JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri A.C. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rama Nand Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record attached with this appeal from both sides. 2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant -The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. against the judgment and award dated 14.08.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 2/MACT, J.P. Nagar in MACP No. 67 of 2007 by which the compensation of Rs.30,75,048.00/- has been awarded with the interest @6% from the date of filing of claim petition to the claimants-respondents. 3. Before the learned Tribunal, a claim petition was filed by the petitioners stating that on 20.7.2007 at about 1.00 PM in the village Allipur, near National Highway, P.S. Gajraula, District J.P. Nagar, an accident took place in which, husband of claimant no. 1 and father of claimant nos. 2 to 5 sustained injuries and died. At the time of accident, the driver of Tanker no. HR 37-B/4183 was being driven by the driver very rashly and negligently which dashed the Scorpio No. UDS 0003/4528 coming from the side of Delhi and the Scorpio overturned and fell over the deceased Om Prakash Mishra by which he sustained serious injuries and while he was being taken for treatment, he died on the way. At the time of accident, the deceased was going on foot to the Jubliant Company Ltd. where he was working and when he reached near the factory, the accident took place. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 42 years and was enough healthy and he was working as Store Officer in the said Company and was getting salary of Rs.19,370/- monthly. On that basis, the claim petition has been filed for compensation. 4. The appellant-Insurance Company filed written statement before the Tribunal stating that claimant should establish the accident. At the time of accident none of the drivers of both the vehicles were having valid and effective driving license. The accident took place because of fault of driver of Scorpio and owner of Scorpio and Insurance Company have not been made party. The said offending Tanker was not being driven according to terms of insurance policy and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. 5. The opposite party no. The accident took place because of fault of driver of Scorpio and owner of Scorpio and Insurance Company have not been made party. The said offending Tanker was not being driven according to terms of insurance policy and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. 5. The opposite party no. 2-M/S. Maple Logistic Pvt. Limited Company filed written statement denying the allegation of claim petition and stating that accident was not caused by the alleged offending vehicle and the claim petition has been filed on wrong facts. At the time of accident, the driver of Tanker was having valid and effective driving license and the vehicle was ensured with the Insurance Company and if it is established that the accident took place because of rashness and negligence of driver of Tanker, the responsibility to pay compensation is on Insurance Company. 6. The defendant no. 3 has not filed any written statement and against him, the proceeding has taken place ex-parte. The defendant no. 4 Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. has filed written statement and has stated that claimant has to establish the accident. The driver of Scorpio has not been made party nor he was having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. The insurance with the Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. shall be verified and there is no responsibility to pay compensation on the Insurance Company. 7. The following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal, the English version of the same are as under: (I) Whether on 20.7.2007 at about 1.00 PM Om Prakash Mishra was going to the Juviliant Company where he was working walking on the road and at that time the Tanker no. S.R.-37B/4183 and Scorpio No. U.P. 5003/4528 dashed to each other and the Scorpio fell upon the deceased Om Prakash Mishra which caused serious injuries to him and while he was in the way for treatment, he died? (II) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Tanker no. HR 37-B/4182? (III) Whether the accident was caused due to negligence of both the vehicles? (IV) Whether Tanker no. HR 37-B/4183 was ensured with the Insurance Company and violated the terms of Insurance Company? (V) Whether Scorpio no. U.P. 5003/4528 was ensured with the opposite party no. 4? (VI) Whether the owners of Scorpio violated the terms of Insurance Company? HR 37-B/4182? (III) Whether the accident was caused due to negligence of both the vehicles? (IV) Whether Tanker no. HR 37-B/4183 was ensured with the Insurance Company and violated the terms of Insurance Company? (V) Whether Scorpio no. U.P. 5003/4528 was ensured with the opposite party no. 4? (VI) Whether the owners of Scorpio violated the terms of Insurance Company? (VII) Whether both the vehicles were driven by the drivers having valid and effective license at the time of accident? (VIII) Whether the claimants are entitled to get compensation, if yes, for what amount and against whom? 8. The parties to the claim petition gave evidence in terms of documents such as, copy of FIR, driving license of driver of offending vehicle, copy of insurance policy, registration certificate, copy of permit, salary certificate of deceased, postmortem report, copy of site map, copy of charge sheet, copy of High School Certificate of deceased. P.W. 1-Smt. Parul Devi, P.W. 2-Kapil Joshi and P.W. 3-Ram Chandra Pandey have been examined from the side of claimants. The opposite parties have not given any evidence, oral or documentary. 9. After hearing learned counsel for both sides, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned award aggrieved by which, this appeal has been filed. The appellant has submitted that no accident took place by Tanker and the Scarpio overturned and crushed the deceased. The accident took place in the middle of the road and there was contributory negligence of the other vehicle. The driver of the Tanker was not summoned even though an application was given. Income was erroneously determined and deduction of 1/4th in place of 1/3rd was wrongly made against personal expense. 10. A cross objection/ application/cross-appeal has been filed by the respondents-claimants that the Insurance Company has wrongly deducted a TDS of Rs. 268970/- and they are entitled for return of that money with interest. 11. The first submission of the learned counsel to the appellant is that it was a case of composite negligence of two vehicles and the learned Tribunal should have determined the percentage of negligence of both and accordingly a direction for apportionment of compensation to that extent should have been made. In T.O. Antony V. Karvarnan, AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 1646 and APSRTC v. K. Hemalatha, AIR 2008 SC 2851 , the Supreme Court has explained the law of composite negligence and its impact on liability of compensation. In T.O. Antony V. Karvarnan, AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 1646 and APSRTC v. K. Hemalatha, AIR 2008 SC 2851 , the Supreme Court has explained the law of composite negligence and its impact on liability of compensation. Where a person is injured without any negligence on his part but as a combined effect of the negligence of two other persons, it is not a case of contributory negligence but is a case of composite negligence. Composite negligence refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrongdoers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrongdoers. In such a case, each wrongdoer is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. In such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrongdoer separately, nor it is necessary for the Court to determine the extent of liability of each wrongdoer separately. On the other hand where a person suffers injury, partly due to the negligence on the part of another person or persons, and partly as a result of his own negligence, then the negligence on the part of the injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as his contributory negligence. Where the injured is guilty of some negligence, his claim for damages is not defeated merely by reason of the negligence on his part but the damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stands reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence. 12. In this case the learned tribunal found on the basis of evidence on record that it was the driver of the Tanker who was driving the Tanker rashly and negligently and dashed the Scarpio which was coming from the opposite direction. There is no evidence on record to take the view that the driver of Scarpio was rash and negligent. No evidence was given to that effect from the side of the appellant before the learned Tribunal. The site-map prepared by IO during investigation also shows that the Scarpio was coming from the correct side and the Tanker dashed it going towards the wrong side. No evidence was given to that effect from the side of the appellant before the learned Tribunal. The site-map prepared by IO during investigation also shows that the Scarpio was coming from the correct side and the Tanker dashed it going towards the wrong side. Hence, the submission in this regard appears to be imaginary and hypothetical and has no force. In view of this finding, not making the owner or driver of the Scarpio a party cannot cause prejudice to the appellant. 13. Another argument is with regards to income of the deceased. The learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income on the basis of the salary certificate filed and proved by the Officer of Company where he was working as Commercial Officer according to which monthly income was Rs.17496/- and annually Rs.209952/-. Therefore, the income of the deceased was proved. Thereafter, 1/4th has been deducted against personal expenses. The submission of the learned counsel to the appellant is that a deduction of 1/3rd should have been made as the number of dependent shown in the petition was 5, but, considering that three of them were minor, this number will come to three and half. It has been argued that the UP Amended Motor Vehicle Rules, 2011 provides that two minors will make one unit in determining the number of dependents. Even if it is so, the number of dependents is more than three and as such a deduction of 1/4th is absolutely correct, as a deduction of 1/3rd is provided where the number of dependents is 2 to 3 and in case of 4 to 6 dependents, the deduction is provided as 1/4th. 14. In fact, the UP Rules simply adopts the principle laid down in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd., AIR 2009 SC 3104 where it has been laid down by the Supreme Court: “Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd., AIR 2009 SC 3104 where it has been laid down by the Supreme Court: “Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six.” 15. In view of above, the deduction appears to be appropriate as logically the remainder half dependent should be considered to be one in view of the beneficial purpose of the law which has been enacted as solace in favor of the claimant and the deduction against personal expenses in case of more than 3 dependents, but not 4 dependents, as is the case here where the dependents are three and half, the deduction of 1/4th in place of 1/3rd is justified. 16. The next submission is with regards to application of multiplier. The learned Tribunal has determined the age of the deceased to be 42 years on the basis of his high school certificate and has applied a multiplier of 15 in view of II Schedule. In Sarla Verma (supra), the Supreme Court has laid down as below: “We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.” 17. The above multiplier system has been further affirmed by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi & others, AIR 2017 SC 5157 and the available multiplier is of 14 in the age of 42 years. It is pertinent to mention that multiplier system has been provided under law law to maintain uniformity in determining quantum of compensation in order to avoid variation. Therefore, multiplier of 15 has been wrongly applied by the learned Tribunal and it should be 14 as held by the Supreme Court. 18. As such, applying the multiplier of 14 in place of 15, the amount comes to 157464 x 14 = Rs. 2204496/-. The learned Tribunal has added a future income at the rate of 30%. The submission of the learned counsel is that in view of the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), the future income in the age of 42 years should be 25% of the total income, as the deceased was not a permanent employee and his income was not certain. In this regard, the law has been settled by the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) in which all the earlier decisions on this point have been discussed and considered and it has been laid down by the Court as below: “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 was 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. (iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.” 19. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.” 19. Clearly, the deceased was not self employed nor he was working on fixed salary and therefore, the addition of salary at the rate of 30% against future prospects is legally justified and there is no illegality when the learned Tribunal has enhanced 30% salary against future prospect and it annually comes to Rs. 47239/-. 20. In conventional head, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2000/- as funeral expenses and Rs. 2500/- for loss of estate. No amount has been awarded for the loss of consortium. It has been laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra) as follows: “Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively.” 21. In view of above discussion, the amount of compensation is required to be calculated as follows: A. Annual Salary at the Rate of Rs. 17496 Monthly Rs. 209952 B. Deduction of 1/4th Against Personal Expenses Rs. 52488 Total Rs. 157464 C. Applying Multiplier of 14 (157464x 14) Rs. 2204496 D. Future Prospect at the Rate of 30% Rs. 661348 Total Rs. 2865844 E. Addition under Conventional Head 1. Loss of Consortium Rs. 40000 2. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15000 3. Loss of estate Rs. 15000 Total of Amount under Conventional Head Rs. 70000 Total Amount of Compensation Rs. 2935844 22. As calculated above the total amount of compensation should have been Rs. 2935844/-, whereas, the learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 3075048/-. Therefore, the awarded amount needs to be modified accordingly. 23. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants has been that the Insurance Company has wrongly deducted TDS. In view of the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), income tax is required to be deducted. Therefore, if the income tax has been deducted, there appears to be no illegality. If the amount deducted as TDS is wrong or in excess, the same can be returned according to the legal process and by filing return and claiming the excess amount. Accordingly, the objection/application/cross-appeal of the respondents-claimants is disposed of. 24. The amount of compensation is modified to become Rs. If the amount deducted as TDS is wrong or in excess, the same can be returned according to the legal process and by filing return and claiming the excess amount. Accordingly, the objection/application/cross-appeal of the respondents-claimants is disposed of. 24. The amount of compensation is modified to become Rs. 2935844/- in place of Rs. 3075048 which has been awarded by the learned Tribunal by the impugned award. The remaining part of the impugned award shall remain undisturbed. The difference of Rs.139204/-(Rs. 3075048 – 2935844) shall be deducted in half proportion from the share of claimant wife and half of the amount shall be deducted in equal proportion from the share of other four claimants. 25. With the above modification, this appeal is finally disposed of. Stay order if any shall stand vacated. 26. The amount of Rs. 25000/- deposited at the time of filing of this appeal be remitted back to the learned Tribunal which shall be adjusted against the awarded amount. 27. The office is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal for information and necessary compliance. If the lower court record has been received, the same is directed to be returned to the concerned Tribunal.