JUDGMENT anuja Prabhudessai, J. - The appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'the Claimants') have assailed the judgment and award dated 03/03/2007 passed by the Claims Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 458/1993 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act of 1988'). By the impugned judgment and award, the Claims Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs. 4,88,660/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the application till final realization. 2] The brief facts necessary to decide this appeal are as under:- The Claimant No. 1 is the widow and Claimant Nos. 2, 3 & 4 are the children of the deceased arunkumar Pandya who expired in a road accident on 26/03/1993. It is the case of the Claimants that on 26/03/1993, while the deceased arunkumar Pandya was proceeding to Ramtek by his vehicle bearing No. MUK-6996, a jeep bearing No. MTE-2004 dashed against his vehicle, resulting in his instant death. It was alleged that the accident was caused solely due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle bearing No. MTE-2004. The Claimants further claimed that the deceased was 52 years of age and was employed as a Workshop Superintendent in Government Polytechnic College at Balaghat on monthly salary of Rs. 7000/-. The Claimants therefore claimed total compensation of Rs. 12,93,790/-. 3] The offending vehicle was owned by the respondent No. 1 and insured with the respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Insurance Company'). The claim petition was contested by the Insurance Company on the ground that the compensation claimed by the Claimants was exorbitant. The plea of contributory negligence has also been raised. 4] The learned Judge, upon considering the evidence adduced by the Claimants, held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle bearing No. MTE-2004. The learned Judge further held that the deceased was 52 years of age. He was an employee of Government Polytechnic College, Balaghat. The learned Judge held that the deceased was drawing gross salary of Rs. 6971/- whereas his net salary was Rs. 4745/-. The learned Judge computed the compensation on the basis of the net salary of Rs. 4745/- and on adding Rs. He was an employee of Government Polytechnic College, Balaghat. The learned Judge held that the deceased was drawing gross salary of Rs. 6971/- whereas his net salary was Rs. 4745/-. The learned Judge computed the compensation on the basis of the net salary of Rs. 4745/- and on adding Rs. 700/- per month towards future prospects, deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses and applying multiplier of 11, the learned Judge assessed loss of dependency at Rs. 4,79,160.00/-. The learned Judge also awarded compensation of Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 2500/- towards loss of Estate and Rs. 2000/- towards funeral expenses and thus granted total compensation of Rs. 4,88,660/-. Being aggrieved by this judgment and award, the Claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the act of 1988. 5] Shri G.E. Moharir, learned counsel for the Claimants submits that the Tribunal has erred in computing the compensation on the basis of net income of the deceased. He further submits that the compensation awarded on other conventional heads viz. loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate are not in accordance with the law laid down by the apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. - (2017) 16 SCC 680 . He further submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be construed as just and reasonable compensation. 6] Per contra, Shri M.B. Joshi, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the compensation has been rightly computed on the basis of net salary. Relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Meena Tukaram Jadhav and others - 2014 (3) Mh.L.J. 840 , he submits that, while considering the monthly income of the deceased, 30% of the amount has to be deducted on account of the income tax payable by the deceased. 7] I have perused the record and considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties. It is not in dispute that arunkumar Pandya died in a road accident. There is no challenge to the finding that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle which was insured with the respondent No. 2 Insurance Company. The challenge in the appeal is restricted to the quantum of compensation payable to the Claimants. There is no challenge to the finding that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle which was insured with the respondent No. 2 Insurance Company. The challenge in the appeal is restricted to the quantum of compensation payable to the Claimants. 8] In the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the Constitution Bench of the apex Court has held that Section 168 of the act of 1988 deals with the concept 'just compensation' and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standard because such determination can never be in arithmetical exactitude and can never be perfect. The aim is to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical precision on the basis of material brought on record in an individual case. The apex Court has held that though the discretion vested in the Tribunal is quite wide, yet it is obligatory on the part of the Tribunal to be guided by the expression, that is, 'just compensation'. The determination has to be on the foundation of evidence brought on record as regards the age and income of the deceased and thereafter the apposite multiplier to be applied. The apex Court has held that for determining the multiplicand and deduction towards personal living expenses, the Tribunal shall be guided by the standards fixed in Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & anr. - (2009) 6 SCC 121 . The decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) also authoritatively settles the law on future prospects on the income of the deceased. The apex Court has laid down that 50% of the established income should be added towards future prospects where the deceased was in permanent employment and was below 40 years of age, an addition of 30% where the deceased was between the age of 40-50 years and 15% in case the deceased was between the age of 50-60 years. The apex Court has also quantified the amount on the three conventional heads viz. Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 15,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of Estate. 9] In the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130 , the apex Court has held that 'consortium' is compendious term which encompasses 'spousal consortium', 'parental consortium', and 'filial consortium'. Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 15,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of Estate. 9] In the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130 , the apex Court has held that 'consortium' is compendious term which encompasses 'spousal consortium', 'parental consortium', and 'filial consortium'. Spousal consortium is granted to the surviving spouse for loss of 'company, society, co-operation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation.' Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of 'parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training'. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. The apex Court has held that the amount of compensation to be awarded for loss of consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under 'Loss of Consortium' as laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra). 10] The question whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable needs to be decided on the touchstone of these principles indicated above. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the deceased was 52 years of age and he was employed as Workshop Superintendent in Government Polytechnic College at Balaghat (M.P.). The Claimants have examined PW4 Jamil Mohammad, a Junior accounts Officer in Government Polytechnic College, Balaghat. He has deposed that in February, 1993, the gross salary of the deceased was Rs. 6,971/- whereas his net payment was Rs. 4,745/-. He has produced the pay bill register of the deceased for the month of February, 1993 and March, 1993 which are at Exhibit Nos. 95 and 96 respectively. 11] a perusal of the pay register at Exhibit Nos. 95 and 96 indicates that in the month of February, 1993, the gross salary of the deceased was Rs. 6,971/- which includes basic pay of Rs. 3,800/-, D.a. of Rs. 2,905/- and H.R.a. of Rs. 266/-. These certificates reveal that an amount of Rs. 2,196/- was deducted towards GPF and an amount of Rs. 30/- was deducted towards FBF (Family Benefit Fund). after deducting the total amount of Rs. 2,226/- towards GPF and FBF, the deceased was getting net salary of Rs. 4,745/-. 12] The Tribunal has computed the compensation on the basis of the net salary. 2,196/- was deducted towards GPF and an amount of Rs. 30/- was deducted towards FBF (Family Benefit Fund). after deducting the total amount of Rs. 2,226/- towards GPF and FBF, the deceased was getting net salary of Rs. 4,745/-. 12] The Tribunal has computed the compensation on the basis of the net salary. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Indira Srivastava & ors. - (2002) 2 SCC 763. In the said case, the apex Court has observed as under:- '8. The term 'income' has different connotations for different purposes. a court of law, having regard to the change in societal conditions must consider the question not only having regard to pay packet the employee carries home at the end of the month but also other perks which are beneficial to the members of the entire family. Loss caused to the family on a death of a near and dear one can hardly be compensated on monitory terms. 9. Section 168 of the act uses the word 'just compensation' which, in our opinion, should be assigned a broad meaning. We cannot, in determining the issue involved in the matter, lose sight of the fact that the private sector companies in place of introducing a pension scheme takes recourse to payment of contributory Provident Fund, Gratuity and other perks to attract the people who are efficient and hard working. Different offers made to an officer by the employer, same may be either for the benefit of the employee himself or for the benefit of the entire family. If some facilities are being provided whereby the entire family stands to benefit, the same, in our opinion, must be held to be relevant for the purpose of computation of total income on the basis whereof the amount of compensation payable for the death of the kith and kin of the applicants is required to be determined. .. 17. The amounts, therefore, which were required to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for computation of his monthly income as that would have been added to his monthly income by way of contribution to the family as contradistinguished to the ones which were for his benefit. .. 17. The amounts, therefore, which were required to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for computation of his monthly income as that would have been added to his monthly income by way of contribution to the family as contradistinguished to the ones which were for his benefit. We may, however, hasten to add that from the said amount of income, the statutory amount of tax payable thereupon must be deducted.' 13] In Raghuvir Singh Matolya & Ors. vs. Hari Singh Malviya & Ors. - (2008) 15 SCC 363, the apex Court has observed that dearness allowance and HRa should be included for computation of income of the deceased. In Sunil Sharma & Ors. vs. Bachitar Singh & Ors. - (2011) 11 SCC 425 and Kalpanaraj & Ors. vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation - (2015) 2 SCC 764 , the apex Court has reiterated that while assessing the income of the deceased, the deductions towards GPF, life insurance premium, repayment of loan etc. should not be excluded from the income. The only amount to be excluded is the statutory deductions towards income tax/professional tax etc. 14] Having regard to the aforesaid dicta, the Tribunal was not justified in excluding the amount deducted towards GPF and FBF. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the other conventional heads is also very meager and not in accordance with the amount quantified by the Hon'ble apex Court. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is therefore not just and reasonable compensation. 15] The next question which falls for consideration is whether any amount from the monthly income is required to be deducted towards income tax while computing the loss of dependency. an identical question was considered by the apex Court in Vimal Kanwar & Ors vs. Kishore Dan & Ors - (2013) 7 SCC 476 . The apex Court, in paragraph 21, has held as under:- '21. The third issue is 'whether the income tax is liable to be deducted for determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles act.' In the case of Sarla Verma & anr. The apex Court, in paragraph 21, has held as under:- '21. The third issue is 'whether the income tax is liable to be deducted for determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles act.' In the case of Sarla Verma & anr. (Supra), this Court held 'generally the actual income of the deceased less income tax should be the starting point for calculating the compensation.' This Court further observed that 'where the annual income is in taxable range, the word 'actual salary' should be read as 'actual salary less tax'. Therefore, it is clear that if the annual income comes within the taxable range income tax is required to be deducted for determination of the actual salary. But while deducting income-tax from salary, it is necessary to notice the nature of the income of the victim. If the victim is receiving income chargeable under the head 'salaries' one should keep in mind that under Section 192(1) of the Income-tax act, 1961 any person responsible for paying any income chargeable under the head 'salaries' shall at the time of payment, deduct income-tax on estimated income of the employee from 'salaries' for that financial year. Such deduction is commonly known as tax deducted at source ('TDS' for short). When the employer fails in default to deduct the TDS from employee salary, as it is his duty to deduct the TDS, then the penalty for non-deduction of TDS is prescribed under Section 201(1a) of the Income-tax act, 1961. Therefore, in case the income of the victim is only from 'salary', the presumption would be that the employer under Section 192(1) of the Income- tax act, 1961 has deducted the tax at source from the employee's salary. In case if an objection is raised by any party, the objector is required to prove by producing evidence such as LPC to suggest that the employer failed to deduct the TDS from the salary of the employee. In case if an objection is raised by any party, the objector is required to prove by producing evidence such as LPC to suggest that the employer failed to deduct the TDS from the salary of the employee. However, there can be cases where the victim is not a salaried person i.e. his income is from sources other than salary, and the annual income falls within taxable range, in such cases, if any objection as to deduction of tax is made by a party then the claimant is required to prove that the victim has already paid income tax and no further tax has to be deducted from the income.' 16] In the instant case, the deceased was in government employment. There is absolutely no evidence to prove that the income of the deceased was within taxable range and that no tax was deducted at source. In the absence of such evidence, the entire salary will have to be taken into consideration as income for the purpose of determination of compensation. Thus, there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that 30% is required to be deducted from the salary of the deceased towards income tax. 17] Considering the dictum of the apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Company (supra), the compensation payable to the Claimants is determined as follows:- i annual Income of the Deceased Rs. 83,652/- (6771 x 12) ii. addition of 15% towards future prospects Rs. 12548/- iii. Total Income Rs. 96,200/- iv. 1/3 deduction towards personal expenses Rs. 32,067/- v. Total income after deducting personal expenses Rs. 64,133/- vi. Loss of dependency on applying multiplier of 11 Rs. 7,05,463/- (Rs. 64, 133 x 11) vii. adding loss of spousal and parental consortium Rs. 1,60,000/- viii. Funeral expenses and loss of estate Rs. 30,000/- Total compensation payable is Rs. 8,95,463/- which is rounded up to Rs. 8,96,000/- 18] It is therefore, held that the Claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 8,96,000/- as against compensation of Rs. 4,88,660/- granted by the Tribunal. 19] Under these circumstances, the following order is passed:- (a) The appeal is allowed. (b) The Claimants are held to be entitled for compensation of Rs. 8,96,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till final realization. (c) The Respondent Nos. 8,96,000/- as against compensation of Rs. 4,88,660/- granted by the Tribunal. 19] Under these circumstances, the following order is passed:- (a) The appeal is allowed. (b) The Claimants are held to be entitled for compensation of Rs. 8,96,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till final realization. (c) The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall jointly and severally pay the balance compensation amount and deposit the same before this Court within a period of three months. (d) The Claimant No. 1 shall be entitled to withdraw 55% of the compensation whereas the Claimant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 will be entitled to withdraw 15% each, with proportionate interest accrued thereon. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.