions were made from Income. The amount of Rs.5000/- as Income Tax was shown. The Tribunal has very rightly not considered the amount of house rent allowance and considered the income as Rs.19743/- and out of it 1/3rd has been deducted whereas according to us it should have been 1/6th and not 1/3rd and therefore, also it appears that the Tribunal has been more conservative in awarding the amount. It goes without saying that Tribunal has not even considered future income of the deceased who was salaried employee. Be that as it may, the decision of Asha and others (Supra) on which reliance is placed will also show that Tribunal has assessed just compensation and therefore, the same does not warrant interference by this Court. 18. We are fortified in our view by the decisions in First Appeal From Order 1818 of 2012 dated 19.7.2016 and therefore, in our considered opinion and going through the entire record it cannot be said that the quantum which has been awarded was not just compensation. 19. As far as issue of negligence is concerned, though not vehemently pressed, we have gone through the findings of facts on the issue of negligence also. As far as the deceased was concerned, it is a case of composite negligence. We are unable to accept the submission of the counsel for the appellant that the driver of State Transport was also negligent. 20. Appeal fails and is dismissed.