JUDGMENT : Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J. A claim petition came to be preferred before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu, by the claimants being the wife, mother and brother of the deceased Anil Kumar, who died in an accident on 19-2-2009. On the date of his death, the deceased was working as a Naik in the Indian Army and was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 15272/-. The Tribunal, by virtue of award dated 14-3-2011, allowed the claim petition and awarded an amount of Rs. 19,39,279/- to be paid to be claimants under following heads : i. Loss of dependency Rs. 19,24,279/- ii. Loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/- iii. Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Total: Rs. 19,39279/-. 2. For purposes of calculating loss of dependency, the Tribunal took an amount of Rs. 15272/-, as the salary component and added 50% towards future prospects at Rs. 7636/-, which came to Rs. 22,908/- per month and Rs. 2,74,896/- per annum. Out of the said amount, 30% was deducted towards income tax leaving a sum of Rs. 1,92,428/-. ?rd of the said amount was deducted on account of personal expenses and, therefore, the total amount was calculated at Rs. 1,28,285/- per annum. By applying a multiplier of 15, the loss of dependency was calculated at Rs. 19,24,279/-. 3. Counsel for the appellants-claimants urged that the Tribunal committed an error in regard to awarding of compensation and submitted that the same was contrary to the express provisions of law. It was stated that not only was the tax deduction of 30% illegal but even the multiplier of 15 was wrongly applied. In addition to this, it was stated that the Tribunal ought to have awarded an amount of Rs. One lac for loss of consortium instead of Rs. 10,000/- and the funeral expenses should also have been awarded at a minimum of Rs. 25,000/- as against Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 4. On Tax deduction : The issue of deducting tax from the amount which forms the basis of calculation by the Tribunal is no longer res integra. In Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., AIR 2009 SC 3104 , the Apex Court observed that 'generally the actual income of the deceased less income tax should be the starting point for calculating the compensation'. In Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., AIR 2009 SC 3104 , the Apex Court observed that 'generally the actual income of the deceased less income tax should be the starting point for calculating the compensation'. This matter was further considered in the case of Vimal Kanwar and others v. Kishore Dan and others, 2013 ACJ 1441 : ( AIR 2013 SC 3830 ) wherein the Apex Court while placing reliance upon Sarla Verma's case supra, in paragraph 21 of the judgment, held as under : '21. The third issue is 'whether the income tax is liable to be deducted for determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act'. In the case of Sarla Verma and Anr. (supra), this Court held 'generally the actual income of the deceased less Income tax should be the starting point for calculating the compensation.' This Court further observed that 'whether the annual income is in taxable range, the word' actual salary' should be read as 'actual salary less tax'. Therefore, it is clear that if the annual income comes within the taxable range income tax is required to be deducted for determination of the actual salary. But while deducting income-tax from salary, it is necessary to notice the nature of the income of the victim. If the victim is receiving income chargeable under the head 'salaries' one should keep in mind that under Section 192 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 any person responsible for paying any income chargeable under the head 'salaries' shall at the time of payment, deduct income-tax on estimated income of the employee from 'salaries' for that financial year. Such deduction is commonly known as tax deducted at source ('TDS - for short). When the employer fails in default to deduct the TDS from employee salary, as it is his duty to deduct the TDS, then the penalty for non-deduction of TDS is prescribed under Section 201 (1-A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Therefore, in case the income of the victim is only from 'salary', the presumption would be that the employer under Section 192 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has deducted the tax at source from the employee's salary. Therefore, in case the income of the victim is only from 'salary', the presumption would be that the employer under Section 192 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has deducted the tax at source from the employee's salary. In case if an objection is raised by any party, the objector is required to prove by producing evidence such as LPC to suggest that the employer failed to deduct the TDS from the salary of the employee...............' 5. In the present case, admittedly, the deceased was a salaried person and there is a presumption drawn that the last pay certificate issued in his favour reflecting his salary was one from which the tax had already been deducted at source. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, which the counsel for the respondent-Union of India could not highlight, it will be presumed that the salary of Rs. 15272/- was one which was being received by the deceased after due deduction of tax at source. 6. In that view of the matter, deduction effected by the Tribunal @30% towards tax was unjustified, illegal and contrary to the ratio of the judgments of the Apex Court (supra). The yearly salary after adding 50% towards future prospects would therefore, come to Rs. 2,74,896/-, from which one third was required to be deducted for personal expenses, which would thus, come to Rs. 1,83,264/-. 7. On Multiplier : The age of deceased at the time of death was 28 years and the multiplier prescribed by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case ( AIR 2009 SC 3104 ) (supra) for the age group of 26 to 30 years is 17. The Tribunal in the present case, however, after nothing the above legal position slashed down the multiplier by two points to 15, which in my view, is without any reasonable cause or justification. It is, therefore, held that instead of 15, the multiplier of 17 would be applicable in the present case. 8. On loss of consortium and funeral expenses : According to the principles as settled by the Apex Court in the cause of Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others, 2013 ACJ 1403 , the minimum amount payable on account of loss of consortium is Rs. One lac and the funeral expenses is Rs. 25,000/-, as against Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 5,000/-, as allowed by the Tribunal. One lac and the funeral expenses is Rs. 25,000/-, as against Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 5,000/-, as allowed by the Tribunal. The said amount shall, therefore, be enhanced to Rs. one lac and Rs. 25,000/- respectively under the aforementioned heads. 9. In that view of the matter, the amount payable to the claimants shall be as under : i. Loss of dependency : (1,82,264 x 17) = Rs. 31,15,488/- ii. Loss of consortium : Rs. 100000/- iii. Funeral expenses : Rs. 25000/- Total : Rs. 32,40,488/- 10. The rest of the award shall remain un-affected and the claimants shall be paid in terms of the award already passed. 11. In view of the order passed in CIMA 283/11, the cross appeal filed by the Union of India is found to be without merit and is dismissed.