JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant-Insurance Company is on appeal challenging the awards dated 10th October, 2012, 24th January, 2013, 31st January, 2013, 06th April, 2013 and 15th April, 2013 respectively passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramban (for short, ‘ the Tribunal’). 2. These appeals, arising out of a single accident, which happened on 03.10.2011, the same are disposed of by a common order. 3. On 03rd October, 2011, a Mini Bus bearing Registration No. JK06/1418 was proceeding from Ramban to Khari, a Truck bearing Registration No. JK13-A/2220, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent, hit the Mini Bus and the mini bus skidded off the road and rolled down into river Chenab, due to which five persons, namely, Abdul Latief S/o Mohd. Hussain, Abdul Latief S/o Alif Din, Mehfooz Ahmad Naik S/o Abdul Rehman Naik, Mohd. Ashraf S/o Ghulam Mohi-ud-din and Patyal Singh S/o Keshu Ram died. An FIR No. 169/2011 came to be registered at Police Station, Ramban. On the death of the said persons, their legal heirs filed claim petitions for grant of compensation before the Tribunal. Each one of the claimants let in evidence both in relation to the nature of the accident and death, and also in relation to the compensation sought for. 4. A plea was taken by the claimants that the driver of the offending vehicle (Truck) was rash and negligent and was responsible for the accident. The same was accepted by the Tribunal and a finding was rendered that the driver of the offending vehicle (Truck) namely, Abdul Rashid Bhat was rash and negligent and caused the accident, in which the Mini Bus rolled down in river Chenab and consequently, many people died. On this, there appears to be no serious dispute. The appellant-Insurance Company, however, took a plea that the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. The appellant/Insurance Company however, did not let in evidence nor took steps to justify the plea of no effective driving licence or that it is a case of fake driving licence. 5. The appellant-Insurance Company, however, took a plea that the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. The appellant/Insurance Company however, did not let in evidence nor took steps to justify the plea of no effective driving licence or that it is a case of fake driving licence. 5. In the absence of such contra-evidence and examination of competent authority by the Insurance Company, the Tribunal held that the owner of the offending vehicle (Truck) is vicariously liable for the negligence of its driver and the appellant-Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner under the contract of insurance policy. 6. In appeals, it is pleaded that the some documents have been obtained from the office of ARTO, Poonch, i.e., (Annexure-A) is the photo copy of the driving licence and Annexure-B is the verification certificate issued by the Licencing Authority, Poonch. These two documents are produced for the first time before this Court, which could have been otherwise placed before the Tribunal. No application seems to have been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company before the Tribunal, seeking permission to let in evidence as above. At this stage, it may not be proper to permit the appellant-Insurance Company to take a new plea, which was not addressed before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the plea of invalid licence is held to be not proved and, accordingly, the same is rejected. 7. Appeal, insofar as, it pertains to no liability, stands rejected in all the cases. 8. Insofar as, the issue regarding reduction of compensation is concerned, the Court is inclined to take up each case separately. CIMA No. 53/2013 1. The instant appeal is of the year 2013. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. 3. In this case, for the death of one-Abdul Latief-Bachelor, aged 29 years at the time of accident, who was working as a Teacher in Government Higher Secondary School, Khari (Banihal), his father, namely, Mohd. Hussain, aged 60 years, mother, namely, Fatima Begum, aged 56 years, three brothers, namely, Ayaz Ahmed, aged 32 years, Fayaz Ahmed, aged 27 years and Rayaz Ahmed, aged 24 years and one sister, namely, Jamila Bano, aged 21 years, made a claim before the Tribunal. The evidence was let in to prove that as per Salary Certificate, income of the deceased was Rs. 34,273/- per month. 4. The evidence was let in to prove that as per Salary Certificate, income of the deceased was Rs. 34,273/- per month. 4. The Tribunal, however, fixed the income of the deceased at 50,000/- per month. After deducting 50% towards the personal expenses of the deceased and by adopting the multiplier of 17, which is in consonance with the age of the deceased, granted the following amount as compensation along with interest @ 7% P.A. S. No. Heading Award of the Tribunal 1. Loss of Dependency Rs.51,00,000/- 2. Funeral Expenses Rs. 10,000/- 3. Loss of Estate Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs 51,20,000 /- 5. In all, the Tribunal has granted Rs. 51,20,000/- as compensation along with pendentelite and future interest @ 7% p.a. throughout till realization. 6. On determining the pecuniary loss to the dependants, there is no error except that the income tax has not been deducted. The issue relating to the deduction of income tax has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases titled, “Sarla Verma and ors v Delhi Transport Corporation”, reported as (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 and “National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and ors.” (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014) rendered on 31st October, 2017. 7. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the deduction of income tax on the income of the deceased is as follows:- Exemption from income tax in 2011-12 was upto Rs. 1,60,000/- Income Tax upon Rs. 1,60,001 to Rs. 5.00 lac at 10% Income Tax deduction upon Rs. 5,00,00/- Lacs and above at 20% = Rs. 34,000/- Rs. 20,000/- Total = Rs. 54,000/- 8. Thus, it is clear that out of total income of Rs. 6.00 lacs, Rs. 54,000/- has to be deducted towards income tax, leaving balance of (Rs.6,00,000-Rs. 54000) = Rs. 5,46,000/-. Out of the said amount, 50% is to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased and the pecuniary loss to the dependants will be Rs. 2,73,000/- and by adopting the multiplier of ’17’, the pecuniary loss will be (Rs. 2,73,000 X 17)=Rs. 46,41,000/-. 9. Insofar as other heads are concerned, in view of the latest decision of a Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s, the claimants will be entitled to Rs. 15,000/- for Funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000 for loss of estate. 2,73,000/- and by adopting the multiplier of ’17’, the pecuniary loss will be (Rs. 2,73,000 X 17)=Rs. 46,41,000/-. 9. Insofar as other heads are concerned, in view of the latest decision of a Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s, the claimants will be entitled to Rs. 15,000/- for Funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000 for loss of estate. Hence, the award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent as under:- S. No. Heading Award of the Tribunal Modified award 1 Loss of dependency Rs. 51,00,000/- Rs. 46,41,000/- 2 Funeral expenses Rs. 10.000/- Rs. 15,000/- 3 Loss of estate Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 51,20,000/- Rs.46,71,000/- 7. Interest @ 7% per annum granted by the Tribunal is confirmed. 8. Appeal is partly allowed. 9. The claimants are entitled to withdraw the award amount as modified above. The excess amount be returned to the appellant-Insurance Company. CIMA No. 334/2013 1. The instant appeal is of the year 2013. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. On the death of one-Mr. Abdul Latief, aged 45 years who was a driver by profession, his wife, two sons aged 20 years and 18 years and one daughter aged 16 years are the claimants. The claimants claim that the income of the deceased was Rs. 8000/- per month. 3. The Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased-Abdul Latief at Rs. 8000/- per month, deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased and by adopting the multiplier of ‘16’ granted the following amount as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition:- S. No. Heading Award of the Tribunal 1. Future Loss Rs.11,52,000/- 2. Loss of Estates Rs. 8,000/- 3. Burial Expenses Rs. 10,000/- Consortium Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs 11,80,000 /- 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company states that the age of the deceased - Abdul Latief should be at least between 40 to 45 years, because the age of the elder son is 20 years. This contention appears to be justified, because even if the age of the deceased is taken as 20 years at the time of marriage, then considering the age of first son, he should be around 40 years and, therefore, the appropriate multiplier in the instant case will be 15. 5. This contention appears to be justified, because even if the age of the deceased is taken as 20 years at the time of marriage, then considering the age of first son, he should be around 40 years and, therefore, the appropriate multiplier in the instant case will be 15. 5. In this case, both the sons are majors and only wife and daughter are the dependents, so deduction will be 1/3rd and, accordingly, in terms National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and ors (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014) rendered on 31st October, 2017, the claimants will be entitled to Rs. 15,000/- for Funeral expenses, Rs.40,000/- for loss of Consortium and Rs. 15,000 for loss of estate. In modification of the award of the Tribunal, the claimants are held entitled to the following compensation:- S. No. Heading Award of the Tribunal Modified award 1. Future loss Rs. 11,52,000 Rs. 9.60,120/- 2. Loss of Estate Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 15000/- 3. Burial expenses Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 15000/- 4. Consortium Rs. 40,000/- Total Rs. 11,80,000/- Rs. 10,30,120/- 6. Interest @ 7.5% per annum granted by the Tribunal is confirmed. 7. Appeal is partly allowed. 8. The claimants are entitled to withdraw the award amount as modified above. The excess amount be returned to the appellant-Insurance Company. CIMA No. 333/2013 1. It is a case of fatal accident. In this case, for the death of Mehfooz Ahmad Naik, aged 26 years Electrician by profession, his wife, namely, Misra Begum, aged 24 years, father, namely, Abdul Rehman, aged 50 years, mother, namely, Sakeena Begum, aged 45 years and a minor child, namely, Mohd. Rizwan, aged 2 years made a claim before the Tribunal. It was claimed that income of the deceased-Mehfooz Ahmed Naik was Rs. 8000/- per month. 2. The Tribunal fixed the income at Rs. 8000/- per month, deducting 1/4th towards personal expense of the deceased and by adopting the multiplier of 17, granted the compensation to the claimants under the following heads:- S. No. Heading Award of the Tribunal 1. Loss of Dependence Rs.12,24,000/- 2. Funeral Expenses Rs. 10,000/- 3. Loss of Estate Rs. 6,000/- 4. Loss of Consortium Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 12,50,000/- 3. In all the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 12,50,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. with effect from the date of institution of the claim petition till the amount is realized. Loss of Dependence Rs.12,24,000/- 2. Funeral Expenses Rs. 10,000/- 3. Loss of Estate Rs. 6,000/- 4. Loss of Consortium Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 12,50,000/- 3. In all the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 12,50,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. with effect from the date of institution of the claim petition till the amount is realized. 4. Ongoing through the award granted by the Tribunal, the Court does not find any serious error in calculation of the income of the deceased-Mehfooz Ahmad Naik because the deceased was maintaining the family of his father, mother, wife and a minor child at the time of his death and taking note of the fact that the death happened in the year 2011, the income fixed by the Tribunal is reasonable. The compensation granted by the Tribunal is not excessive. 5. Finding no merits, the appeal on quantum is dismissed. 6. The Claimants are at liberty to withdraw the award amount, as above. CIMA No. 185/2013 1. The instant appeal is of the year 2013. The accident in this case happened on 03rd October, 2011. 2. It is a case of fatal accident. In this case, for the death of Patyal Singh S/o Keshu Ram, aged 35 years, working as Process server in judiciary, his wife, namely, Sharda Devi, daughters, namely, Sangam Devi, aged 10 years (minor) and Sandhya Devi, aged 3 years (minor) and a son, namely, Neeraj Singh, aged 5 years (minor) are the claimants. As per the salary certificate, the income of the deceased-Patyal Singh was Rs. 18074/- per month 3. On the basis of the salary certificate, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs. 18074/- per month, deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased and by adopting the multiplier of 16, granted the compensation to the claimants under the following heads:- S. No. Heading Award of the Tribunal 1. Loss of Dependence Rs. 26,00,000/- 2. Funeral Expenses Rs. 10,000/- 3. Loss of Estate Rs. 10,000/- 4. Loss of Consortium Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 26,30,000/- 4. The Tribunal has granted Rs. 26,30,000/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. with effect from the date of institution of the claim petition till the amount is realized. 5. Loss of Dependence Rs. 26,00,000/- 2. Funeral Expenses Rs. 10,000/- 3. Loss of Estate Rs. 10,000/- 4. Loss of Consortium Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 26,30,000/- 4. The Tribunal has granted Rs. 26,30,000/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. with effect from the date of institution of the claim petition till the amount is realized. 5. In the appeal, there is no serious dispute against the award of the Tribunal, as the deceased was a government employee and his salary was not enhanced by the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal on quantum of compensation is dismissed and the award of the Tribunal is confirmed. 6. Claimants are at liberty to withdraw the award amount. CIMA No. 186/2013 `It is a case of fatal accident. In this case for the death Mohd. Ashraf S/o Ghulam Mohi-ud-din, aged 22 years, working as Conductor, his father, namely, Gh. Mohi-ud-din, mother, namely, Raja Begum, sisters, namely, Afrooza Bano and Robina Bano (Minor) and brother, namely, Irfan Ahmed (Minor) filed a. claim petition before the Tribunal. 1. The Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs. 5000/- per month deducting 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased and by adopting the multiplier of 17 granted the compensation to the claimants under the following heads:- S. No. Heading Award of the Tribunal 1. Loss of Dependence Rs.5,10,000/- 2. Funeral Expenses Rs. 20,000/- 3. Loss of Estate Rs. 20,000/- Total Rs. 5,50,000/- 2. In all the Tribunal has granted Rs. 5,50,000/- as compensation with interest @ of 7.5% p.a. with effect from the date of institution of the claim petition till the amount is realized. 3. In appeal, it is pleaded the income fixed by the Tribunal is on a higher side. 4. Considering the age of the deceased-Mohd. Ashraf, the income of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal is reasonable, multiplier adopted is appropriate and the deduction is also correct. 5. Insofar as other heads are concerned, in view of the latest decision of a Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and ors (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014) rendered on 31st October, 2017, the claimants will be entitled to Rs. 15,000/- for Funeral expenses, and Rs. 15,000 for loss of estate. 6. 15,000/- for Funeral expenses, and Rs. 15,000 for loss of estate. 6. In modification of the award of the Tribunal, the claimants are held entitled to the following compensation:- S. No. Heading Award of the Tribunal Modified award 1. Loss of dependence Rs. 5,10,000/- Rs. 5,10,000/- 2. Funeral expenses Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 3. Loss of estate Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 5,50,000/- Rs. 5,40,000/- 7. Interest @ 7.5% per annum granted by the Tribunal is confirmed. 8. Appeal is partly allowed. 9. The claimants are entitled to withdraw the award amount as modified above. The excess amount be returned to the appellant-Insurance Company.