JUDGMENT : (Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 20.11.2019 passed in M.C.O.P.No.97 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Srivilliputhur.) 1. Questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company has filed this appeal. 2. It is stated in the claim petition on 26.02.2014, one Vijayan, was ridding a two wheeler, along with his mother, from Aathikulam to Surandai and at about 1.00 p.m., a Mahendira Van which came in the opposite direction, dashed against the two wheeler, due to which the said Vijayan and his mother died on the spot. The said Van was owned by the 6th respondent herein and insured with the appellant/2nd respondent. The first and second respondent herein, who are sister and brother of the deceased Vijayan, have filed M.C.O.P.No.96 of 2014 for the death of their mother and M.C.O.P.No.97 of 2014 for the death of their brother Vijayan on the file of the Tribunal. Pending claim petitions, the 2nd respondent herein/2nd claimant died and his wife and children were brought on record as petitioners 3 to 5/claimants 3 to 5. Considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on both sides, the Tribunal, by its common order dated 20.11.2019, awarded compensation of Rs.4,29,760/- in M.C.O.P.No.96 of 2014 and Rs. Rs. 26,46,961/- in M.C.O.P.No.97 of 2014 with 7.5% interest per annum. But, the Tribunal has permitted the 1st respondent/claimant only to withdraw the entire award amount. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded in M.C.O.P.No.97 of 2014, the appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would state that the Tribunal has erroneously taken the gross income of the deceased ie., Rs.15,118/-, instead net income of Rs.7,929/-, for ascertaining the loss of income and taking into account the net income of the deceased, the award amount may be reduced. He would further submit that at the time of accident, the deceased was a bachelor, aged 29 years, but the Tribunal, while computing the loss of income, has deducted 1/3rd of his income towards the personal expenses of the deceased, instead 50%, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009 (1) TNMAC 1 (SC). Except the above, the appellant has not disputed the compensation under any other heads. Except the above, the appellant has not disputed the compensation under any other heads. 4. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent/claimant would state that the gross income is the actual amount being paid by the employer and received by the employee and except the income tax deduction, other deductions are being made only for the benefit of the employee and the family of the employee. In this case, the salary received by the deceased did not come under the purview of income tax. Therefore, the gross salary taken by the Tribunal need not be interfered with. He would further submit that after going through the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has arrived at compensation of Rs.31,14,072/-. But, the Tribunal already deducted 15% of the said amount towards contributory negligence of the deceased, since the deceased rode his two wheeler without wearing Helmet at the time of accident, as per the judgment reported in 2017 (1) TNMAC 423 (A.Chithra and others vs. G.A.Sivakumar and others) and thus, the total compensation was reduced to Rs.26,46,961/-. Therefore, the award of the Tribunal may not be interfered with on any ground. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the 1st respondent/claimant and perused the records carefully. Though notice served, none appeared on behalf of the respondents 3 to 6. 6. A perusal of record shows that the deceased was bachelor, aged about 29 years and was working as a Grade-II Police Constable and earning Rs.15,118/- per month as gross income. In support of the income of the deceased, Ex.P19-salary certificate of the deceased was marked. The Tribunal, relying upon Ex.P19, has fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.15,118/-. It is needless to say that the contributions made by the deceased-employee towards Employees' Provident Fund, Life Insurance (LIC), Group Insurance, etc. and the amounts received by the deceased-employee towards Special Pay, Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance, would be beneficial to the family of the deceased-employee and it would be the estate of the deceased and they need not be deducted from the gross salary of the deceased. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also in the decision in Sunil Sharma & Ors. Vs. Bachitar Singh & Ors, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 425 has categorically held that gross income minus income tax is to be considered as actual income and not net salary. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also in the decision in Sunil Sharma & Ors. Vs. Bachitar Singh & Ors, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 425 has categorically held that gross income minus income tax is to be considered as actual income and not net salary. In this case, it is stated by the first respondent that no amount deducted from the salary of the deceased towards income tax as his income did not come under the purview of income tax. Therefore, the gross income taken by the Tribunal for arriving at loss of income need not be interfered with. Thus, the first submission of the appellant is rejected. 7. So far as the second submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, in this case, it is seen that at the time of accident, the deceased was a bachelor, but, while calculating the loss of income, the Tribunal has deducted only 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses of the deceased. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarala Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , 50% of the salary of the deceased ought to have been deducted towards personal expenses. In this case, it is also seen that the Tribunal has awarded the loss of income under two heads i.e., permanent loss of income and future loss of income. It could be awarded in a single head of loss of income also. 8. As stated earlier, the gross monthly income of the deceased is Rs.15,118/-. As per the decision reported in 2017 (2) TN MAC 609 (SC) (National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others), considering the nature of avocation of the deceased, if 50% of future prospects is added with the income of the deceased ie., Rs.7,559/-, the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.22,677/- (15,118 + 7559 = 22,677). As per the decision of the Sarala Verma case, if 50% of the income deducted towards personal expenses from the monthly income of the deceased, the monthly loss of income comes to Rs.11,338.5 and thus, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 1,36,062/- (11,338.5 x 12 = 1,36,062). As per the decision reported in 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC) (Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another), the Tribunal has rightly fixed multiplier No.17. 1,36,062/- (11,338.5 x 12 = 1,36,062). As per the decision reported in 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC) (Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another), the Tribunal has rightly fixed multiplier No.17. If the annual loss of income of Rs.1,36,062/- is multiplied with 17, the total loss of income comes to Rs.23,13,054/- (1,36,062 x 17 = 23,13,054). Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.23,13,054/- towards loss of income as against Rs. 20,56,048/- and Rs.10,28,024/- awarded by the Tribunal. The award of Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of love and affection and funeral expenses are undisputed and the same are confirmed. Accordingly, the total compensation works out to Rs.23,43,054/-, in which, if 15% contributory negligence fixed by the Tribunal for non wearing of Helmet by the deceased, as per the judgment reported in 2017 (1) TNMAC 423, is deducted, then the total compensation comes to Rs.19,91,595/-. The modified compensation is apportioned as follows:- Loss of income Rs.23,13,054/- Loss of love and affection Rs. 15,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs.23,43,054/- (Less)15% contributory negligence Rs. 3,51,458/- Modified compensation Rs.19,91,596/- Rounded off to Rs.19,91,600/- 9. As stated earlier, in this case, the claim petition has been filed by the sister and brother of the deceased on 25.04.2014 as first and second claimants respectively. Only during the pendency of the claim petition ie., in the year 2017, the second claimant died and his legal heirs were impleaded as claimants 3 to 5. By the award dated 20.11.2019, the Tribunal has erroneously denied compensation to the claimants 3 to 5 holding that as one of the first class heirs of the deceased in the accident ie., the first claimant survives and the claimants 3 to 5 are only the second class legal heirs to the deceased in the accident, they are not entitled to get compensation. 10. Admittedly, in this case, no appeal has been filed by the claimants 3 to 5 aggrieved by the said portion of the award. However, considering the ground on which the Tribunal rejected the claim of the claimants 3 to 5 and considering the fact that if this issue is not decided now, the entire compensation amount would be paid to the first claimant as per the findings of the Tribunal and in the interest of justice, this Court is inclined to interfere with the said finding of the Tribunal for reasons stated infra. 11. 11. In this case, it is not in dispute that as on the date of claim petition ie., on 25.04.2014, the 2nd claimant was alive. He was also examined as PW2. During the pendency of the claim petition only, the 2nd claimant died and hence, the legal heirs of the second claimant ie., the claimants 3 to 5 were impleaded. If the claim petition decided then and there, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal would be an estate of the deceased claimant during his life time and could be subject to succession on his death to his legal heirs and representatives. So, consequent on his death, his estate would pass on to his heirs as per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. Therefore, this Court is of the view that as the second claimant died only during the pendency of the claim petition, his legal heirs i.e., claimants 3 to 5 are entitled to get his share of compensation. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal in respect of denial of compensation to the claimants 3 to 5 and accordingly, the said finding is hereby set aside. 12. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from Rs. 26,46,961/- to Rs.19,91,600/-. Out of total compensation of Rs. 19,91,600/-, the first claimant is entitled to get Rs.9,95,800/- with accrued interest and costs, and the claimants 3 to 5 are entitled to get Rs.9,95,800/- with accrued interest and costs. Out of Rs.9,95,800/-, the third claimant is entitled to get Rs.3,30,000/- and the minor claimants 4 and 5 are entitled to get Rs.3,32,900/- each, with respective proportionate accrued interest and costs. 13. The appellant'/Insurance Company shall deposit the modified award amount ie., Rs.19,91,600/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit, less the amount already deposited, if any, to the credit of claim petition within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the first and third claimants are entitled to withdraw their respective share by filing an application before the Tribunal. The share of the minor claimants 4 and 5 shall be deposited in a nationalised Bank till they attains majority. 14. On such deposit, the first and third claimants are entitled to withdraw their respective share by filing an application before the Tribunal. The share of the minor claimants 4 and 5 shall be deposited in a nationalised Bank till they attains majority. 14. The appellant/Insurance Company as well as the Tribunal shall take steps to bring to the notice of the above decision to the respondents 3 to 5, as they did not appear before this Court. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.