JUDGMENT : 1. The instant appeal has been filed by the Appellant Insurance Company challenging the award dated 10th June, 2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srinagar. 2. It is a case of fatal accident which happened on 6th September, 2005. 3. The deceased, 41 years old, who was a Government Servant working in National Insurance Company as Administrative Officer, was travelling in a vehicle owned by Respondent No.7. The said vehicle met with a serious accident due to a blast in which the deceased got severely injured and was taken to Soura Medical Institute, where he went into coma. Thereafter, on the next day, he was referred to Apollo Hospital, New Delhi, where despite best medical attention, he succumbed to his injuries. 4. On the death of deceased, his widow (age 35 years), son (age 10 years), daughter (age 6 years), mother (age 55 years) and father (age 53 years) are the claimants. They claim a sum of Rs.82,72,960/- as compensation. 5. In this case, the learned Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased as Rs. 16,944/-. After adding 30% as additional income on account of loss of future prospects (i.e. Rs.16,944/- x 30% =Rs. 5,083/-) and deducting one fourth of his total income towards his personal expenses (i.e. 1/4th of Rs. 22,027/- = Rs. 5,507/-), the net calculable income was taken as Rs.16,520/- (i.e. Rs. 16,944/- + Rs. 5,083/- - Rs. 5,507/-). After applying the relevant multiplier of 14, the learned Tribunal granted the following amounts, under different heads, as total compensation along with 6% simple interest from the date of presentation of the claim petition till its final realization:— S. No. Particulars under which amount granted Amount 1. Loss of dependency: 16520 x 12 x 14 27,75,360/- 2. Loss of on account of Consortium 1,00,000/- 3. Loss on account of Medical Expenses and air fare on account of Transportation Charges 1,00,000/- 4. Child Care of minor petitioners 50,000/- 5. Burial Expenses 25,000/- Total Compensation Rs.30,50,360/- 6. In this appeal, two issues are raised. One is that the accident occurred due to a blast and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle and the other issue is on quantum of compensation. Shivaji Dayuanu Patel and Anr. v. Vitschala Uttam Muray, AIR 1991 SC 1769 . (Para 7) 7. In this appeal, two issues are raised. One is that the accident occurred due to a blast and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle and the other issue is on quantum of compensation. Shivaji Dayuanu Patel and Anr. v. Vitschala Uttam Muray, AIR 1991 SC 1769 . (Para 7) 7. For the first issue the learned Tribunal relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Shivaji Dayuanu Patel & Anr Vs. Smt. Vitschala Uttam Muray, reported in AIR 1991 SC, 1769”. Paragraph Nos. 25 and 26 of the said decision are reproduced as under:— “25. These decisions indicate that the word “use”, in the context of motor vehicles, has been construed in a wider sense to include the period when the vehicle is not moving and is stationary, being either parked on the road and when it is not in a position to move due to some break-down or mechanical defect. Relying on the abovementioned decisions, the Appellate Bench of the High Court has held that the expression “use of a motor vehicle” in S.92-A covers accidents which occur both when the vehicle is in motion and when it is stationary. With reference to the facts of the present case the learned Judges have observed that the tanker in question while proceeding along National Highway No.4 (i.e. while in use) after colliding with a motor lorry was lying on the side and that it cannot be claimed that after the collision the use of the tanker had ceased only because it was disabled. We are in agreement with the said approach of the High Court. In our opinion, the word “use” has a wider connotation to cover the period when the vehicle is not moving and is stationary and the use of a vehicle does not cease on account of the vehicle having been rendered immobile on account of a break-down or mechanical defect or accident. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the petrol tanker was not in the use at the time when it was lying on its side after the collision with the truck. 26. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the petrol tanker was not in the use at the time when it was lying on its side after the collision with the truck. 26. The only other question which remains to be considered is whether the explosion and fire which caused injuries to the deceased son of the respondent can be said to have taken place due to an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle viz. The petrol tanker Shri Sanghi has urged that the expressing “arising out of the use of a motor vehicle” implies a casual relationship between the user of the motor vehicle and the accident which has resulted in death or disablement and that in the present case it cannot be said that the explosion and fire which took place in the petrol tanker four and half hours after the collusion and after the tanker had turned turtle was an accident arising out of the use of the petrol tanker. In this regard, Shri Sanghi has emphasised that the persons who sustained injuries as a result of the explosion and fire in the petrol tanker were pilfering petrol which had leaked out from the petrol tanker and the explosion and fire was the result of the said unlawful activity of those persons and that it was not on account of the petrol tanker. Shri Sanghi, in this connection has placed reliance on the decision in Mackinnon Machkenzie and Co. Pvt. Ltd. V. Ibrahim Mohammad Issak, ( 1970 1 SCR 869 : ( AIR 1970 SC 1906 ), wherein this Court has construed the expression “arising out of employment’ appearing in S.3 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and has laid down that there must be a casual relationship between the accident and the employment. Shri Sanghi has urged that similarly there must be a casual relationship between the accident and the user of the motor vehicle for the purpose of maintainability of a claim under Section 92A of the Act.” Sneh Sharma and Ors. v. Sewa Ram and Ors., 1996 SLJ. (Para 8) 8. The learned Tribunal also relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of “Smt. Sneh Sharma & Ors. Vs. Sewa Ram and Ors., reported in 1996 SLJ. Paragraph No. 7 of the said decision is reproduced as under:- “7. v. Sewa Ram and Ors., 1996 SLJ. (Para 8) 8. The learned Tribunal also relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of “Smt. Sneh Sharma & Ors. Vs. Sewa Ram and Ors., reported in 1996 SLJ. Paragraph No. 7 of the said decision is reproduced as under:- “7. Now, the question is whether the facts of the cases before us attract the application of these principles. The Bus came from a place where militant activities were going on. Obviously, strict vigilance should have been exercised before admitting the passengers into the vehicle. It ought to have been searched to find out whether any bomb had been planted inside it. The incoming and out going passengers should have been kept under vigil and their articles kept under gaze. Passengers should have been warned to be careful about their belongings and anything which did not belong to them be pointed out to the crew of the vehicle. All such precautions were not made. Contention that there was no legal duty to do so is hardly convincing. The owner of the vehicle had to take care of the safety of the passengers. His duty is not limited to take the passengers against payment of money without paying attention towards their safe passage. Such a duty is implicit in the nature of the services offered to the general public and one does not have to look to any express provision of law in this regard. The facts clearly point out that the owner and the crew of the bus did not pay any attention towards taking precautions for the safety of the passengers, although it is well know that militant activities were gaining ground and immediate precautions against such activities were necessary. The accident arose out of the use of the vehicle and there is no doubt about it and the respondents are squarely responsible for the same.” New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Yadu Sambhaji More and Ors., (2011) 2 SCC 416 . (Para 9) 9. The learned Tribunal even placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadu Sambhaji More & Ors, reported in (2011) 2 SCC 416 ”, involving a blast which caused accident to the vehicle leading to the death of a passer-by. (Para 9) 9. The learned Tribunal even placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadu Sambhaji More & Ors, reported in (2011) 2 SCC 416 ”, involving a blast which caused accident to the vehicle leading to the death of a passer-by. In this Case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paragraph Nos. 23 & 24 held as under:- “23. We have examined the evidences of the OWs adduced before the Claims Tribunal in particular the depositions of Shivija Patil the owner of the petrol tanker who examined himself as OW1 and Dhondirama Mali, the driver of the ill fated petrol tanker who was examined as OW2. We have also gone through the judgment of the Tribunal. In the evidences of the OWs, there was no new material fact that was not already before this Court in Shivaji Dayanu Patil. And on the basis of the evidences lead by the opposite party, no new points were raised before the claims Tribunal that can be said to have not been raised before this Court in Shivaji Dayanu Patil. The High Court was, therefore perfectly justified in observing in Para 26 of the judgment coming under appeal as follows:- “... But whether the vehicle was in use or not was a question before the Supreme Court and even after evidence that aspect has not changed. Time at which the accident occurred viz. catching the fire by the petrol has remained the same. The circumstances preceding this particular point have also remained the same. The manner in which the petrol tanker came near the spot and how it was hit by a vehicle or truck coming from opposite direction also remained the same even after evidence and therefore when facts which were before the Supreme Court have not at all changed inspite of the full trial and evidence, the judgment of the Supreme Court has to be accepted and taken as a concluded judgment so far as the issue as to whether the vehicle was ‘in use’ or ‘arising out of the use of the motor vehicle’, fully and concluding. Secondly, questions before the Supreme Court was about the interpretation of the words ‘arising out of use of motor vehicle’. Secondly, questions before the Supreme Court was about the interpretation of the words ‘arising out of use of motor vehicle’. The situation, namely, occurring explosion to the petrol tanker has not changed so far as this particular aspect is concerned ....” 24. In light of the discussions, made above, it must be held that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the decision rendered in Shivaji Dayanu Patil was completely binding on the Claims Tribunal and it was not open to the Claims Tribunal to come to any finding inconsistent with the aforesaid decision of this Court. The issue framed by the High Court is answered accordingly. There is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed with costs. 10. In view of the above case law relied upon by the learned Tribunal, the first issue settled by the Tribunal is confirmed. 11. The next issue is regarding the quantum of compensation. In this issue, the plea taken is that while fixing the income of the deceased the liability of tax has not been considered and that should be deduced. Mr. Dar, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company, submitted a Chart giving details of the tax liability after providing for 30% increase in the income of the deceased considering his age and occupation as Administrative Officer in the Insurance Company. The said Chart is taken on record. 12. In this view of the matter, the total compensation awarded by the Learned Tribunal is modified and, accordingly, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation under different heads:— S.No. Particulars Amount 1. Loss of Dependency: Monthly income of the Deceased Rs. 16,944/- Income added on account of loss of future income Rs.5,083/- Annual Income (Rs.16,944 + Rs.5,083) x 12 Rs. 2,64,324/- Deduction of income tax: a. For Rs. 1 lac Nil b. For 1 to 1.5 lacs (10 %) Rs.5,000/- c. For 1.5 to 2.5 lacs (20%) Rs. 20,000/- d. For Rs. 14,324 (30%) Rs.4,300/- Rs. 29,300/- Deduction of income tax on account of loss of dependency: ¼ of (Rs. 2,64,324-Rs.29,300) Rs. 58,756/- Total deduction Rs. 88,056/- Net Loss of Dependency after deduction of tax: (Rs.2,64,324 - Rs. 88,056) x 14 Rs.24,67,752/- 2. Loss on account of Consortium Rs. 1,00,000/- 3. Loss on account of Medical Expenses and Rs. Air Fare on account of Transportation Charges 1,00,000/- 4. Child Care of Minor Petitioners Rs. 50,000/- 5. 2,64,324-Rs.29,300) Rs. 58,756/- Total deduction Rs. 88,056/- Net Loss of Dependency after deduction of tax: (Rs.2,64,324 - Rs. 88,056) x 14 Rs.24,67,752/- 2. Loss on account of Consortium Rs. 1,00,000/- 3. Loss on account of Medical Expenses and Rs. Air Fare on account of Transportation Charges 1,00,000/- 4. Child Care of Minor Petitioners Rs. 50,000/- 5. Burial Expenses Rs. 25,000/- Total Compensation Rs.27,42,752/- 13. The interest granted by the learned Tribunal shall stand confirmed. The Appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire compensation as awarded above along with interest, if not already deposited. Claimants will be entitled to withdraw the same, if not already withdrawn after proper identification. Excess amount, if any, be returned to the Appellant Insurance Company 14. Accordingly, the instant appeal shall stand allowed as above.