JUDGMENT Suraj Govindaraj, J. - MFA No.100499/2019 1. The appellant Insurance Company is before this Court aggrieved by the Judgment of the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge and MACT-V, Belagavi in MVC No.875/2018 dated 05.11.2018. 2. The occurrence of the accident and the coverage of the Insurance Company is not in dispute and as such the facts leading up to the accident are not being adverted to. 3. Sri. R.R.Mane, learned counsel for the appellant submits that, the Insurance Company is in appeal on the bases of two grounds namely; (i) The Tribunal has not deducted a sum of Rs.200/- per month on account of the professional tax. (ii) The Tribunal has taken the multiplier with reference to the age of the deceased when infact the multiplier which ought to have been taken is reference to the age of the parent who is younger in age that being the mother in this matter. 4. Sri. Vittal Teli, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 opposes the contentions raised by Mr. Mane, stating that the age of the deceased ought to be taken into consideration. As regards profession tax, he submits that, it is a minor amount of Rs.200/- in regard to which he has filed cross objections as regards the deduction of higher amount as income tax and therefore, he submits that both the contentions being incorrect, the appeal has to be dismissed. 5. Heard Sri. R.R.Mane, learned counsel for the Insurance Company/appellant and Sri. Vittal Teli, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, and perused the papers. 6. The first contention of Sri. R.R.Mane being that the age of the mother of the deceased ought to have been taken into consideration for the purpose of identification of the multiplier is no longer resintigra. The compensation being awarded is on account of the death of the deceased and not towards his parents. The loss which has been caused is because of the deceased s death and therefore, I am the considered opinion that the multiplier has to be identified and considered with reference to the age of the deceased at the time of the death. 7. The loss which has been caused is because of the deceased s death and therefore, I am the considered opinion that the multiplier has to be identified and considered with reference to the age of the deceased at the time of the death. 7. As regards, professional tax, alleged to have been not deducted while calculating the income of the deceased for the purpose of calculation of loss of dependency, I am of the considered opinion that, the non deduction of Rs.200/- per month from the salary of the deceased towards professional tax would not be required to be interfered with since there is a heavy amount which has already been deducted on account of income tax. 8. In view of the above, MFA No.100499/2019 is dismissed . The amount in deposit if any shall be transmitted to the concerned tribunal. MFA Crob. No.100060/2019: 9. The present cross-objection has been filed by the claimants in MVC No.875/2018 aggrieved by the decision of the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge and MACT-V, Belagavi, dated 05.11.2018, seeking for enhancement of the compensation awarded. 10. Sri. Vittal S. Teli, learned counsel for the claimants would seek for enhancement of the compensation on the following two heads: (i) The deduction made of 10% towards income tax could not have been made. (ii) The Tribunal ought not to have deducted 50% of the salary as personal expenses of the deceased and should have deducted only 1/3rd. 11. As regards the income tax, it is seen that the deceased was stated to be earning Rs.25,791/- per month as on the date of death, thereby the income per month is roughly about Rs.3,09,492/- per annum. The Tribunal has also considered 50% to be the future prospects of the deceased, thus adding about rs. 1,54,000, resulting in an annual income of Rs. 4,63,492. Even taking into account the standard deduction as also various other benefits under Section 80 of the Income Tax Act, the same would come to more than Rs. 3 lakhs. Such being the case, even if taking the lowest slab rate for income tax being 10%, the deduction of 10% by the Tribunal towards income tax is just and proper and does not require any interference of this Court. 12. As regards the second contention of Sri. 3 lakhs. Such being the case, even if taking the lowest slab rate for income tax being 10%, the deduction of 10% by the Tribunal towards income tax is just and proper and does not require any interference of this Court. 12. As regards the second contention of Sri. Teli, that instead of 50% only 33% ought to have been deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased who was a bachelor is no longer res intigra in terms of decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation s case, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , if the deceased were a bachelor 50% of the income is required to be deducted towards personal expenses. Hence, the deduction made on this account is just and proper and as such the submissions made by Sri. Teli, would not stand. 13. On account of the above reason, the MFA Crob. No.100060/2019 is dismissed.