JUDGMENT V. Srishananda, J. - Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 06.03.2012, passed in MVC No.1106/2011 on the file of MACT-II, Bellary, the appellants-claimants have preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as under : It is contended in the claim petition that on 02.06.2011, at about 6.15 p.m. when one Abdul Razaak Dandavati who was proceeding towards the rest room in 1st Depot, Siruguppa road, Bellary after finishing his work, a KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-36/F-544 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed against him, as a result, he fell down and died at the spot. It is contended that the deceased Abdul was working as a driver in KSRTC and was earning Rs.23,428/- per month. The dependants have lodged a claim petition seeking suitable compensation. 3. In pursuance of the notice issued by the tribunal, respondents appeared before the tribunal. While 1st respondent i.e., driver did not file any written statement, the 2nd respondent filed detailed written statement denying the claim petition averments. Respondent No.2 specifically contended that the accident has occurred purely on account of negligent movement of the deceased himself without observing the bus, which was proceeding in a normal speed. It is also contended that a sum of Rs.4,98,000/- is paid to the members of the deceased under Workmen Compensation Act and other emoluments which the deceased was entitled including gratuity to the tune of Rs.4,07,050/- and it is also contended that son of the deceased has been given employment on compensatory ground and thus, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4. Based on the same, the tribunal raised the following issues: 1. Whether the petitioners prove that death of one Abdul Razaak Dandavati husband of 1st petitioner, father of petitioner Nos.2 to 5 on 2.6.2011 at about 6.15 p.m. inside the 1st Depot, Siruguppa Road, Bellary, due to actionable negligence of 1st respondent driver of KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA- 36/F-455? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled compensation? If so, what amount and from whom? 3. What Order or decree? 5. In order to discharge the burden fastened on the claimants, the second claimant namely Kuthubuddin got examined himself as PW1 and 12 documents were produced, marked and exhibited as Exs.P1 to P12. Ex.P12 is the documentary evidence on behalf of the claimant. If so, what amount and from whom? 3. What Order or decree? 5. In order to discharge the burden fastened on the claimants, the second claimant namely Kuthubuddin got examined himself as PW1 and 12 documents were produced, marked and exhibited as Exs.P1 to P12. Ex.P12 is the documentary evidence on behalf of the claimant. On behalf of respondents, one Sangappa, the driver of KSRTC bus is examined as RW1 and 6 documents were relied upon vide Ex.R1 to 6. 6. On cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the tribunal answered issue No.1 in the affirmative and Issue No.2 partly in the affirmative and allowed the claim petition by granting a sum of Rs.1,16,000/-with interest @ 6% p.a. as the compensation after giving due deduction to the amount deposited before the Labour Officer-cum- Commissioner under Workmen Compensation Act from the total adjudged compensation of Rs.6,14,000/-. 7. It is that judgment which is under challenge in this appeal by the claimants. 8. The learned counsel for the appellantsclaimants vehemently contended that the tribunal has wrongly calculated the monthly income. It is their specific case that only Rs.200/- was to be deducted from the monthly income towards professional tax. As admittedly the monthly income of the deceased was at Rs.23,428/-. But, the tribunal wrongly arrived at monthly income of the deceased at Rs.19,254/- taking into consideration the other deduction from the salary. 9. The learned counsel for the appellantsclaimants also contended that the tribunal did not consider the addition of 15% income to the adjudged income towards future prospects as per decision laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Limited V/s. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) AIR SC 5157 . 10. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants that the tribunal did not consider the grant of parental consortium for the children. It is also his case that the tribunal did not consider the grant of Rs.70,000/- towards conventional heads and also contended that the tribunal erred in law in applying split multiplier and sought for enhancement of compensation. 11. It is also his case that the tribunal did not consider the grant of Rs.70,000/- towards conventional heads and also contended that the tribunal erred in law in applying split multiplier and sought for enhancement of compensation. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent-KSRTC contended that the adjudged compensation itself is on the higher side, as admittedly the son of the deceased has been given a compensatory appointment with clear undertaking that he also look after the other dependants and therefore, there was no loss of dependency at all and hence, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 12. Alternatively he has also contended that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the deceased was aged 58 years and had left only two years of service, but the tribunal was wrong in adopting common multiplier and should have resorted to split multiplier system in view of the judgment of Division Bench of this court, disposed of on 08.12.2016 in the case of The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., and another V/s. Sri. Prithviraj and others, and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the following points would arise for consideration: 1. Whether the monthly income assessed by the tribunal was proper and correct ? 2. Whether the tribunal was justified in applying split multiplier? 14. Answer to the above point No.1 in the negative and point No.2 in the affirmative for the following: REASONS 15. The learned counsel for the appellantsclaimants vehemently contended that the tribunal has erred in assessing the monthly income at Rs.19,254/- 16. While assessing the monthly income at Rs.19,254/- the tribunal has considered the evidentiary value of Ex.P6 which wage slip. The contents of Ex.P6 is culled out for ready reference. Basic pay 13400 Provident fund 541 D.A 8375 Voluntary PF 2072 HRA 13400 LIC 726 CCA 25 ESIC 100 Line Allowance 288 DRBF 20 Cycle/M.Cycle Adv. 5 Society PT 200 Water charges 5 Income Tax 5 Gross Wages Payable 23428 Deduction total 3674 19754 17. After reduction of amount as above, the net salary that was being received by the deceased was Rs.19,754/-. As such, the tribunal has assessed the monthly income at Rs.19,254/-. 5 Society PT 200 Water charges 5 Income Tax 5 Gross Wages Payable 23428 Deduction total 3674 19754 17. After reduction of amount as above, the net salary that was being received by the deceased was Rs.19,754/-. As such, the tribunal has assessed the monthly income at Rs.19,254/-. It is well settled principle of law and requires next emphasis out of the gross salary what is to be deducted is income tax and professional tax alone. 18. In this regard, this court relies on the decision rendered in The latest pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Birendar and others, (2020) AIR SC 434 , has clearly and categorically reiterated the settled proposition of law. The relevant paragraphs are culled out for ready reference, which reads as under: "19. Reverting to the determination of compensation amount, it is noticed that the Tribunal proceeded to determine the compensation amount on the basis of net salary drawn by the deceased for the relevant period as Rs.16,918/- per month, while taking note of the fact that her gross salary was Rs.23,123/- per month (presumably below taxable income). Concededly, any deduction from the gross salary other than tax amount cannot be reckoned. In that, the actual salary less tax amount ought to have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal for determining the compensation amount, in light of the dictum of the Constitution Bench of this Court in paragraph 59.3 of Pranay Sethi, (2017) AIR SC 5157 (supra). 20. xxxxx 21. xxxxx 22. Considering the above, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 would be entitled for compensation to be reckoned on the basis of loss of dependency, due to loss of gross salary (less tax amount, if any) of the deceased and future prospects and deduction of only one-third (1/3rd) amount towards personal expenses of the deceased. As regards the multiplier 13' applied by the Tribunal and the High Court, the same needs no interference. As a result, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the amount payable towards compensation will have to be recalculated on the following basis: Loss of dependency due to loss of income calculated at Rs.31,26,229.60/ [(Rs.23,123/ x 12 x 13) + (30% future prospects) (1/3rd deduction for personal expenses)]. As a result, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the amount payable towards compensation will have to be recalculated on the following basis: Loss of dependency due to loss of income calculated at Rs.31,26,229.60/ [(Rs.23,123/ x 12 x 13) + (30% future prospects) (1/3rd deduction for personal expenses)]. In addition, the claimants would be entitled for a sum of Rs.70,000/ towards conventional heads in terms of dictum in paragraph 59.8 of Pranay Sethi (supra). Thus, a total sum of Rs.31,96,230/ (Rupees thirty one lakhs ninety six thousand two hundred thirty only), as rounded off, is payable to the claimants. However, this amount along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment, will be 21 payable subject to the outcome of the application made by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to the competent authority for grant of financial assistance under the 2006 Rules. If that application is allowed and the amount becomes payable towards financial assistance under the said Rules to the specified legal representatives of the deceased, commensurate amount will have to be deducted from the compensation amount along with interest component thereon. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2, therefore, can be permitted to withdraw the compensation amount only upon filing of an affidavit cum declaration before the executing Court that they have not received nor would claim any amount towards financial assistance under the 2006 Rules and if already received or to be received in future on that account, the amount so received will be disclosed to the executing Court, which will have to be deducted from the compensation amount determined in terms of this order. The compensation amount, therefore, be paid to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 subject to the above and upon giving an undertaking before the executing Court to indemnify the insurance company (appellant) to that extent." 19. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Manasvi Jain V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation and others, (2014) ACJ 1416 regarding Income tax/surcharge it is held as under : "12. 1 and 2 subject to the above and upon giving an undertaking before the executing Court to indemnify the insurance company (appellant) to that extent." 19. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Manasvi Jain V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation and others, (2014) ACJ 1416 regarding Income tax/surcharge it is held as under : "12. This court in Shyamwati Sharma V.Karam Singh, (2010) ACJ 1968 (SC), while considering the issues of deduction of taxes, contributions, etc., for arriving at the figure of net monthly income held that "while ascertaining the income of the deceased, any deductions shown in the salary certificate as deductions 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" 20. Applying the legal principles enunciated in above decisions to the present facts, the monthly income that is to be assessed for the purpose of calculating the compensation would be Rs.23,428/- less Rs.200/- towards professional tax. In Ex.P6 we notice that a sum of Rs.5/- is deducted towards income tax. Since it is a very negligible amount, the same needs no deduction in the monthly income. Hence, the reassessed monthly income of the deceased would be Rs.23,228/- 21. The next ground on which the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has sought for enhancement of compensation is, the tribunal did not make any addition to the assessed income towards future prospects. 22. In this regard, this court relied on gainfully legal principles enunciated in the case of National Insurance Company Limited V/s. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) AIR SC 5157 , since the deceased was government employee and was age group of 58 years. The claimants are entitled for addition of 15% to the monthly income. 23. The tribunal has applied the split multiplier taking note of age of the deceased. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submitted that the said method that is adopted by the tribunal is incorrect and the common multiplier should be applied. 24. The claimants are entitled for addition of 15% to the monthly income. 23. The tribunal has applied the split multiplier taking note of age of the deceased. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submitted that the said method that is adopted by the tribunal is incorrect and the common multiplier should be applied. 24. But, the learned counsel for the respondent opposing such a contention has relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this court, disposed of on 08.12.2016 in MFA No.20727/2010 c/w MFA No.20728/2010 and MFA Crob.No.771/2010 in the case of The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., and another V/s. Sri. Prithviraj and others, at para No.20 it is held as under : "20. Therefore, on considering the judgments referred to above what can be noticed very much is that for applying the split multiplier method, reasons must be given. Without assigning any reasons the compensation towards "loss of dependency" cannot be determined by splitting the multiplier. In fact, this is the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.R. Madhusudhan and in the case of Puttamma, the same has been reiterated. 25. In a given case, where the service left for the deceased is only for a short period, application of uniform multiplier depending upon the age of the deceased as is enunciated in Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) AIR SC 3104 cannot be made applicable ignoring the fact of remaining service being very short. 26. It is the duty of the Court to arrive at a just compensation in every case. While calculating the loss of dependency, it is needless to say that the net salary should be considered for the period of remaining service of the employee and post retirement there must be 50% reduction in the monthly salary. The above principle of applying split multiplier has now gained recognition through various judicial pronouncements right from the case of Union and others v. K. S. Lakshmi Kumar and others, (2000) ILR(Kar) 3809 till up to Puttamma's case supra. 27. Subsequent to Puttamma's case, the Division Bench of this Court has consistently applied split multiplier in a matter of this nature. In order to what are the legal principles in Puttamma's case, it is just and necessary for this Court to cull out few paragraphs of the judgment of Puttamma's case, which reads as under: "32. 27. Subsequent to Puttamma's case, the Division Bench of this Court has consistently applied split multiplier in a matter of this nature. In order to what are the legal principles in Puttamma's case, it is just and necessary for this Court to cull out few paragraphs of the judgment of Puttamma's case, which reads as under: "32. For determination of compensation in motor accident claims under Section 166 this Court always followed multiplier method. As there were inconsistencies in selection of multiplier, this Court in Sarla Verma, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), prepared a table for selection of multiplier based on age group of the deceased/victim. The Act, 1988 does not envisage application of split multiplier. 33. In K.R. Madhusudhan and others vs. Administrative Officer and another, (2011) 4 SCC 689 this Court held as follows: "14. In the appeal which was filed by the appellants before the High Court, the High Court instead of maintaining the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal, reduced the same. In doing so, the High Court had not given any reason. The High Court introduced the concept of split multiplier and departed from the multiplier used by the Tribunal without disclosing any reason therefor. The High Court has also not considered the clear and corroborative evidence about the prospect of future increment of the deceased. When the age of the deceased is between 51 and 55 years the multiplier is 11, which is specified in the 2nd column in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, and the Tribunal has not committed any error by accepting the said multiplier. This Court also fails to appreciate why the High Court chose to apply the multiplier of 6. 15. We are, thus, of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside for it is perverse and clearly contrary to the evidence on record, for having not considered the future prospects of the deceased and also for adopting a split multiplier method." 34. We, therefore, hold that in absence of any specific reason and evidence on record the Tribunal or the Court should not apply split multiplier in routine course and should apply multiplier as per decision of this Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) as affirmed in the case of Reshma Kumari, (2013) ACJ 1253 (SC)." 28. We, therefore, hold that in absence of any specific reason and evidence on record the Tribunal or the Court should not apply split multiplier in routine course and should apply multiplier as per decision of this Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) as affirmed in the case of Reshma Kumari, (2013) ACJ 1253 (SC)." 28. Applying the legal principles enunciated in above judgment to the facts of the present case, the deceased was aged 58 years as on the date of accident, was left with two years of service. Whenever a short period of service is remaining, application of split multiplier is now well accepted principle and is being followed consistently. Accordingly, we do not find any serious infirmity in tribunal adopting the split multiplier and arriving at the compensation amount in the said finding of the tribunal, based on sole principles of law and it does not call for interference from this court. Accordingly, point is answered in the negative. 29. In view of the foregoing discussions, the claimant would be entitled to the following compensation on the head of loss of dependency. For two years service the amount would be: Rs.23428-200 = 23228+15% =3484/- 23228+3484=26712X1/3 = 8904/- 26712-8904=17808X12X2 = 4,27,392/- For two years service the amount would be: 26712/50%=13356X1/3 = 4,452 13356-4451=8904X12X7 = 7,47,936/- 4,27,392+7,47,936 = 11,75,328/- 30. By following legal principle enunciated in Pranay Sethi's case, the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.70,000/- on conventional heads. 31. The claimants Nos.2 to 5 are the children of the deceased. The claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.40,000/- each (40000X4=1,60,000/-) on parental consortium as held in Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd vs. Nanu Ram and others, (2018) ACJ 2782 . Hence, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of : Loss of dependency is Rs.11,75,328/- On conventional heads Rs. 70,000/- TOTAL Rs.12,45,064/- Parental consortium 1,60,000/- TOTAL Rs.14,05,328/- 32. In view of the foregoing discussions, the points are answered in the negative and affirmative respectively and the following order is passed. ORDER Appeal is allowed in part. Hence, the appellants-claimants are entitled for the modified compensation of Rs.14,05,328/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The respondent-Insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation awarded by this court with up to date interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Hence, the appellants-claimants are entitled for the modified compensation of Rs.14,05,328/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The respondent-Insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation awarded by this court with up to date interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The deposit and apportionment of the enhanced compensation shall hold good as per the order of the tribunal. The registry is directed to draw the modified award accordingly.