JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. M.A. No. 395 of 2013 Perusal of the record reveals that the though the notice was issued to the respondent no. 2 and the summon was properly addressed and duly sent by registered post acknowledgment due but neither the postal envelope nor any card has been received, hence, in terms of the proviso of Order V Rule 9(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the service of notice upon respondent no. 2 is sufficient. M.A. No. 340 of 2013 with M.A. No. 395 of 2013 By the Court:-Heard the parties. 2. Since both appeals have arisen out of the same judgment, hence, these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. 3. These Miscellaneous Appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 03.07.2013 passed by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge II-cum-MACT, Judge, Dhanbad in Title (Motor Vehicles) Case no. 292 of 2010 whereby and where under, in an application under Section 166 of the M.V.Act. 1988, learned tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 12,78,076/-and after deducting Rs. 50,000/-under Section 140 of the M.V. Act, directed the insurance company to pay the remaining amount with interest thereon @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realisation. 4. The brief facts of this case is that the deceased Suresh Sharma @ Suresh Rana, who was category D employee of D.A.V. Public School, Koylanagar, on 03.11.2009 at about 4.00 PM while riding a motorcycle with the informant of the criminal case, the offending truck being rashly and negligently driven, dashed the said motorcycle and by which, the deceased Suresh Sharma @ Suresh Rana and the person riding with him in the said motorcycle sustained grievous injuries. The deceased was earning a gross salary of Rs. 7613/-per month and he has 06 dependents. The deceased Suresh Sharma @ Suresh Rana was aged about 32 years at the time of accident. The insurance company filed written statement and pleaded that the driver of the offending truck was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and since the claimants have not mentioned as to who was driving the motorcycle at the time of the accident hence, it was submitted on behalf of the insurance company that the person driving the vehicle had no valid and effective licence to drive motorcycle. It was also pleaded that both the drivers, of the motorcycle and of the truck, were under the influence of the alcohol at the time of accident and since, there was head on collision so, the truck driver cannot be said to be at fault, solely. 5. On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, learned tribunal framed following eight issues :- (i) Is the case maintainable in its present form ? (ii) Is there any cause of action for the present case ? (iii) Whether the deceased Suresh Sharma @ Suresh Rana died in motor vehicle road accident on 03.11.2009 caused by Truck No. WB-37-7243? (iv) Whether the driver of the Truck No. WB-37-7243 was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and caused the accident ? (v) Whether the driving licence of driver of Truck No. WB-37-7243 was valid on the date of accident ? (vi) Whether the Truck No. WB-37-7243 had valid and effective permit at the date and time of the accident ? (vii) To what amount of compensation the claimant / plaintiffs are entitled to ? (viii) Whether offending vehicle no. WB-37-7243 was insured with M/s United India Insurance Company Limited, having policy no. 3315083/090/000/0461 valid from 12.03.2009 to 11.03.2010? 6. In support of their case, the claimants have examined three witnesses and proved the documents which have been exhibited as 1 to 5 but the insurance company chose not to examine any witness or adduce any evidence, whatsoever. The owner of the vehicle, being the opposite party no. 1, did not appear before the tribunal and has not filed any written statement. 7. Out of the three witnesses examined by the claimants, PW 1 – Sangita Sharma, who is the wife of the deceased-Suresh Sharma @ Suresh Rana, has stated in her examination -in-chief filed in shape of the affidavit that the deceased Suresh Sharma @ Suresh Rana, died on 03.11.2009 in a motorcycle accident caused by rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending truck. The deceased Suresh Sharma @ Suresh Rana, succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident during his treatment in a hospital. In her cross-examination, PW1 has denied the suggestion that the deceased was not having licence to drive a motorcycle. 8. PW2-Amrit Kumar Mahto has stated that he is the eye-witness to the occurrence of accident caused by the offending truck. In her cross-examination, PW1 has denied the suggestion that the deceased was not having licence to drive a motorcycle. 8. PW2-Amrit Kumar Mahto has stated that he is the eye-witness to the occurrence of accident caused by the offending truck. He has further stated that on 03.11.2009, the offending truck being rashly and negligently driven, dashed Suresh Sharma @ Suresh Rana and his friend, causing injuries to them. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he was not examined by the police in connection with the case. He cannot say who was driving the motorcycle. There was head on collision between the truck and the motorcycle. The truck was coming on the wrong side. He denied the suggestion that the persons riding the motorcycle were being more negligent in the said accident and he also denied the suggestion that the motorcycle driver did not know how to drive a motorcycle. 9. PW3-Ramchandra Mahto proved the salary certificate of the deceased showing his gross salary to be Rs. 7613/-which the deceased was drawing as the category D employee of the D.A.V. Public School, Koyla Nagar. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has not seen the occurrence of accident. 10. So far as the documentary evidence in the record is concerned, Exhibit-1 is the Salary Certificate of the deceased. Exhibit-2 is the Certified copy of FIR of GR case no. 3636 of 2009, instituted by Firoj Khan who was riding the same motorcycle along with the deceased at the time of the accident and he has categorically stated therein that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Exhibit-3 is the certified copy of the Charge-sheet in the GR case no. 3636 of 2009 against the driver of the said offending truck wherein the police after investigation, has found him guilty of committing the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC. Exhibit-4 is the copy of Post-mortem report of the deceased and Exhibit-5 is the Heirship Certificate. 11. Learned tribunal first took up the issue no. ‘(iii) and ‘(iv)’ and after considering the evidence in the record, came to the conclusion that as there was head-on collision between the two vehicles, so there was contributory negligence of both the drivers. Learned tribunal thereafter took up issue no. 11. Learned tribunal first took up the issue no. ‘(iii) and ‘(iv)’ and after considering the evidence in the record, came to the conclusion that as there was head-on collision between the two vehicles, so there was contributory negligence of both the drivers. Learned tribunal thereafter took up issue no. '(v)' and '(vi)' together and came to the conclusion that the defendant insurance company has miserably failed to prove the said two issues. Learned tribunal disposed issue no. '(viii)' as not pressed, as the insurance company did not dispute the insurance of the offending vehicle. In respect of issue no. '(vii)', learned tribunal by applying the multiplier of 16 and assessing the net income of the deceased to be Rs. 5839/-and adding 50% towards future prospectus and deducting ¼ th towards his personal and living expenses, arrived at a total compensation amount, as already mentioned above but directed the insurance company to pay only 75% of the compensation amount of Rs. 12,78,076/-less Rs. 50,000/-paid under Section 140 of the M.V.Act. 12. Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel for the appellant for the insurance company assails the impugned judgment on the following grounds. : (i) Since the insurance company has taken the specific plea that the driver of the offending truck was not having valid driving licence and the same has not been controverted by the owner, so in view of the principles of law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pappu & Ors. vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba & Anr. reported in 2018 (3) SCC 208 , paragraph nos.11 and 12 of which reads as under :- “11. The question is: whether the fact that the offending vehicle bearing No. DIL 5955 was duly insured by Respondent 2 insurance company would per se make the insurance company liable? 12. This Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. has noticed the defences available to the insurance company under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The insurance company is entitled to take a defence that the offending vehicle was driven by an unauthorised person or the person driving the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence. 12. This Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. has noticed the defences available to the insurance company under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The insurance company is entitled to take a defence that the offending vehicle was driven by an unauthorised person or the person driving the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence. The onus would shift on the insurance company only after the owner of the offending vehicle pleads and proves the basic facts within his knowledge that the driver of the offending vehicle was authorised by him to drive the vehicle and was having a valid driving licence at the relevant time.” (ii) The liability of indemnifying the insured by insurer will not shift to the insurer, hence, the tribunal ought to have held that it is the owner of the offending truck who has to pay the compensation. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant also relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. vs. K. Hemlatha & Ors. reported in 2008 (6) SCC 767 paragraph 13 of which reads as under :- “13. In an accident involving two or more vehicles, where a third party (other than the drivers and/or owners of the vehicles involved) claims damages for loss or injuries, it is said that compensation is payable in respect of the composite negligence of the drivers of those vehicles. But in respect of such an accident, if the claim is by one of the drivers himself for personal injuries, or by the legal heirs of one of the drivers for loss on account of his death, or by the owner of one of the vehicles in respect of damages to his vehicle, then the issue that arises is not about the composite negligence of all the drivers, but about the contributory negligence of the driver concerned.” 14. It is further submitted by Mr. Anand that as the post-mortem report shows that the deceased sustained head injury also; so it can be inferred from that the deceased was not wearing crash helmet at the time of accident and for this reason also the deceased has contributory negligence. It is further submitted by Mr. Anand that as the post-mortem report shows that the deceased sustained head injury also; so it can be inferred from that the deceased was not wearing crash helmet at the time of accident and for this reason also the deceased has contributory negligence. It is further submitted that since the deceased had taken alcohol, the same has a contributory effect on the said accident and as the claimant has failed to produce any valid driving licence of the deceased and as it is not clear as to who was driving the motorcycle at the time of accident, so these are also the factors which ought to have been considered by the learned tribunal hence, learned tribunal ought to have held that the deceased was solely responsible for the accident and learned tribunal ought to have absolved the insurance company from the liability of paying the compensation. 15. It is lastly submitted by Mr. Anand that the impugned judgment and decree be modified by absolving the insurance company of its liability. 16. Mr. S. K. Laik, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, assails the impugned judgment by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Minu Rout and Anr. vs. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra and Ors. reported in 2013 0 AIR (SCW) 5375, para 11 and 12 of which read as under : “11. The case of the appellants is that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by its driver. The offending truck was coming from opposite direction to the car. In the car, there were six persons traveling including the first appellant. The first appellant was examined as P.W.1 and other three eye witnesses were also examined as P.W.2 to P.W.4, who supported the version of P.W.1. They have narrated in their evidence that the accident occurred on 8.11.2004. P.W.2 has stated in his evidence that the accident took place within 15 feet away from the place, when he was going to his village in his bicycle. Two other eye witnesses were also examined as P.W.3 and P.W.4 who have also deposed before the Tribunal stating that Susil Rout got grievous injuries on account of the accident and was shifted to the Jajpur Hospital, where he was declared dead. Two other eye witnesses were also examined as P.W.3 and P.W.4 who have also deposed before the Tribunal stating that Susil Rout got grievous injuries on account of the accident and was shifted to the Jajpur Hospital, where he was declared dead. They have also deposed that the occurrence of the accident was on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck. There was head on collision between the offending truck and the car. 12. P.W.3 was a betel shop owner, whose shop is situated near the spot of the accident. Though he was not examined by the Investigating Officer in the police case he is examined before the Tribunal whose evidence is required to be accepted for the reason that the same is not rebutted by the respondents. P.W.4 has stated in his cross examination that he saw the accident from a little distance from the market place, where about 10 to 20 persons were present. He has further deposed that the truck was in a high speed and the people traveling in the car sustained injuries and the driver of the car Susil Rout suffered grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. He was conscious when he was taken to the Jajpur Hospital on a trekker.” (Emphasis supplied) and submits that the tribunal erred by not giving due to weightage to the testimony of the eyewitness of the occurrence examined in this case by the claimants merely on the ground that he was not examined by the police. 17.Mr. Laik, also relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jiju Kuruvila and Ors. vs. Kunjujamma Mohan and Ors. reported in 2013 (9) SCC 166 , paragraphs 19 and 20.1 to 20.6 of which reads as under :- “19. The High Court based on Ext. B-2 “scene mahazar” and Ext. A-5 post-mortem report held that there was also negligence on the part of the deceased as well. ceased as well. 20.1. The owner of the vehicle Kunjujamma Mohan and the driver of the bus P.C. Kurian who were the first and third respondents before the Tribunal and the High Court, had not denied the allegation that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the bus driver. 20.2. PW 3, an independent eyewitness was accompanying the deceased during the journey on the fateful day. 20.2. PW 3, an independent eyewitness was accompanying the deceased during the journey on the fateful day. He stated that the bus coming from the opposite direction hit the car driven by the deceased and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. 20.3. Ext. A-1, FIR registered by Pampady Police against the bus driver P.C. Kurian under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC shows that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the bus driver. After investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet (Ext. A-4) against the bus driver under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC with specific allegation that the bus driver caused the death of Joy Kuruvila due to rash and negligent driving of the bus on 16-4-1990 at 4.50 p.m. In view of the direct evidence, the Tribunal and the High Court held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the bus driver. 20.4. There is no evidence on record to suggest any negligence on the part of the deceased. Ext. B-2 “scene mahazar” also does not suggest any rash and negligent driving on the part of the deceased. 20.5. The mere position of the vehicles after accident, as shown in a scene mahazar, cannot give a substantial proof as to the rash and negligent driving on the part of one or the other. When two vehicles coming from opposite directions collide, the position of the vehicles and its direction, etc. depends on a number of factors like the speed of vehicles, intensity of collision, reason for collision, place at which one vehicle hit the other, etc. From the scene of the accident, one may suggest or presume the manner in which the accident was caused, but in the absence of any direct or corroborative evidence, no conclusion can be drawn as to whether there was negligence on the part of the driver. In absence of such direct or corroborative evidence, the Court cannot give any specific finding about negligence on the part of any individual. 20.6. The post-mortem report, Ext. A-5 shows the condition of the deceased at the time of death. The said report reflects that the deceased had already taken meal as his stomach was half-full and contained rice, vegetables and meat pieces in a fluid with strong smell of spirit. The aforesaid evidence, Ext. 20.6. The post-mortem report, Ext. A-5 shows the condition of the deceased at the time of death. The said report reflects that the deceased had already taken meal as his stomach was half-full and contained rice, vegetables and meat pieces in a fluid with strong smell of spirit. The aforesaid evidence, Ext. A-5 clearly suggests that the deceased had taken liquor but on the basis of the same, no definite finding can be given that the deceased was driving the car rashly and negligently at the time of accident. The mere suspicion based on Ext. B-2 “scene mahazar” and Ext. A-5 post-mortem report cannot take the place of evidence, particularly, when the direct evidence like PW 3 (independent eyewitness), Ext. A-1 (FIR), Ext. A-4 (charge-sheet) and Ext. B-1 (FI statement) are on record.” and submits that merely because there was head-on collision or that ‘scene mahazar’ was not produced, learned tribunal erred by holding that the deceased was having contributory negligence and deduction of 25% of the compensation amount, is erroneous and illegal and the same be set aside. It is then submitted by Mr. Laik that though not considered by the tribunal the contention of the appellant-insurance company before this court, that the deceased having taken alcohol, though the same is not supported by the findings in the post-mortem report, yet even assuming for the sake of argument that the deceased had taken alcohol before the accident, as has been held by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Jiju Kuruvila and Ors. vs. Kunjujamma Mohan and Ors. (Supra) the same cannot be the basis for giving any definite finding that the deceased was driving the motorcycle, which was rashly and negligently driven by the deceased at the time of accident. It is next submitted that the injuries sustained by the deceased on his head cannot be the conclusive proof of the fact that he did not wear the crash helmet. 18. It is further submitted by Mr. Laik that it is settled principle of law that the gross salary of the deceased is to be taken into consideration while assessing the income less the amount of income tax deducted, hence, the tribunal erred by assessing the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 5839/-and ought to have assessed the income to be Rs.7613/-and ought to have awarded Rs. 70,000/-towards the conventional head. 5839/-and ought to have assessed the income to be Rs.7613/-and ought to have awarded Rs. 70,000/-towards the conventional head. It is lastly submitted that the impugned judgment and award be modified by enhancing the compensation. 19. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through the evidence in the record, the following points for determination crop up in this appeal : (I) Whether the learned tribunal erred by holding the insurance company liable to pay compensation, if yes, then who is to pay the compensation ? (II) Whether learned tribunal erred by holding that the deceased was having contributory negligence to the accident and deducting 25% of the compensation amount ? (III) Whether learned tribunal ought to have awarded a higher amount of compensation ? 20. So far as the first point of determination is concerned, it is the settled principle of law that as has been held in the case of Pappu & Ors. vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba & Anr. (supra), that if the insurance company pleads that driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence, it is for the owner to plead and prove that the driver of the vehicle was having valid and effective licence on the date of accident and then only, liability will shift to the insurance company, but in this case, even though there is such pleading by the insurance company that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having the valid and effective driving licence still the owner of the vehicle neither appeared nor filed any written statement, so this Court has no hesitation in holding that learned tribunal erred by holding that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. As it is submitted by Mr. Anand that the insurance company already deposited the entire compensation amount with the tribunal and 50% of the amount has already been released in favour of the claimant pursuant to the order of this court dated 04.03.2015. Hence in view of settled principle of law in the case of Manuara Kahtun & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh & Ors. reported in (2017) 4 SCC 796 as well as in the case of Pappu & Ors. vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba & Anr. (supra), the insurance company is given the right to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle being the defendant no. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh & Ors. reported in (2017) 4 SCC 796 as well as in the case of Pappu & Ors. vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba & Anr. (supra), the insurance company is given the right to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle being the defendant no. 1 in the Title (Motor Vehicles) Case no. 292 of 2010 after paying the same to the claimants, so first point for determination is answered accordingly. 21. So far as the 2nd point for determination is concerned, in view of the settled principle of law in the case of Minu Rout vs. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra and Ors. (supra) and the case of Jiju Kuruvila and Ors. vs. Kunjujamma Mohan and Ors.(supra), this court has no hesitation in holding that learned tribunal erred by coming to a conclusion that the deceased was having contributory negligence in the accident, merely because there was head-on collision, is contrary to the principle of law. As mentioned in the chargesheet which has been marked Exhibit 3 by the police after investigation of the case that the offending vehicle was responsible for causing the accident and the driver of the offending vehicle has been sent up for trial. The contents of the FIR which has been marked as Exhibit 2 also corroborates the same. The oral testimony of the PW2, who is eye-witness to the accident has in no uncertain manner depicts the accident having been caused by rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. There is nothing in the record to controvert the same. The appellant insurance company has not adduced any evidence on the point of manner of the accident. In view of the law enunciated in the case of Minu Rout and Anr. vs. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra and Ors. (supra), the fact that the statement of PW-2 was not recorded by police, in the absence of any contra evidence or any demolition of any portion of his testimony in his cross-examination certainly will not affect the credibility of his testimony. In view of the law enunciated in the case of Jiju Kuruvila and Ors. vs. Kunjujamma Mohan and Ors. (supra), the fact that the statement of PW-2 was not recorded by police, in the absence of any contra evidence or any demolition of any portion of his testimony in his cross-examination certainly will not affect the credibility of his testimony. In view of the law enunciated in the case of Jiju Kuruvila and Ors. vs. Kunjujamma Mohan and Ors. (Supra) certainly the tribunal erred by finding fault with the claimants for not producing the spot map, as the same in no way establishes conclusively as to which of the 2 vehicles involved in an accident was responsible for causing the accident. Similarly there is no merit in the contention of the appellant that its pleading that the deceased consumed alcohol, even though there is no evidence in the record in this respect certainly in the absence of any evidence by itself cannot be a ground to come to a conclusion that the deceased was driving the motorcycle rashly and negligently at the time of the accident in view of the principle of law enunciated in the case of Jiju Kuruvila and Ors. vs. Kunjujamma Mohan and Ors. (Supra). It is needless to mention that merely because the deceased sustained some injuries in the head the contention of the appellant-insurance company that the deceased was not wearing a crash helmet is without any merit as it is common knowledge that a crash helmet can reduce the impact of the injury but certainly do not guarantee that no injury at all can happen to the person, who wears the same, in his head. 22. So far as the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. vs. K. Hemlatha & Ors. (supra) is concerned, the facts of that case is different from the facts of this case, as in that case, the evidence in the record established that the driver of the motorcycle was driving the motorcycle at high speed, as observed in paragraph 12 of the judgment, which reads as under :- “12. The Tribunal has noticed that the deceased was driving the vehicle at a high speed with a view to attend the marriage function. Manner of the accident as deposed by the claimant's witnesses indicates that the deceased was partially responsible for the accident. The Tribunal has noticed that the deceased was driving the vehicle at a high speed with a view to attend the marriage function. Manner of the accident as deposed by the claimant's witnesses indicates that the deceased was partially responsible for the accident. The High Court was wrong in holding that the deceased had not contributed to the accident and there was no contributory negligence. Taking into account the evidence of the witnesses it can certainly be said that there was contributory negligence. The proportion can be fixed at 1:4. From the compensation as awarded a sum of Rs 1,00,000 with round figures needs to be deducted. Therefore, the compensation is fixed at Rs 4,18,800. Considering the date of the accident, the rate of interest should be 8%.” (Supra) 23.Thus this court has no hesitation in holding that the evidence in the record is insufficient to come to a conclusion that the deceased had any contributory negligence in the said accident. Hence this court holds that learned tribunal erred by holding the deceased of having contributed negligence to the accident and deducting 25% of the compensation amount directed to be paid by the insurance company, on that account. The 2nd point for determination is answered accordingly. 24. So far as the 3rd point for determination is concerned, by now it is a settled principle of law that the gross salary of a salaried employee less the income tax deducted is to be considered as his income, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Yerramma & Ors. v. G. Krishnamurthy & Anr. reported in 2015 AIR SCW 514, wherein Their Lordships in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the judgment has held as under: “13. The Tribunal on examining the salary slip of the deceased for the month of April, 2011 determined the salary of the deceased at Rs.21,168/- per month after deducting towards P.T. and other statutory deductions. Therefore, the Tribunal arrived at Rs.21,168/- per month as the salary of the deceased. The High Court in its impugned judgment and order affirmed the same. The Tribunal on examining the salary slip of the deceased for the month of April, 2011 determined the salary of the deceased at Rs.21,168/- per month after deducting towards P.T. and other statutory deductions. Therefore, the Tribunal arrived at Rs.21,168/- per month as the salary of the deceased. The High Court in its impugned judgment and order affirmed the same. We are of the view, that on the facts and circumstances of this case, the net salary of the deceased taken by the Tribunal and the High Court for determination of loss of dependency is erroneous as it is not in accordance with the principles laid down by this Court in this regard. Therefore the same is liable to be set aside as it has to be properly determined by taking gross income of the deceased. It is clear that the gross income of the deceased at the time of his death as per his salary slip was Rs.26,000/- per month. Therefore, we are of the view that a just and reasonable compensation under the head of loss of dependency has not been determined by the courts below. Thus, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court is vitiated both on account of erroneous finding and error in law. The gross salary drawn by the deceased at the time of his death was Rs.26,000/-per month. The High Court and the Tribunal have taken the net salary at Rs. 21,168/-per month, thereby the Courts below have erred in making deductions from the gross salary of the deceased towards. P.T. of Rs.200/-and other statutory deductions and therefore, arriving at Rs.21,168/-per month at the net salary of the deceased is erroneous in law. Therefore, we are of the view that both the Tribunal and the High Court have erred in not following the rules laid down by this Court in Indira Srivastava’s ( AIR 2008 SC 845 : 2008 AIR SCW 143) (supra) in not taking gross income of the deceased to determine the loss of dependency. 14. The gross salary drawn by the deceased at the time of his death as per salary slip produced on record was Rs.26,000/-per month and after deducting 10% towards income tax, net income comes to Rs.23,400/-per month. Thus, the annual income of the deceased would be Rs.2,80,800/-. 14. The gross salary drawn by the deceased at the time of his death as per salary slip produced on record was Rs.26,000/-per month and after deducting 10% towards income tax, net income comes to Rs.23,400/-per month. Thus, the annual income of the deceased would be Rs.2,80,800/-. Deducting 1/4th of this amount towards his personal expenses by applying the principle as laid down by this Court in Sarla Verma case ( AIR 2009 SC 3104 : 2009 AIR SCW 4992) (supra), the balance amount comes to Rs.2,10,600/-[(2,80,800 – Rs.70,200/-(14th of Rs.2,80,800/-)]. Therefore, the loss of dependency of the appellants by applying the appropriate multiplier of 11, according to the rules laid down by this Court in the Sarla Verma comes to Rs.23,16,600/-(Rs.2,10,600/-x 11).” (Emphasis Supplied) so considering the evidence in the record, this court is of the considered view that learned tribunal erred by assessing the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 5839/-instead Rs. 7613/-hence, this court in view of the evidence in the record, assess the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 7613/-and by adding 50 % of the amount as future prospects in view of the principle of law settled in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the total amount comes to Rs. 11,419.50 per month i.e. Rs. 1,37,034/-per annum. Deducing 1/4th of the same towards the personal income of the deceased, the net amount comes to Rs. 1,02,775.50 and by applying the multiplier of 16, the compensation comes to Rs. 16,44,408/-. In view of the judgment of the Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants are also entitled to Rs. 70,000/-under the conventional head, so the total amount comes to 17,14,408/-, so this court is of the considered view that the total compensation amount to be paid to the claimants is Rs. 17,14,408/-less the amount already paid by the insurance company and the simple interest thereon @ 6% per annum from the date of this judgment. The 3rd point for determination is answered accordingly. 25. In view of the discussions made above, the impugned judgment and award is modified by directing defendant no. 2 -insurance company in Title (Motor Vehicles) Case No. 292 of 2010 to pay a sum of Rs. The 3rd point for determination is answered accordingly. 25. In view of the discussions made above, the impugned judgment and award is modified by directing defendant no. 2 -insurance company in Title (Motor Vehicles) Case No. 292 of 2010 to pay a sum of Rs. 17,14,408/-, less the amount already paid to the claimants within three months from the date of this judgment and learned tribunal is directed to release the rest amount already deposited by the insurance company with the tribunal to the claimants forthwith. 26. The Registrar General is directed to transmit the statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/-if any deposited by the appellant in connection with MA no. 340 of 2013 to the tribunal concerned. 27. Both these appeals are disposed of on contest against the respondent no. 1 but ex-parte against respondent no. 2 in MA No. 395 of 2013 accordingly. In view of the disposal of both the appeals, the interlocutory application, if any, also stands deposed of. 28. No order as to costs. 29. Let a copy of this Judgment along with the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith.