ORDER : Sanjeev Kumar, J. CONC No. 170/2019, IA No. 01/2018. For the reasons detailed in the application, it is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Application disposed of. Main appeal is taken up. MAC App. No. 60/2019, CM No. 3745/2019 1. This appeal filed by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. is directed against the award dated 06.04.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) in File No. 427/claims titled Smt. Indu Priya Dewan and others v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 65,29,750/- as compensation in favour of the respondents-claimants. 2. This appeal arises out of an accident, which took place at Jatwal, Samba on the National Highway on 27.06.2011 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Tipper) bearing registration No. JK08B-8654. The offending vehicle at the relevant point of time was being driven by the respondent No. 7, namely, Himant Singh. On the fateful day, the deceased was going from Jammu to Pathankot in his own vehicle (Maruti Alto Car) bearing registration No. JK02U-6263 and at about 12:45 PM when he reached near Petrol Pump at Jatwal, Samba the offending vehicle, which too was moving from Jammu towards Kathua collided with the vehicle of deceased and caused the major accident in which the deceased received serious injuries and died on spot. As claimed and also proved, the deceased at the time of accident was 50 years old and was serving as Manager, J&K Bank Ltd. and posted in Branch Office, GSP Road Pathankot, Punjab. As per the salary certificate, the deceased was getting a salary of Rs. 61,739/- per month. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, the claimants laid a claim for compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/-. To substantiate the claim, the claimants placed on record last pay certificate for the month of June, 2011 of the deceased, copy of the FIR, registered with the Police Station, Samba, final report submitted by the Police under section 173 Cr.P.C., copy of the post mortem examination report with respect to autopsy of the body of deceased and other relevant documents of the offending vehicle with the petition. 3. The claim was contested by the appellant insurance company only and, whereas, the driver and the owner despite service did not appear and were proceeded ex parte by the Tribunal. 3. The claim was contested by the appellant insurance company only and, whereas, the driver and the owner despite service did not appear and were proceeded ex parte by the Tribunal. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues for adjudication:- (1) Whether an accident took place on 27.06.2011 at about 12:45 pm at near Jatwal Petrol Pump NHW by rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No. JK08B-8654 (Tipper) by its driver as a result of which deceased-Harsh Vardhan Dewan received fatal injuries? OPP (2) If issue no. 1 is proved in the affirmative, whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if yes, to what amount and from whom? (3) Whether the offending vehicle was being driven at the time of accident in violation of terms and conditions of policy of insurance and insurance company is not liable? OPR-1 (4) Relief. OP Parties. 4. The onus of proof of issues No. 1 and 2 was placed on the petitioner whereas the issue no. 3 was directed to be proved by appellant insurance company the respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal. The claimants examined two witnesses, namely, Vinod Behloo, the then Associate Executive, Personal Department, J&K Bank at its Zonal Office, Jammu and Ramesh Sharma a resident of Hari Singh Nagar, Rehari Colony, Jammu. One of the claimants, i.e., respondent No. 1, the wife of the deceased, also entered the witness box. The appellant-insurance company, however, did not lead any evidence in rebuttal. On the evidence lead before the Tribunal, the Tribunal found that the issues 1 and 2 have been sufficiently proved by the claimants, however, the issue No. 3, onus whereof was on the appellant-insurance company was held not proved as no evidence was led by the appellant insurance company to discharge the burden of proof of the issue. The Tribunal after taking all relevant aspects in view and the law laid down in the authoritative pronouncement in case of Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi held the claimants entitled to a sum of Rs. 65,49,750/- along with interest @ 6.75% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition till its realization. The manner in which the amount was to be paid to the claimants was also indicated in the operative portion of the award. 5. Aggrieved, the appellant insurance company is in appeal before this Court. 65,49,750/- along with interest @ 6.75% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition till its realization. The manner in which the amount was to be paid to the claimants was also indicated in the operative portion of the award. 5. Aggrieved, the appellant insurance company is in appeal before this Court. The impugned award has been assailed by the appellant insurance company inter alia on the ground that the Tribunal has committed an error by taking the income of the deceased as Rs. 56,739/- which was gross salary of the deceased minus the income tax. It is urged that there were certain amounts, which were included in the gross salary and the same were required to be excluded to compute the net pay, which deceased was receiving on the date of accident. The appellant insurance company has put this amount at Rs. 43,818/-. The appellant insurance company wants deduction on account of Festival allowances, loan consumer, pension, union fund, loan- housing etc. from the gross salary of the deceased. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Asha and others v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2004 ACJ 448 , it is contended that the Tribunal was bound to take into account only the net income for calculating the compensation. The appellant insurance company also claims that the amount which legal heirs of the deceased employee were entitled to receive due to untimely death of the deceased as family pension etc. too have not been assessed and deducted by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant insurance company has placed reliance upon the case of Mrs. Helen C. Rebello and others V. Maharashtra SRTC and another AIR 1998 SC 3191 , Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shashi Sharma and others reported in 2016 ACJ 2723 to bolster his submissions. Learned counsel for the appellant insurance company, however, summed up his arguments by stating that the award passed by the Tribunal does not represent just compensation and therefore, deserves to be scaled down. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants vehemently contends that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and fair and in accordance with the settled legal position. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants vehemently contends that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and fair and in accordance with the settled legal position. It is claimed that the claimants had proved the issues, the burden whereof was on them by leading cogent evidence, whereas no evidence was led by the appellant insurance company in rebuttal. The Tribunal has correctly relied upon the cogent and credible evidence led by the claimants and has held them entitled to the compensation as awarded in terms of the impugned award. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that by and large the amount of compensation in favour of the claimants is just and fair and may require only a slight modification. The appellant could not point out any material to disbelieve the evidence of the claimants that the deceased at the time of his death was receiving monthly salary of Rs. 61,739/-, The salary certificate placed on record gives break-up by the total emoluments last received by the deceased in the month of June, 2011. From the perusal of the salary certificate which is not disputed by the appellant insurance company, the deceased as a part of his last pay drawn in June, 2011 received the gross salary of Rs. 61,739/- (Basic salary of Rs. 29,700, DA: Rs. 17250/-, HRCA: Rs. 3330/-, Variable: Rs. 7425/-, Fixed Pay: 936/- Local conveyance: Rs. 2123, Post Allowance: Rs. 175/- and Others: Rs. 800/-). Out of this amount, the employer was making deduction in the following manner: (i) Festival Rs.1500 (ii) Loan-consumer Rs.2250/- (iii) Loan consumer Rs.3496/- (iv) Pension Rs.3000/- (v) TDS Rs.25/- (vi) Union Rs.1750/- (vii) Loan-Housing Rs.4900/- (viii) Loan Housing Rs.17,921/- total 8. Going by the last pay certificate, the deceased was receiving a net pay of Rs. 43818/-. The Tribunal, however, has taken the income of deceased as Rs. 61,739/- minus Rs. 5000=56739/-. For calculation of the compensation, I am afraid that this is not the correct way of computing the monthly income of the deceased. From the certificate, it is abundantly clear that apart from Rs. 3000/- which was being deducted towards TDS, a sum of rupees 1500+2250+1000+1750+ 4900 was also being deducted on account of different types of loans availed of by the deceased. From the certificate, it is abundantly clear that apart from Rs. 3000/- which was being deducted towards TDS, a sum of rupees 1500+2250+1000+1750+ 4900 was also being deducted on account of different types of loans availed of by the deceased. This amount, therefore, cannot be taken to be a part of income of the deceased for computing the loss of dependency of the claimants, I am, therefore, inclined to take a view different from the one taken by the Tribunal and take the income of the deceased as Rs. 61739 - 17921 = Rs. 43818 + 3496+ 25 = Rs. 47339/-. That being the position, the compensation payable to the claimants would work out to be in the following manner:- 1. The monthly income of the deceased is Rs. 47339/- 2. To be increased by 15% towards future prospectus, it will come to Rs. 47339+7200= Rs. 54539/-. There would be deduction @ 1/4th on account of personal expenses, which would bring the amount to Rs. 40,904/- The annual income to be taken for consideration for computing the compensation = 40,904 x 12= Rs. 4,90,848/-. 3. The multiplier to be used is 13. 4. Loss of dependency would come to Rs. 4,90,848/- x 13= Rs. 63,81,024/- Conventional heads: (i) Funeral expenses 15000.00 (ii) Loss of state 15000.00 (iii) Loss of consortium of appellant No. 1 40,000.00 (iv) Loss of consortium of appellants 2 and 3 would come to Rs. 80,000 40,000/- each (v) Loss of parental consortium of respondents 4 and 5 @ Rs. 40,000 each which would come to Rs. 80,000/- Total : 63,81,024+15,000+15,000+40,000+80,000+80,000 = 66,11,024 Rupees Sixty Six Lac Eleven Thousand and Twenty Four only) 9. The award amount is, thus, modified to the aforesaid extent. The claimants are held entitled to the compensation aforesaid, which shall be released to them in the manner as provided in the award. The rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is maintained. 10. Disposed of as above along with connected IA(s).