JUDGMENT : C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J. 1. This Appeal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is filed by the Insurance Company against the order and decree, dated 24.07.2017 in M.V.O.P. No. 36 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor District. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. As per the averments of the claim petition, the 1st petitioner is the husband and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the daughters of one S. Manjula (who will be hereinafter referred to as “deceased”). It is further averred that on 08.09.2015 at 4-10 a.m. the 1st petitioner and the deceased left their house in a new and un-numbered Hero Honda Shine motorcycle belonging to Thyagaraja Reddy and were proceeding towards Chittoor Town, on the extreme left side of the road. When they reached near Sri Krishna Temple on Chittoor-Tirupati 1st Road, the 3rd respondent, who is the driver of the respondent bus bearing Registration No. TN 30 BE 7799 (which will be hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”), drove the said bus in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over the same and dashed against the motorcycle of the 1st petitioner, who was the rider of the motorcycle. As a result of which, he fell to the left side, while the deceased, who was a pillion rider on the motorcycle, fell on the right side of the road and came under the wheels of the offending vehicle, which was ran over her body and dragged her to some distance. Thereafter, the offending vehicle fled away without stopping. As a result of which, the deceased died on the spot. It is further averred that on the basis of a report given by the 1st petitioner, the Station House Officer, Chittoor Traffic Police Station, registered a case in Crime No. 73 of 2015 under Section 304-A of IPC. 4. It is further averred that the deceased who was aged about 45 years was hale and healthy, and was working as a Secondary Grade Teacher in Government Elementary School at Vadrampalli Village, Irala Mandal, on a monthly salary of Rs. 40,240/- contributing the entire amount to the welfare of the petitioners. Due to sudden demise, the petitioners lost their love and affection and also suffered shock, from which, they are unable to come out. 40,240/- contributing the entire amount to the welfare of the petitioners. Due to sudden demise, the petitioners lost their love and affection and also suffered shock, from which, they are unable to come out. It is further averred that the accident occurred solely due to negligent driving of the 3rd respondent-driver of the offending vehicle belonging to the 1st respondent, which was validly inured with 2nd respondent-Insurance Company and thereby, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 5. The 2nd respondent filed counter denying the averments made in the petition and contended that the accident took place due to gross negligence on the part of the 1st petitioner, who was the rider of the motorcycle on which the deceased was a pillion rider, but the petitioners have managed the police and foisted the case against 3rd respondent, who is no way responsible for the accident. In any event, it is pleaded that the amount of Rs. One crore claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive and therefore, prays to dismiss the petition. 6. During the course of enquiry, the petitioners examined PWs. 1 to 4 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.6 on their behalf, while the respondents examined, RWs. 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.B.1 and B.2. 7. The Tribunal, after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, allowed the claim application, awarding a total compensation of Rs. 68,51,720/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the amount awarded, from the date of petition till the date of deposit and costs, holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle by its driver-3rd respondent only. The Tribunal further held that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. 8. Aggrieved by the order and decree of the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company in O.P. filed the present Appeal. 9. Heard, Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company and Sri S. Laxminarayana Reddy and Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy. K, learned counsel for the petitioners. 10. 8. Aggrieved by the order and decree of the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company in O.P. filed the present Appeal. 9. Heard, Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company and Sri S. Laxminarayana Reddy and Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy. K, learned counsel for the petitioners. 10. Sri Naresh Byrapuneni, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company – Appellant would contend that there is any amount of doubt with regard to involvement of the crime vehicle No. TN 30 BE 7799 in the accident. According to him, if really the vehicle was involved in the accident, PW-1 would have mentioned the number of the vehicle, either in the F.I.R. or at least at the time of inquest. Further, the two persons are now projected as witnesses are set up only for proving the case. According to him, these two persons who are now claiming as eyewitnesses to the incident, never came forward as eyewitnesses during the inquest and as such holding the said vehicle responsible for the accident would be without any basis. It is pleaded that even the evidence of PW-2, who was examined as eyewitness to the incident, is silent on many aspects and that his evidence cannot be accepted, more so, as he never came forward as an eyewitness even at the time of inquest. He would further contend that the manner in which the calculations are made in fixing the compensation to be paid are incorrect. According to him, even the evidence of PW-4 Investigating Officer shows that by 11 AM LWs. 1 to 5 were examined and none of them speak about the involvement of the vehicle in question. The CCTV footages, which are now made the basis to trace the vehicle, are not placed on record. The Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report dated 18.9.2015 also does not show any damage to the vehicle. Apart from that, it is urged the trial Court erred in not deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and also erred in awarding Rs. 1,25,000/- towards loss of consortium and funeral charges. He further pleads that the income of the wife, which is being paid as pension, should have been taken into consideration while determining the total compensation to be paid. Hence, pleads to allow the Appeal. 11. 1,25,000/- towards loss of consortium and funeral charges. He further pleads that the income of the wife, which is being paid as pension, should have been taken into consideration while determining the total compensation to be paid. Hence, pleads to allow the Appeal. 11. On the other hand, Sri S. Laxminarayana Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, would contend that though PW-1 lodged the report mentioning about the accident in question, but failed to mention the vehicle number as he might not have noticed the number of the vehicle at the time of the accident. Since it was a case of hit and run, there was no opportunity for him to notice as to who was driving the vehicle and the number of the vehicle. He further pleads that since the inquest proceedings were over by 10.30 or 11.00 AM, the statement of the witnesses could not have been recorded by then and as such they were not shown as eyewitnesses in the said proceedings. In so far as the calculations made, he would plead that the trial court considered all the parameters while determining the compensation and as such the same requires no interference. 12. The point that arises for consideration is, “whether the vehicle bearing No. TN 30 BE 7799 was involved in the accident and if so, whether the claimants are entitled to compensation as determined by the Tribunal? 13. The fact that the offending vehicle is insured with the appellant is not in dispute. The averments in the F.I.R. and also the evidence of PW-1, who is the husband of the deceased, clearly establish that on 8.9.2015 at about 4.10 AM, while he along with his wife were proceeding towards Chittoor town in an unnumbered Hero Honda two wheeler belonging to one Thyagaraja Reddy on the extreme left side of the road and when the vehicle reached near Sri Krishna Temple on Chittoor-Tirupati main road, the driver of a bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over the same and dashed against the two wheeler. As a result of which, he fell down on the left side of the road and sustained injuries, while the deceased fell down on the right side of the road, came under the wheels of the 1st respondent Bus which ran over her. It is said that it was a case of hit and run. As a result of which, he fell down on the left side of the road and sustained injuries, while the deceased fell down on the right side of the road, came under the wheels of the 1st respondent Bus which ran over her. It is said that it was a case of hit and run. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained, the wife of PW-1 died on the spot. According to him, the deceased, who was working as a Teacher, used to take care of all the three claimants also and her death caused irreparable loss and injury to them. In respect of the above accident, a case in crime No. 73 of 2015 came to be registered against an unknown person under Section 304-A I.P.C. After investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the 3rd respondent (driver of the vehicle) vide C.C. No. 441 of 2015 under Section 304-A of I.P.C. At this stage, it is to be noted that the incident in question took place at 4.10 AM and by 10.30 AM the inquest was also over. PW-1 was cross-examined at length, but nothing useful came to be elicited to discredit his testimony. 14. On the other hand, it has been elicited that PW-1 is working in Margadarsi Chit Fund Company since last 10 years and that his wife was working as Teacher with a basic pay of Rs. 33,000/- and her net salary, after deductions, being Rs. 37,440/-. To a suggestion that accident took place because of negligence of PW-1 was denied by him. It is also elicited that they got death benefits of Rs. 6.5 lakhs and are getting family pension of Rs. 16,000/- per month. It was also elicited that on the same day PW-1 came to know about the involvement of the offending vehicle and informed to the Police about the involvement of the bus and its number also. These facts, though not stated in the chief, were elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1 by respondents. Therefore, the evidence of PW-1 amply establishes that by evening of 8.9.2015 i.e. after the inquest, PW-1 came to know the number of the vehicle and the same was informed to the Police. 15. Apart from that, PW-4, who is a Investigating Officer in crime No. 73 of 2015, categorically deposed that on the same day at 11.00 AM, he examined LWs. 15. Apart from that, PW-4, who is a Investigating Officer in crime No. 73 of 2015, categorically deposed that on the same day at 11.00 AM, he examined LWs. 4 and 5 i.e. PW-2 and one Md. Riyaz as eyewitnesses to the incident. According to him, the bus, after hitting the deceased, went away without stopping. After seeing the CCTV footages and from the evidence of PW-2 and Md. Riyaz, the bus number was traced and accordingly he sent some Constables to Salem in Tamil Nadu to trace the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. Pursuant thereto, the owner surrendered the Driver before the concerned Police. 16. If really the Police intend to foist a false case by setting up a bus, which is not involved in the accident, there was no need for them to send a group of Police Officers to Salem to trace the vehicle and the Bus Driver. They could have as well set up a local vehicle, as a crime vehicle, if they intend to do so. It is also to be noted here that since LWs. 4 and 5 - eyewitnesses to the incident, came to be examined at about 11 AM, the vehicle number was not mentioned in the F.I.R. 17. The argument is that even PW-1 failed to mention the vehicle number in the First Information Report. As seen from the record, the accident in question took lace at 4.10 AM and PW-1, who was riding the vehicle, would not have anticipated that the vehicle coming in opposite direction would hit his vehicle so as to keep a watch on the number of the vehicle coming in opposite direction. The entire accident must have occurred in a spur of moment, in which time he could not have noticed or seen the number of the vehicle. Though CCTV footages are not marked, as stated by us earlier, there was no need for the Police to foist a false case by implicating the vehicle which has been registered in Salem. As elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1, the number of the offending vehicle was known to PW-1 by the evening of 8.9.2015 and immediately thereafter he informed the same to PW-4. Apart from that, in the cross-examination of PW-4, the respondents have elicited that PW-2 and one Md. Riyaz, who are shown as eyewitnesses to the incident, were examined at 11 AM. Apart from that, in the cross-examination of PW-4, the respondents have elicited that PW-2 and one Md. Riyaz, who are shown as eyewitnesses to the incident, were examined at 11 AM. Therefore, non-mentioning of number of the bus in Inquest and F.I.R. in our view, cannot be a circumstance to throw out the incident. 18. At this stage, it will be useful to refer to the evidence of PW-2, who was examined as an eyewitness to the incident. He, in categorical terms, deposed about bus number and also the manner in which the incident took place, which corroborates the evidence of PW-1 in all respects. Though he was cross-examined at length, nothing is elicited to disbelieve him. The suggestion that he has not witnessed the incident was denied by him. 19. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who was examined and gave a report on 18.9.2015, did not notice any damage to the crime vehicle. Damage to the vehicle depends on the manner in which the accident took place. Bus is said to have dashed the scooter and then ran over the deceased. It is not necessary that the bus should get damaged in every accident, more so in an accident of this nature. Even otherwise, the vehicle was inspected 10 days after the incident, by which time, there is every possibility for the damaged portion be rectified by the owner of the vehicle. 20. At this stage, it would be useful to note that the driver of the bus was examined as RW-2. He, in his evidence, deposed about being the driver of the said bus, but, however, gave a slight twist to the case of the claimants by stating that on 8.9.2015 at 10 PM he started the bus from Salem on three days tour to Tirupati and other places and that he returned back to Salem on 10.9.2015. But, the log book was not produced. The Insurance Company tried to overcome the same by taking a letter from the Driver in the month of April, 2016. As rightly observed by the trial court, the said document, which is placed on record as Ex.B2, cannot be relied upon as it was brought into existence long after the incident. But, the log book was not produced. The Insurance Company tried to overcome the same by taking a letter from the Driver in the month of April, 2016. As rightly observed by the trial court, the said document, which is placed on record as Ex.B2, cannot be relied upon as it was brought into existence long after the incident. Further, PW-4, who investigated into the matter and filed a charge-sheet, showed the vehicle bearing No. TN 30 BE 7799 as the crime vehicle involved in the accident. From the above circumstances, it stands established that the vehicle bearing No. TN 30 BE 7799 was involved in the accident on 8.9.2015. Accordingly, the first point is answered against the appellant. 21. Coming to the quantum of compensation to be paid, admittedly it is a case where both husband and wife are employees. PW-1, who is the husband, was working in the Margadarsi Chit Fund Company, while the deceased was working as a Teacher in MPPS Elementary School, Vadrampalli Village. According to PW-3, who was working as M.E.O. Irala, the deceased was getting a net salary of Rs. 37,440/- per month and that an amount of Rs. 7 to 8 lakhs were given to her husband towards death benefits. PW-3 further admits that PW-1 is also getting family pension. Keeping these circumstances in the background, it is now to be seen whether compensation arrived at by the Tribunal was just and proper. 22. Salary Certificate, which is placed on the record as Ex.A6, shows that the deceased was getting a net salary of Rs. 37,440/- after deducting a sum of Rs. 2,800/- meaning thereby, her gross salary is Rs. 40,240/-. It is not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 45 years at the time of the accident and the suitable multiplier as per Smt. Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 is ‘14’. Before proceeding further it is to be noted here that PW-1, who is the husband, may not be the dependent on the income of the deceased, as he is working in Margadarsi Chit Fund Company and getting salary. By this can it be said that the daughters, who are claimants 2 and 3, are not entitled for compensation on the ground that their father is an earning member. 23. By this can it be said that the daughters, who are claimants 2 and 3, are not entitled for compensation on the ground that their father is an earning member. 23. Before proceeding further, one other aspect which requires to be noted, is whether pension received by the wife on account of death has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculating the compensation. In Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others vs. Apporvam Ammal and Others, 2014 ACJ 2643 the Court held that, “the pension amount is a pecuniary advantage received on account of one’s death and the same has no correlation to the compensation computed as against the tort-feasor for his negligence on account of the accident. Hence, held that the pension amount is not liable to be deducted from the compensation amount and that they are not inclined to deduct the pension amount presently the wife of the deceased receiving from the compensation amount awarded under the head of loss of income.” 24. In view of the judgment referred to above, the argument that the amount received by way of pension has to be deducted from the compensation amount awarded under the head of ‘loss of income’ cannot be accepted. Similarly, death benefits, which are received by PW-1 cannot also be deducted from the compensation, since the same cannot be correlated to the amount paid under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. As held by the Apex Court in Vimal Kanwar vs. Kishore Dan, (2013) 7 SCC 476 the deceased would be receiving these benefits even if she had survived and retired from service. The apex court in Vimal Kanwar’s case held as under: “The first issue is “whether Provident Fund, Pension and Insurance receivable by claimants come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicle Act to be termed as “Pecuniary Advantage” liable for deduction.” The aforesaid issue fell for consideration before this Court in Helen C. Rebello and Others vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Another, (1999) 1 SCC 90 . In the said case, this Court held that Provident Fund, Pension, Insurance and similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. are all a “pecuniary advantage” receivable by the heirs on account of one’s death but all these have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. In the said case, this Court held that Provident Fund, Pension, Insurance and similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. are all a “pecuniary advantage” receivable by the heirs on account of one’s death but all these have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. Such an amount will not come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as “pecuniary advantage” liable for deduction.” 25. The next question that falls for consideration is, whether any amount is to be deducted towards living expenses? 26. The learned counsel for the Appellant would contend that 1/3rd has to be deducted from the salary of the deceased towards her living and personal expenses. No evidence has been adduced to show that the entire family was dependant on the income of the deceased. On the other hand, the evidence adduced would show that she was not only a Teacher working in the elementary school, but also a good house wife taking care of the family members. Therefore, it cannot be said that she would be spending money for running the family as her husband was also an employee. But, definitely, she would be spending some money towards her expenses or for the wellbeing of their children. It is not the case of PW-1 that the deceased was depositing her entire salary towards her savings without spending any money. Having regard to the above, we feel that 10% of the salary can be deducted as expenses towards herself and children. Things would have been different had the husband was not a working member in the family. If he was a non-working person and if the entire family is dependent on the income of the deceased, definitely there is some justification in deducting 1/3rd towards her living and personal expenses. 27. With regard to quantum of amount, which has to be taken into consideration for determining the compensation, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial court erred in taking the gross salary of Rs. 40,040/- without taking into account the deductions made towards Provident Fund, APGLI, GIS and EHF. 28. 27. With regard to quantum of amount, which has to be taken into consideration for determining the compensation, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial court erred in taking the gross salary of Rs. 40,040/- without taking into account the deductions made towards Provident Fund, APGLI, GIS and EHF. 28. In Helen C. Rebello vs. Maharashtra SRTC, (1999) 1 SCC 90 the issue that fell for consideration was, whether provident fund, pension and insurance receivable by the claimants come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act, to be termed as ‘pecuniary advantage’, liable for deduction. The Apex Court held that provident fund, pension, insurance and similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc., are all “pecuniary advantages” receivable by the heirs on account of one’s death but all these have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. It has been further held that such an amount will not come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as “pecuniary advantage” liable for deduction. The said view was reiterated by the Apex court in Vimal Kanwar’s case (supra). Therefore, we feel that the trial court was justified in taking the gross amount for the purpose of calculating the compensation. 29. The next question, which falls for consideration is, whether Income Tax to be paid is liable to be deducted while determining the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. Admittedly, at the time of accident, the deceased was receiving a gross salary of Rs. 40,240/-. The salary certificate, which is placed on record as Ex.A6, does not anywhere indicate, income tax being deducted; meaning thereby, she was not liable to pay any Income Tax. Had she been liable to pay tax, definitely, she being a government employee, the same would have been reflected in the Salary Certificate itself. 30. Having regard to the above, the quantum of compensation which the claimants are entitled to is as follows: Gross salary of the deceased, after deducting profession tax, is Rs. 40,040/- per month, out of which, 10% has to be deducted towards her personal expenses only and not for living expenses, since her husband is also an employee, which would come to Rs. 36,036/- per month or Rs. 4,32,432/- per annum. After applying multiplier ‘14’ the total loss of earnings would come to Rs. 60,54,048/-. 31. 40,040/- per month, out of which, 10% has to be deducted towards her personal expenses only and not for living expenses, since her husband is also an employee, which would come to Rs. 36,036/- per month or Rs. 4,32,432/- per annum. After applying multiplier ‘14’ the total loss of earnings would come to Rs. 60,54,048/-. 31. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- awarded towards loss of consortium and funeral expenses is contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (6) SC 170. Applying the ratio laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case, the amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- awarded towards loss of consortium and funeral expenses is reduced to Rs. 70,000/-. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 61,24,048/- (60,54,048 + 70,000) as compensation. 32. At this stage, it is to be noted that no appeal or cross-objections has been filed by the claimants seeking any enhancement of compensation, namely, the future prospects. If the said amount is taken into consideration, claimants will get more amount than what has been awarded by the Tribunal. But, having regard to the calculations arrived at, more particularly the deductions made towards personal expenses; the deductions towards loss of consortium and funeral expenses, the same can be compensated taking into consideration the future prospects to which the deceased will be entitled to in view of the law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case, as it is well established that in the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, the Court can adjust the amounts under other counts. Hence, the quantum of compensation fixed by the trial Court requires no interference. 33. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 34. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.