JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The instant appeal, is, directed against the award of 1.9.2017, pronounced by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, upon, MACP No. 119 of 2016, whereunder, it assessed, upon the dependents of the deceased Kusum Lata, compensation amount borne in a sum of Rs. 66,91,600/ alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from, the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 29.11.2016 till its realization. The apt indemnificatory liability whereof was fastened, upon, the insurer. The compensation amount was ordered to be disbursed equally amongst petitioners No. 2 and 3. The petitioners No.2 and 3 being minors, hence the compensation amount, was ordered to be maintained in FDRs drawn, upon, some nationalized bank at Una, till theirs'' attaining majority. Being aggrieved therefrom, the insurer of the offending vehicle, has hence instituted the instant appeal before this Court. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant, has made a vehement contention before this Court, that the affirmative findings returned by the learned tribunal, upon, the issue appertaining to the relevant mishap, wherein deceased Kusum Lata sustained injuries, and, injuries whereof stand pronounced in the apposite Post Mortem report, borne in Ex.PW2/A, to stand entailed upon her head, entailment whereof, stands, testified by PW2 (Dr. Subhash Sharma), to be a sequel of a road accident, rather warranting invalidation, by this Court, given (a) there existing firm evidence on record qua the deceased while driving a scooty, hers'' rather not contributing to the accident (b) whereupon the apt proportionate indemnificatory liability was enjoined to be also burdened, upon, the insurer, of, the apt scooty, rather, than solitarily upon the insurer of the offending vehicle. 3. However, the aforesaid submission addressed before this Court, by the learned counsel for the appellant, though, is bedrocked, upon, pleadings apposite therewith, as, embodied in the reply furnished, to the apt claim petition, by the insurer, yet, with, no evidence in consonance therewith standing adduced, thereupon the aforesaid espousal, is, hence rendered perse surmisal. 4. Further more, contrarily, the factum of deceased Kusum Lata while being borne, on, the scooty, and, it being struck from the rear, by, the driver of the offending vehicle, stands testified by PW1, and, also the factum aforesaid, is also embodied in the apt FIR, borne in Ex. 4. Further more, contrarily, the factum of deceased Kusum Lata while being borne, on, the scooty, and, it being struck from the rear, by, the driver of the offending vehicle, stands testified by PW1, and, also the factum aforesaid, is also embodied in the apt FIR, borne in Ex. PW1/A. Even if PW1 is not an eye witness to the occurrence nor the apt FIR hence constitutes any substantive piece of evidence, thereupon the testification of PW1, and, the aforesaid apt recitals, borne/ embodied in FIR Ex. PW1/A, may not comprise, overwhelming potent evidence, for hence validating the affirmative findings recorded, by the learned MACT concerned, upon, the issue appertaining to the relevant mishap, being a sequel of rash, and, negligent manner of the driving, of the offending vehicle by its driver (a) yet with an ocular witness, to the occurrence, one Rakesh Kumar (PW4), in his examinationinchief, rendering a testification bearing the utmost concurrence, with, the echoings borne in the apt FIR, and, (b) when during the course of his exacting crossexamination, his testification borne, in her examinationinchief rather remained intact, (c) thereupon it is to be firmly concluded qua the tragic road mishap, hence being a sequel of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, by its driver, and concomitantly it is also to be concluded qua the deceased while atop the scooty, not, hence contributing to the tragic mishap. 5. Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that, with the Hon''ble Apex Court, in a judgment reported in a case titled as Shyamwati Sharma & others Versus Karam Singh & Others , (2010) 12 SCC 378 , relevant paragraphs 7,8 and 9 whereof, stand extracted hereinafter, making therein trite expostulation of law, qua it being imperative, for, Courts of law, to, mete 30% deductions, workable towards income tax, as attractable upon the salary drawn by the deceased, (i) thereupon, it being incumbent upon this Court, to, in consonance therewith, mete the apt deduction, and (ii) he further contends that the figure, of, per mensem salary computed by the learned Tribunal also enjoining concomitant therewith deductions, and, (iii) thereafter the amount of compensation, determined by the learned tribunal, also, warranting reassessment, and, recomputation. However, the aforesaid submission addressed before this Court rather is unnameable, for acceptance, given (i) the learned counsel for the appellant, not bearing in mind the apt underlinings, borne, in paragraph 9 of the judgment supra , on reading whereof, it is rather apparent qua the apt deduction(s) of income tax, visavis, the salary of the deceased, being imminently constituted in variant figures, (ii) besides its standing postulated therein, qua, the apt deduction borne, in 30%, only appertaining to the facts prevalent thereat, (iii) imperatively hence, the aforesaid judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, does not, constitute any inflexible ratio decidendi, rather meteing(s) of deduction, visavis, the last drawn salary of the deceased, being obviously dependent, upon, the apt income tax returns filed, by the deceased, and, theirs being adduced into evidence (iv) whereas hereat, the insurance has not either tendered into evidence, the, apt income tax returns nor enabled their exhibition, (v) thereupon, any applying, in consonance therewith, to the fullest, the, meteing, of, 30% deduction thereon, would be grossly unjust, (vi) conspicuously, when for all the reasons'' aforesaid, it does not postulate any inflexible binding ratio decidendi rather reiteratedly, the meteing of apt deductions being dependent, upon, the aforesaid apt evidence being adduced, whereas, the aforesaid evidence remains unadduced hereat. "7. As notice above, the gross salary was Rs. 13,974 per month or Rs. 1,65,528 per annum. By adding 50% towards future prospects (as the deceased was less than 40 years of age), the deemed gross income would have been Rs. 20,691 per month or Rs. 2,48,292 per annum. The percentage of deduction towards income tax and surcharge, taken as 30% by the High Court does not required to be disturbed, having regard to the income. On such deduction, the next annual income of the deceased would have been Rs. 1,73,800. From the said sum, onefourth (25%) had to be deducted towards the personal ad living expenses of the deceased. Thus the contribution of the deceased to his family would have been Rs. 1,30,350 per annum. By applying the multiplier of 15, the total loss of dependency will be Rs. 19,55,250. By adding a sum of Rs. 5000 each under the heads of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, the total compensation is determined as Rs. 19,70,250/. 8. 1,30,350 per annum. By applying the multiplier of 15, the total loss of dependency will be Rs. 19,55,250. By adding a sum of Rs. 5000 each under the heads of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, the total compensation is determined as Rs. 19,70,250/. 8. The submission of the respondents that the deduction of 30% from the salary is not warranted in vie of the decision in Sarla Verma is not sound. In Sarla Verma the monthly salary of the deceased was only Rs. 4004 and the annual income even after taking note of future prospects was Rs. 72,072. The income was in a range which was exempt from tax, if the permissible deductions were applied. Therefore, this Court did not make any deduction towards income tax. But this Court made it clear that where the annual income in in the taxable range, appropriate deductions should be made towards tax. 9. In this case as the annual income has been worked out as Rs. 2,48,292 appropriate deduction has to be made towards income tax. The rate of income tax is a varying figure, with reference to taxable income after permissible deductions and the year of assessment. The High Court has assessed the deduction as 30% and on the facts, we do not propose to disturb it. We however make it clear that while ascertaining the income of the deceased any deduction shown in the salary certificate as deductions towards GPF life insurance premium, repayments of loans, etc should not be excluded from the income. The deduction towards income tax/surcharge alone should be considered to arrive at the net income of the deceased." 6. Consequently, reiteratedly it was enjoined, upon, the insurer, to elicit from the income tax department, the annual returns filed by the deceased, and, as accepted by the Department concerned, yet the aforesaid elicitations, were not endeavored by the learned counsel for the insurer. 7. However, in the larger interest of justice, this Court deems it fit to make 15% deduction from the last drawn salary of the deceased. 8. With the Hon''ble Apex Court, in case titled as National Insurance Co. 7. However, in the larger interest of justice, this Court deems it fit to make 15% deduction from the last drawn salary of the deceased. 8. With the Hon''ble Apex Court, in case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others , (2017) ACJ 2700, the relevant paragraph No.61 (iii) extracted hereinafter, rather expostulating (i) that where the deceased concerned, is rendering employment, in government organization(s), as is hereat, the apt employment, of, the deceased, (a) thereupon, hikes or accretions, on anvil, of future incremental prospects, visvis, the salary drawn, by him, in contemporanity, visavis, the ill fated mishap, being also meteable thereto. "(ii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30% , if the age of the deceased as between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15% . Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax." 9. For meteing the fullest justice, hence with the salary certificate borne in Ex.PW5/A, making a pronouncement qua the deceased drawing, salary borne in a sum of Rs. 33,552/, and, after meteing 15% deductions, visavis, the relevant last drawn salary of the deceased, the deceased''s apt salary is reckonable at Rs. 28,519/. The deceased was aged 31 at the relevant time, consequently, in consonance therewith, after meteing apt 50% incremental increase(s) towards future prospects, visvis, the deceaseds'' last drawn salary, thereupon, the relevant last drawn salary, of, the deceased is reckonable, at Rs. 42,778/, [Rs. 28,519/(last drawn salary of the deceased)+ Rs. 14259/ (50% of the last drawn salary). Significantly, the number of dependents, of, the deceased, are, two, hence, 1/3rd deduction is to be visited, upon, a sum of Rs. 42,778/, deducted, amount whereof, is calculated at Rs. 14,259/ per mensem. Consequently, the annual dependency, including the future hikes towards future prospects, is, worked out, now at Rs. 42,77814,259=28,519/ In sequel whereto, the annual dependency, of the dependents, upon, the income of the deceased is computed, at Rs. 28,519 x 12= 3,42,228/. After applying, upon, the aforesaid figure, of, annual dependency, the apposite multiplier of 16, the total compensation amount, is assessed, in a sum of Rs. 42,77814,259=28,519/ In sequel whereto, the annual dependency, of the dependents, upon, the income of the deceased is computed, at Rs. 28,519 x 12= 3,42,228/. After applying, upon, the aforesaid figure, of, annual dependency, the apposite multiplier of 16, the total compensation amount, is assessed, in a sum of Rs. 3,42,228 X 16 =54,75,648/. 10. However, the quantification, of compensation, by the learned Tribunal in a sum of Rs. 50,000/, visavis, the claimants under the head, cost of litigation and funeral expenses, and Rs. 1,00,000/ under the head, loss of love and affection, is (a) in, conflict with the mandate of the Hon''ble Apex Court rendered in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, supra , (b) wherein, it has been expostulated, that reasonable figures, under conventional heads, namely, loss to estate, loss of consortium, and, funeral expenses being quantified only upto Rs. 15,000/, Rs. 40,000/, and Rs. 25,000/ respectively, (iii) and, with no expostulation, occurring therein, visavis compensation amount(s), being awardable, to the widow, and, to the offspring and mother of the deceased, especially under the head, loss of love and affection, and, cost of litigation, hence reliefs in respect thereto, stand hence impermissibly granted, and, are quashed and set aside. 11. Consequently, the award of the learned tribunal is interfered, to the extent aforesaid, of, its inaptly determining compensation, under, the aforesaid heads, visvis, the off springs of the deceased. Accordingly, in addition to the aforesaid amount of Rs. 54,75,648//, the claimants, are, nowat entitled, under, conventional head, namely, funeral expense, sums of Rs. 25,000/, as such, the total compensation whereto the claimants are entitled, comes to Rs. 54,75,648/ + 25,000/= Rs. 55,00,648/. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the insurer is partly allowed, and, the impugned award, is, in the aforesaid manner, hence modified. Accordingly, the claimants are, held entitled to a total compensation, of, Rs. 55,00,648/, along with pending and future interest thereon @ 7.5 %, from, the date of petition till the date, of, deposit, of the compensation amount. Compensation amount be disbursed equally amongst claimants/respondents No.2 and 3. The amount of interim compensation, if awarded, be adjusted against the aforesaid compensation amount, at the time of final payment. Since the claimants are minors, hence the amount of compensation qua their share is ordered to be kept in the FDR drawn upon some nationalized bank till they attain majority. Compensation amount be disbursed equally amongst claimants/respondents No.2 and 3. The amount of interim compensation, if awarded, be adjusted against the aforesaid compensation amount, at the time of final payment. Since the claimants are minors, hence the amount of compensation qua their share is ordered to be kept in the FDR drawn upon some nationalized bank till they attain majority. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.