JUDGMENT : 1. Both these appeals have arisen out of the same judgment, hence are being adjudicated together by this Court. 2. Insurance Company has filed the AO No.58 of 2012 challenging the impugned judgment dated 21.12.2011 rendered by the Tribunal, on sundry scores, more prominently, on the quantum of award, while kins of deceased Smt. Uma Dhiman, who are the husband, one son and three daughters, have filed the appeal (AO No.142 of 2012) for enhancement of such quantum. 3. The accident occurred on 16.12.2009 at around 7:15 PM when Mr. Suresh Dhiman, along with his wife Smt. Uma Dhiman (deceased) and three others, was travelling through their Alto Car (bearing no.UK-07-AA-7020) in the mid Himalayan Roads of District Rudraprayag. 4. Suddenly, on account of some mechanical defect, the car skidded off from the road and it fell down in a deep ditch making injured the persons who were sitting inside the car. Smt. Uma Dhiman on the way to local hospital succumbed to such injuries. So, Mr. Suresh Dhiman, along with his four children, had come up before the Court claiming the compensation to the tune of Rs.55,00,000/- for the death of his wife Smt. Uma Dhiman and as against such claim, learned Tribunal awarded Rs.34,53,500/-. The liability to satisfy the award has been fastened upon the National Insurance Company, which issued the package policy to the Alto Car, as indicated above. 5. At the outset, learned counsel of the insurance company has drawn the attention of this Court towards the police inquiry report, which appears to be a summary in nature, issued under the signature of Head Constable Mr. Surendra Dutt Bhalla, posted in selfsame Kotwali Rudraprayag. Photocopy of such report, which was submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Rudraprayag through Inspector In-charge, delves the accident on account of sidelining of Alto Car by its driver to save it from a front coming heavy vehicle. 6. Since, the Insurance Company has not made any averment in its written statement regarding the number and other particulars of that front coming heavy vehicle, hence non-joinder of such trailer was a natural consequence and as of now, the findings of the Court below cannot be affected on such score. 7. 6. Since, the Insurance Company has not made any averment in its written statement regarding the number and other particulars of that front coming heavy vehicle, hence non-joinder of such trailer was a natural consequence and as of now, the findings of the Court below cannot be affected on such score. 7. It has further been argued by learned counsel of the insurance company that as per High School Mark-sheet of deceased Smt. Uma Dhiman (who, at that time, was unmarried), the date of birth was 22.06.1964. This fact has been ignored by the Tribunal and instead of the date of birth, as has been mentioned in the Family Register 40 years has been taken into consideration for determining the multiplier. 8. In my opinion, as against the Family Register, the date of birth, which has been mentioned in School Records that too of Board Examination, is more admissible because even if, the Family Register may be a public document but the particulars of the age are always recorded by concerned man of village at the instance of head of the family, while at the time of filling up the Board Examination Form, the disclosure of age is always a conclusive proof. This photocopy of Intermediate Mark-sheet of Smt. Uma Dhiman has been attested by the Superintendent of Police, Rudraprayag, therefore, there is no question to doubt in its verity, hence, it is clear that on the date of the accident, the age of Smt. Uma Dhiman was more than 45 years and 6 months, thus, as per the celebrated judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma, the multiplier of “13” should have been applied rather than “15”. The application of this multiplier is not a gospel truth even on the basis of Sarla Verma Case and it can be varied by the Court considering all around circumstances of the particular case and family but on this score, I would not like to lessen it any further than thirteen (13). 9. Learned counsel has relied upon an of-late law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar and others Vs. 9. Learned counsel has relied upon an of-late law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar and others Vs. Kishore Dan and others, 2013 (7) SCC 476 , wherein, it has been held that the compassionate appointment can be one of the conditions of service of an employee, and if a scheme to that effect has been framed by the employer, then this factor cannot stated to be an advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one’s death and it does not have any co-relation with the amount receivable in a statute occasioned on account of accidental death. 10. It was further held that a “pecuniary advantage”, which comes under the periphery of Motor Vehicles Act and any amount received on such appointment, is not liable for deduction for determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. 11. With all regards, I do agree with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the amount received by bereaved family from the employer will certainly not be deducted for determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act but the Hon’ble Apex Court has nowhere precluded the Tribunal from making consideration of advantages received by the dependants of family on myriad scores. 12. That apart, Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhakra Beas Management Board Vs. Kanta Aggarwal and others, 2008 (3) TAC 661, has laid down that the High Court lost sight of the fact that the benefits, which claimants received on account of death or injury, have to be duly considered while fixing the compensation. 13. In another case, Ramprasad Balmiki Vs. Anil Kumar Jain and others, 2008 (4) TAC 385, the Apex Court has held that even the amount of pension would have mitigated the quantum of compensation and the same was required to be taken into consideration. Both these cases were never referred to by either of the party to the Hon’ble Apex Court while adjudicating Vimal Kanwar case. 14. It has been a settled proposition of law, which is holding reigns even now that the death in the accident can never be taken as a windfall to the rest of the family members. The compensation, which has awarded by the Tribunals, is not a largesse. This beneficial legislation has been enacted by the Parliament in order to save the dependants of the deceased from indigence. The compensation, which has awarded by the Tribunals, is not a largesse. This beneficial legislation has been enacted by the Parliament in order to save the dependants of the deceased from indigence. The calculation of compensation can never be evaluated in a mechanical manner; it all depends on several factors and varies from facts to facts of the different cases. 15. In the case, in hand, it is difficult to remain in oblivion that Shri Suresh Dhiman himself was gainfully employed inasmuch as he was Head Constable, posted in Rudraprayag Police Station, so, the children of the wedded couple were not depended solely on the income of Smt. Uma Dhiman. Rather, the fact is otherwise, the head of the family was Shri Suresh Dhiman, who was the main bread-earner of this family unit, although, it is another factor that during the pendency of these appeals, Shri Suresh Dhiman has also met his natural death on account of some indisposition. 16. It has also been accepted by learned counsel of the dependants that the son of deceased, Mr. Rahul has now been inducted into government service under the rule of Dying-in-harness. 17. Smt. Uma Dhiman was a teacher and her gross income was Rs.28,702/-. It has not been highlighted before the Court whether any of his daughters has also got some job under the dying-in-harness, nonetheless, it would be difficult to ignore the deduction of the income tax. Even the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Vimal Kanwar (supra), relied by learned counsel for the dependants, the factum of deduction of income tax has not been ignored. 18. Further, with a view to come in the Court with the clean hands, nothing has been filed by the dependants regarding Income Tax Return of deceased Smt. Uma Dhiman for the relevant year viz. financial year 2009-10. 19. Therefore, I reduce at least 10% of the total income towards the tax, which comes to Rs.28,832/-, which makes it Rs.25,832/ per month and multiplying it by 12 months, it comes to Rs.3,09,984/-. 20. Further, I would like to mention that since four children of Smt. Uma Dhiman were not dependant on the income of her mother but the main bread earning member of the family was Mr. Suresh Dhiman, so in this eventuality, she would have spent more on herself for leading a lavish life. 20. Further, I would like to mention that since four children of Smt. Uma Dhiman were not dependant on the income of her mother but the main bread earning member of the family was Mr. Suresh Dhiman, so in this eventuality, she would have spent more on herself for leading a lavish life. That is why, the deduction of one-fourth towards the personal expenses, as argued by learned counsel for the dependants, is the far cry and it should have been one-half, instead of one-third as has been done by the Tribunal. 21. Deducting one-half, the amount comes to Rs.1,54,992/-. I apply the multiplier of “13”, as discussed above, which comes to Rs.20,14,896/-. This Court is not inclined to disturb the findings of learned Tribunal on other scores. 22. In view of what has been set forth above, AO No.58 of 2012, filed by the Insurance Company is hereby allowed modifying the award to the extent, as indicated above, and at the same time, I dismiss the AO No.142 of 2012, filed by the claimants. 23. Insurance company is directed to satisfy the award as modified by this Court within a period of six weeks from today. After such deposit is made, the Tribunal is directed to release the entire amount in favour of the claimants as per their respective shares. 24. Compulsory statutory amount, if lying deposited in any of the appeals, shall also be remitted back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith, for payment to the claimants. 25. A copy of this judgment along with the LCR be sent back to the Court below for immediate compliance.