JUDGMENT : Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. MFA.No.102367/2016 is filed by the Insurance Company against the judgment and award of I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Dharwad in MVC.No.973/2013 dated 22.04.2016. 3. MFA.No.103474/2016 is filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVC.No.973/2013. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents in MFA.No.102367/2016 were the claimants before the Tribunal had filed a claim petition claiming compensation on account of death of husband of the first respondent namely, Kotresh Mudagal. Respondent No.2 is the daughter of the deceased Kotresh Mudagal. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the parents of the deceased. It is the case of the claimants that on 24.10.2013, the deceased was going on a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA- 51/X-7998 near Bommasandra fly over, Anekal, Bengaluru District, at that time, the driver of TATA concrete mixing lorry bearing registration No.KA-51/8127 driving the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the barricades and entered the service road and dashed against the motor cycle in which the deceased was riding and caused accident. On account of the said accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. 5. It is the further case of the claimants that the deceased was working as a Deputy Manager in Instrumentation Department in Biocon Company, Bengaluru and was earning a salary of Rs.49,215.85 and due to the death of the deceased, the claimants have been put to untold hardship and agony and have lost the only earning member of the family; the deceased had a bright future and he would have got promotion as a General Manager and would have earned a good salary. On account of untimely death of the deceased, the claimants have preferred the claim petition before the Tribunal and on service of notice, the respondents therein filed the statement of objections denying the averments and the income of the deceased. 6. The Tribunal after hearing the matter awarded the compensation of Rs.74,08,872/- along with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation of the amount. 7. The appellant-Insurance Company being aggrieved by the judgment and award of the Tribunal is before this Court challenging the legality and correctness of the same. 8. 6. The Tribunal after hearing the matter awarded the compensation of Rs.74,08,872/- along with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation of the amount. 7. The appellant-Insurance Company being aggrieved by the judgment and award of the Tribunal is before this Court challenging the legality and correctness of the same. 8. The claimants have also challenged the very same judgment and award not being satisfied by the award passed by the Tribunal seeking enhancement of compensation. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant and the accident was not caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of TATA concrete mixing lorry. The deceased was also responsible for the accident. He further contends that the Tribunal did not have any jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition and hence, on account of the territorial jurisdiction, the claim petition ought to have been dismissed. He further contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of loss of dependency is erroneous as the deceased was on probationary period as on the date of the accident and he had not been made a permanent employee. The Tribunal has also erred in awarding the compensation under the heads of loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and loss of estate. He further contends that the Tribunal has not considered the correct income of the deceased as the deceased was on probationary period. The entire income could not have been taken by the Tribunal for calculating the loss of dependency. Unless the deceased has been confirmed in the company, he cannot be treated as a permanent employee. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company also seriously contends that the Tribunal has erred in taking into consideration the salary certificate-Ex.P23 of the deceased for the month of September, 2013. There are several heads in the salary certificate such as medical allowance, leave travel allowance, ex-gratia, Saturday allowance and conveyance allowance, which were forming the basis of income totaling to Rs.49,215.85 and the same is a wrong calculation to be classified as income. 11. It is contended that the medical allowance would arise only on production of any medical bills of the employee. 11. It is contended that the medical allowance would arise only on production of any medical bills of the employee. Secondly, the leave travel allowance would arise and be given only after the employee has undertaken any travel and produced the necessary bills to that effect. Thereafter, ex-gratia would also not be applicable to the deceased employee. The conveyance allowance would not be applicable and so also the Saturday allowance would not be applicable to the deceased employee in view of the fact that only if an employee works on Saturdays, the same would be awarded. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has erred in taking the income of the deceased. 12. Percontra, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submits that the income certificate of the deceased produced by the claimants at Ex.P23 is as per the Company Rules and Regulations and the same cannot be found fault with. The same income reflects in the subsequent months of salary slips of the deceased produced by the claimants. He further contends that there is no serious dispute with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal as the respondents are the residents of Dharwad and the appellant Insurance Company has a branch office at Dharwad, which is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Therefore, the objection raised with regard to the territorial jurisdiction is frivolous and the same deserves to be rejected. He further contends that there is no negligence on the part of the deceased and it is due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of TATA concrete mixing lorry, the accident is caused. Therefore, the question of contributory negligence does not arise for consideration. 13. We have given our anxious consideration to the material documents produced by the appellant/Insurance Company and the respondents claimants and the submissions made at the bar. 14. As per the salary slip of the deceased produced by the claimants, the income is shown as Rs.49,215.85. The Tribunal has taken the entire amount as income of the deceased for consideration. In our view, it may not be proper consideration in arriving at the income of the deceased. 14. As per the salary slip of the deceased produced by the claimants, the income is shown as Rs.49,215.85. The Tribunal has taken the entire amount as income of the deceased for consideration. In our view, it may not be proper consideration in arriving at the income of the deceased. Therefore, the medical allowance of Rs.1,728.90, the leave travel allowance of Rs.1,728.90, the conveyance allowance of Rs.2,000/and Saturday allowance Rs.1,400/cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing the income of the deceased and the same shall be deducted from the income of the deceased of Rs.49,215.85, which would amount to Rs.42,358/. Hence, the income of the deceased shall be taken at Rs.42,358/for the purpose of computation of compensation. As the deceased was aged more than 40 years but less than 50 years, 30% of the income has to be added towards his future prospects which would amount to Rs.55,065/. Therefore, the annual income of the deceased would be Rs.55,065/x 12 = Rs.6,60,780/. On deduction of the income tax amount of Rs.26,904/(Rs.2,242/x 12) from the annual income, comes to Rs.6,33,876/. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SARLA VERMA v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , it is held that where the number of dependents of the family members is 4 to 6, 1/4th has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Therefore, if 1/4th would be deducted from Rs.6,33,876/towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, it amounts to Rs.1,58,469/and the remaining amount would be Rs.4,75,407/. The multiplier that would be applicable to the deceased as per Sarla Verma ’s case is ‘14’. Therefore, Rs.4,75,407/x 14 would amount to Rs.66,55,698/. Hence, the respondents claimants would be entitled for compensation of Rs.66,55,698/towards loss of dependency. 15. The multiplier that would be applicable to the deceased as per Sarla Verma ’s case is ‘14’. Therefore, Rs.4,75,407/x 14 would amount to Rs.66,55,698/. Hence, the respondents claimants would be entitled for compensation of Rs.66,55,698/towards loss of dependency. 15. With regard to the compensation of Rs.75,000/each awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads namely, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of estate and transportation of body of deceased and funeral expenses, we find that the same is on the higher side and accordingly, we award a sum of Rs.15,000/towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/ towards funeral expenses, in all amounting to a sum of Rs.70,000/with 10% increase which amounts to Rs.77,000/under the head of conventional heads as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, AIR 2017 SC 5157 . Conventional Heads: Loss of estate Rs.40,000.00 Loss of consortium Rs.15,000.00 Funeral expenses Rs.15,000.00 Rs.70,000.00 Add: 10% increase Rs. 7,000.00 Rs. 77,000-00 Loss of Dependency Rs. 66,55,698-00 Total Rs.67,32,698-00 Rounded off to Rs.67,33,000-00 16. Accordingly, the respondents claimants are entitled for the compensation as under: 17. We are also of the opinion that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company that the deceased was not a permanent employee so long as he was on probation is negatived as employment of the deceased employee is not terminated, he will be considered as permanent employee. Therefore, the deceased would be considered as an employee having a permanent job. Accordingly, the judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified as stated herein in the tabular column and the claimants would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.67,33,000/. The other conditions imposed by the Tribunal are not disturbed and the same is maintained. MFA.No.102367/2016 filed by the Insurance Company is allowedinpart and the judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. MFA.NO.103474/2016 filed by the claimants does not survive for consideration. Hence, the same is dismissed. It is submitted that there is some partial amount deposited by the Insurance Company. The balance amount shall be deposited by the Insurance Company within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. The amount, if any, deposited before this Court shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith, for withdrawal.