ORDER : – The miscellaneous appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) is directed against the award dated 7-9-2018 passed in claim case No. 11/2017 by the 2nd Additional Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sendhwa, Distt. Badwani. 2. Facts relevant and necessary for disposal of this appeal lie in narrow compass: On 28-4-2016, appellant while going along with his friends and respondent No. 1 to attend Kavi Sammelan at Pansemal met with an accident near Khadikham Ghaat Niwali as due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, the vehicle in which all of them were travelling turned turtle, as a result, appellant suffered grevious injuries and died due to the said injuries. 3. The tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 27,45,900/- taking the factor of loss of income due to death of deceased at Rs. 2,81,960/- per annum and loss of dependency at Rs. 2,06,800/-. The aforesaid figures of income tax are deducible from the return filed by the deceased for the assessment year 2015-16 and on record as Ex. P2-69, break-up of which is as under : Gross total income Rs. 3,53,503/- Standard Deductions [80C and 80TTA] Rs. 71,539/- Total Net Income Rs. 2,81,960/- 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant submits that at the time of incident, the deceased aged 48 years was earning Rs. 3,50,223/- per annum by running a medical shop. Because of the incident, he met untimely death leaving behind widow and two children. Besides, financial constraints, the family also suffered the loss of love and affection of the deceased. 5. Shri Saraf, learned Senior Counsel questions the award while the tribunal has calculated compensation treating the income of the deceased @ Rs. 2,81,960/- on the premise that total taxable income in hand of the assessee before accident (as per Ex. P-2/69) was Rs. 3,53,503/-, but by virtue of investments in life insurance policies, the assessee was entitled for tax rebate under section 80-C and 80TTA i.e. at Rs. 71,539/-. However, such rebate cannot be reduced from the income to ascertain the loss of income of the deceased. Though such tax rebates are reduced from income for its taxability. Therefore, the Tribunal has committed grave illegality while awarding less compensation. 6. 71,539/-. However, such rebate cannot be reduced from the income to ascertain the loss of income of the deceased. Though such tax rebates are reduced from income for its taxability. Therefore, the Tribunal has committed grave illegality while awarding less compensation. 6. Per contra, Shri Dandwate learned counsel for the Insurance Company supporting the award contends that as the income available for the assessee to maintain himself and his family was Rs. 2,81,960/-, therefore, the Tribunal did not commit any illegality while accepting the said figure as loss of income of the deceased. That apart, there is a continuity of generation of income through the same business of medical shop run by son of the deceased, therefore there is no loss of income. 7. Shri Saraf opposing the said contention of Shri Dandwate relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Urmila wd/o Prakash Deora and others vs. M.P. State Road Transport Corporation Bhopal and others, reported in 2002(3) M.P.L.J. 347 , para 9 in particular. Relevant part of the paragraph of the said judgment is quoted below : The Tribunal after holding that in the income tax returns (Ex. P/1*) income of Late Prakash Chandra Deora was Rs. 95,000/- per annum, but on the basis of the income earned by his son, has assessed the income at Rs. 4,000/- per month. The tribunal has held that as the factories are still running, assessment of income at Rs. 95,000/- per annum is not acceptable. In our considered view, the Tribunal has committed material irregularity in assessment of the annual income of late Prakash Deora. The income being received by his son after his death is not a relevant factor for assessing the income of Late Prakash Deora. The Income-tax returns which are on record indicate that the annual income of Late Prakash Deora was Rs. 95,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3 from the said amount towards personal expenses, the dependency is assessed at Rs. 63,332 per annum. The age of the deceased 52 the multiplier of 11 is applicable. Giving consideration to the matter, it would be just and proper to enhance compensation to Rs. 6,96,652.00 (six lakhs ninety six thousand six hundred and fifty two) plus Rs. 10,000.00 (ten thousand) towards loss of life expectancy, plus Rs. 5,000.00 (five thousand) towards loss of consortium to wife, plus Rs. Giving consideration to the matter, it would be just and proper to enhance compensation to Rs. 6,96,652.00 (six lakhs ninety six thousand six hundred and fifty two) plus Rs. 10,000.00 (ten thousand) towards loss of life expectancy, plus Rs. 5,000.00 (five thousand) towards loss of consortium to wife, plus Rs. 2,500.00 (two thousand five hundred) towards loss of estate plus Rs. 2000 (two thousand) towards funeral expenses, taking the total compensation to Rs. 7,16,152.00 (seven lakhs sixteen thousand one hundred and fifty two). The enhanced compensation will carry interest at the rate of 9% (nine percent) per annum. The award of the Tribunal passed in MCC No. 64/1986 stands modified to extent aforesaid. (emphasis supplied) 8. Heard. 9. From foregoing submissions, in the opinion of this Court two fold controversy is required to be addressed; (i) the income of the deceased at the time of death and (ii) loss of income to the family for the purpose of calculation of compensation. 10. Undisputedly, income available at the hands of the deceased for taxation in the assessment year 2015-16 was Rs. 3,53,503/-. The investment in the LIC policies was not mandatory, but voluntary and serves dual purpose; (a) investment for future saving and coverage of risk and (b) tax saving. 11. The Income Tax Act promotes certain specified nature of investments and offer tax exemption under Income Tax Act among other incentives under Chapter VI(a) of the Act. Investment in LIC policies is one of them. As such, the income reduced by tax benefit on LIC investments cannot be construed to be the loss of income of the assessee. 12. Accordingly, in the opinion of this Court, the income of the assessee at Rs. 3,53,503/- per annum less taxes for the assessment year 2015-16 shall be the income for calculation of compensation. Hence the first submission of learned counsel for the respondent is hereby rejected. 13. As no efforts were made by the insurance company to substantiate the submission that there was no loss of income to the family after demise of deceased. Merely, running of medical shop by the son of the deceased by itself shall not lead to presumption of no loss of income to the family, unless the income generated from the medical shop after death of the deceased is found to be substantially the same with the income earned by the deceased. Merely, running of medical shop by the son of the deceased by itself shall not lead to presumption of no loss of income to the family, unless the income generated from the medical shop after death of the deceased is found to be substantially the same with the income earned by the deceased. The judgment cited by Shri Saraf in the case of Urmila wd/o Prakash Deora and others (supra) supports the view taken by this Court as in the said case, the Division Bench has held that loss of income of the deceased cannot be set off by the income of the son from the same business or undertaking etc. Consequently, the second submission so raised by Shri Dandwate is also hereby rejected. 14. The tribunal has awarded under the head ‘future prospects’ and other heads taking into account the law laid down in the case of 2017 ACJ 2700 , National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, but taking into consideration the net income after deducting rebate under sections 80C and 80TTA and the income tax which is bad in law under the heads as follows : (i) towards loss of dependency [2,81,960 + 28,200 = 3,10,200 x 1/3 x 13] Rs. 2,06,800/- (ii) towards funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- (iii) towards loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/- (iv) towards loss of estate Rs. 2,500/- Total Rs. 27,45,900/- 15. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is substituted and the claimants are entitled for just compensation of Rs. 3,50,223 including the amount wrongly deducted by the tribunal under the head 80C i.e. the premium of LIC deposited by the deceased : 25% i.e. (` 3,50,223 x 25% = 87,556) Rs. 4,37,779 per annum (after deduction of 1/4 towards personal expenses), comes to Rs. 2,91,852/-(4,37,779 – 1,45,926). Hence, the multiplier ‘13’ is appropriate multiplier. The total dependency comes to Rs. 2,91,852/- x 13 = Rs. 37,94,076/-, break of which is as follows : (i) towards loss of dependency Rs. 37,94,076/- (iii) towards Conventional heads Rs. 70,000/- Total Rs. 38,64,076/- 16. As such, the total amount awarded to the claimants is from Rs. 27,45,900 to 38,64,076/- i.e. the enhanced amount comes to Rs. The total dependency comes to Rs. 2,91,852/- x 13 = Rs. 37,94,076/-, break of which is as follows : (i) towards loss of dependency Rs. 37,94,076/- (iii) towards Conventional heads Rs. 70,000/- Total Rs. 38,64,076/- 16. As such, the total amount awarded to the claimants is from Rs. 27,45,900 to 38,64,076/- i.e. the enhanced amount comes to Rs. 11,18,176/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Eighteen Thousand One Hundred and Seventy Six Only), with interest at the rate as fixed by the tribunal in the award which is ordered accordingly to be payable to the claimants as directed by the Tribunal in the same apportionment. The enhanced amount of compensation Rs. 11,18,176/- shall be payable to the claimants within 12 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Rest of the award impugned passed by the Tribunal shall remain intact. 17. If the enhanced amount of compensation is in excess to the valuation of appeal, the difference of the Court fee (if not already paid) shall be deposited by the appellant within four weeks’ from today and proof thereof shall be submitted before the Registry. 18. Appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid extent and disposed of. No order as to cost.