JUDGMENT : (Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.) Heard Ms. A. Jayanthi, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. O. Varalakshmi, learned counsel, representing Sri S. N. K. Mahanthi, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3/claimants and Sri Sai Sanjay Suraneni, learned counsel for the 4th respondent. 2. This appeal is by the Oriental Insurance Company filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short ‘M.V.Act’) challenging the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam (in short ‘the Tribunal’), dated 14.06.2017 passed in M.O.P.No.1809 of 2012. The Tribunal allowed in part the claim petition filed by the claimants/respondents 1 to 3 under Section 166 of M.V.Act by awarding compensation of Rs.95,79,211/- with proportionate costs and interest payable @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till deposit of the amount. 3. The respondents/claimants filed M.O.P.No.1809 of 2012 on the pleadings inter alia that the deceased Siva Kumar was an Assistant General Manager, working in Chettinadu Port Services Private Limited. He was getting salary of Rs.61,527/- per month at the time of accident. He was aged about 41 years. On 09.08.2011 the deceased was proceeding from Visakhapatnam to Bhogapuram by Tata Sumo bearing No.TN-01-V6863 belonging to the company and the 5th respondent herein was the driver. The vehicle met with an accident, in which, the deceased sustained spinal cord injury and was shifted to New Care Hospital for treatment. During the treatment, he died on 15.08.2011 at 01.25 p.m. The accident was registered as Crime No.298 of 2011 under Section 304-A IPC. The deceased was the sole breadwinner of the family, consisting of wife and two children. 4. The claimant/1st respondent is the widow and the claimants/respondents 2 & 3 are the son and daughter respectively of the deceased. 5. The 4th respondent herein is the owner of the offending vehicle. He remained ex parte. 6. The claimants/respondents filed Application No.609 of 2015 to implead the driver of the offending vehicle as Respondent No.3 in the MOP, which was allowed 02.09.2015, but the driver remained ex parte. 7. The appellant/insurance company, 2nd respondent in MOP, filed written statement, denying all the material averments of MOP, and submitting that the claimants be put to strict proof inter alia that the driver was holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. The claim amount was said to be highly excessive. 8. 7. The appellant/insurance company, 2nd respondent in MOP, filed written statement, denying all the material averments of MOP, and submitting that the claimants be put to strict proof inter alia that the driver was holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. The claim amount was said to be highly excessive. 8. The Tribunal framed the following issues: 1) Whether the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.TN-01-V6863 (Tata Sumo) by its driver? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3) To what relief? 9. The claimants examined PWs 1 to 6 and marked Exs.A1 to A10, and also Exs.X1 to X5, viz., Ex.A1-copy of FIR in Cr.No.289/2011 of P.M.Palem P.S, Ex.A2-copy of post mortem report, Ex.A3-copy of M.V.Inspector’s report, Ex.A4- copy of inquest report, Ex.A5-copy of charge sheet, Ex.A6-copy of Insurance policy, Ex.A7-Identy card issued by International Tech Park, Ex.A8-Identity card issued by Chettinad Port Services Private Limited, Ex.A9-Identity card issued by J.M.C.Projects Limited and Ex.A10-appointment letter issued by Chettinad Port Service Private Limited; Ex.X1-Salary particulars of C. S. Siva Kumar, Ex.X2- Pay slip of C.S.Siva Kumar, Ex.X3-the case sheet, Ex.X4-the inpatient final bill summary and Ex.X5-copy of letter addressed to S.I.of Police, P.M.Palem P.S. 10. On behalf of the Insurance Company, Ex.B1-copy of insurance policy was marked. No other evidence was led by the Insurance Company. 11. On Issue No.1, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.TN-01-V6863 (Tata Sumo) by its driver. On Issue No.2, the Tribunal held that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding driving license which was valid up to 01.02.2012. The plea of the Insurance Company that the driver was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident, was negatived. 12. On the point of compensation, the Tribunal determined the age of the deceased as 41 years and his monthly gross salary after deducting professional tax as Rs.61,327/- based on the salary certificate Ex.X1 and Ex.X2- pay slip. Towards future prospects, 30% salary was added. After deducting 1/3rd towards living expenses, 2/3rd of salary came to Rs.53,150-06 ps per month and Rs.6,37,800-80 ps per annum. Applying multiplier of ‘14’ to the age group of 41-45 years, an amount of Rs.89,29,211-20 ps was awarded. Towards future prospects, 30% salary was added. After deducting 1/3rd towards living expenses, 2/3rd of salary came to Rs.53,150-06 ps per month and Rs.6,37,800-80 ps per annum. Applying multiplier of ‘14’ to the age group of 41-45 years, an amount of Rs.89,29,211-20 ps was awarded. Rs.10,000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges and an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded as loss of consortium to the wife. In total, the claimants were held entitled to compensation of Rs.95,79,211/-. The owner of the offending vehicle and the insurance company were held liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal awarded the interest @7.5% per annum as well, as also the costs. It also made the apportionment of compensation amongst the claimants/respondents. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised the only submission that the Tribunal has not deducted the income tax from the income as determined by it. She submitted that the deduction towards income tax/surcharge should be considered to arrive at the net income of the deceased. She placed reliance in the cases of Shyamwati Sharma v. Karam Singh, (2010) 12 SCC 378 and Manasvi Jain v. DTC Ltd., (2014) 13 SCC 22 . 14. No other point was pressed. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the income of the deceased was determined on the salary certificate and pay slip, Exs.X1 & Ex.X2 and there is no illegality committed by the Tribunal in not deducting the income tax. He further submitted that the amount under medical expenses was proved as Rs.1,80,279/-, but the Tribunal erred in limiting the same to Rs.40,000/- which was claimed in the claim petition. He submitted that the claimants are entitled for just compensation including the medical expenses which could not be confined to the amount claimed. 16. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record. 17. The points that arise for consideration are as under: A. Whether the Tribunal has not deducted the income tax while determining the income of the deceased? B. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and fair? Point-A: 18. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal did not deduct the income tax is correct. The points that arise for consideration are as under: A. Whether the Tribunal has not deducted the income tax while determining the income of the deceased? B. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and fair? Point-A: 18. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal did not deduct the income tax is correct. The further submission is that the income tax deserve to be deducted at the rate as per the slab applicable at that time on different rates for different stages is not acceptable to us. That tax which has been deducted in the pay slip Ex.X2 only deserves to be seen. There was no evidence that the tax deducted was not as per the then applicable rules, considering the income tax slab. In the absence of any such evidence, it shall be presumed that whatever income tax was deducted was deducted as per the applicable rules. In Vimal Kanwar v. Kishore Dan, (2013) 7 SCC 476 upon which the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants placed reliance, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that in case the income of the victim was only from ‘salary’ the presumption would be that the employer under Section 192 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 had 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 to suggest that the employer failed to deduct the TDS from the salary of the employee. In the said case, it was held that the High Court was wrong in deducting 20% from the salary of the deceased towards income tax for calculating the compensation. As per law, the presumption will be that the employer State Government at the time of payment of salary deducted income tax on the estimated income of the deceased employee from the salary. In the absence of any evidence, it was held that the salary as shown in the Last Pay Certificate should be accepted for calculating the compensation payable to the dependents. 19. It is apt to refer paragraphs 22 to 25 of Vimal Kanwar (supra) as under: “22. The third issue is “whether the income tax is liable to be deducted for determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act”. 23. 19. It is apt to refer paragraphs 22 to 25 of Vimal Kanwar (supra) as under: “22. The third issue is “whether the income tax is liable to be deducted for determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act”. 23. In Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] this Court held: (SCC p. 133, para 20) “20. Generally the actual income of the deceased less income tax should be the starting point for calculating the compensation.” This Court further observed that: (SCC p. 134, para 24) “24. … Where the annual income is in taxable range, the words ‘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 the 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 the employee's salary, as it is his duty to deduct the TDS, then the penalty for non-deduction of TDS is prescribed under Section 201(1-A) 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. 24. In the present case, none of the respondents brought to the notice of the Court that the income tax payable by the deceased Sajjan Singh was not deducted at source by the employer State Government. No such statement was made by Ram Avtar Parikh, PW 2, an employee of the Public Works Department of the State Government who placed on record the last pay certificate and the service book of the deceased. The Tribunal or the High Court on perusal of the last pay certificate, have not noticed that the income tax on the estimated income of the employee was not deducted from the salary of the employee during the said month or financial year. In absence of such evidence, it is presumed that the salary paid to the deceased Sajjan Singh as per last pay certificate was paid in accordance with law i.e. by deducting the income tax on the estimated income of the deceased Sajjan Singh for that month or the financial year. The appellants have specifically stated that the assessment year applicable in the instant case is 1997-1998 and not 1996-1997 as held by the High Court. They have also taken specific plea that for Assessment Year 1997-1998 the rate of tax on income more than Rs 40,000 and up to Rs 60,000 was 15% and not 20% as held by the High Court. The aforesaid fact has not been disputed by the respondents. 25. In view of the finding as recorded above and the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as discussed, we hold that the High Court was wrong in deducting 20% from the salary of the deceased towards income tax, for calculating the compensation. The aforesaid fact has not been disputed by the respondents. 25. In view of the finding as recorded above and the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as discussed, we hold that the High Court was wrong in deducting 20% from the salary of the deceased towards income tax, for calculating the compensation. As per law, the presumption will be that employer State Government at the time of payment of salary deducted income tax on the estimated income of the deceased employee from the salary and in absence of any evidence, we hold that the salary as shown in the last pay certificate as Rs 8920 should be accepted which if rounded off comes to Rs 9000 for calculating the compensation payable to the dependant(s).” 20. In Shyamwati Sharma (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that in determination of the annual income, appropriate deduction has to be made towards income tax. However, while ascertaining the income of the deceased, any deductions shown in the salary certificate as deductions towards GPF, life insurance premium, repayment of loan, etc., should not be excluded from the income. 21. In Manasvi Jain (supra) also, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that except contribution towards income tax, the other voluntary contributions made by the deceased, which are in the nature of savings, cannot be deducted from the monthly salary of the deceased to decide his net salary or take home salary. 22. In M/s.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Dasari Nagalakshmi, MACMA.36 of 2024, APHC, a coordinate Bench of this Court observed on the point of deduction of income tax as per the slab applicable from time to time in different financial years that certain exemptions like HRA, Transport allowance, medical reimbursements, Home loans/study loans etc., are provided under the Income Tax Act. In that scenario, it would be difficult to visualize the amount of tax payable by the deceased as a lot of it would depend on the tax planning and exemptions claimed by the individual. 23. For the reasons recorded above, we are of the considered view that since the income tax was deducted, which is evident from Exs.X1 & X2, the same amount deserved to be adjusted and not with any particular rate with respect to different financial years, as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant. 24. 23. For the reasons recorded above, we are of the considered view that since the income tax was deducted, which is evident from Exs.X1 & X2, the same amount deserved to be adjusted and not with any particular rate with respect to different financial years, as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant. 24. The Tribunal held that Exs.X1 and X2 clinchingly proved the last month salary of the deceased. The gross salary of the deceased was Rs.61,327/- after deducting the professional tax of Rs.200/- from the gross salary of Rs.61,527/-. 25. We have perused the Exs.X1 and X2. As per the pay slip Ex.X2, the total earnings of the deceased was Rs.61,527/-. The deductions were of Rs.4,061/- as EPF; Rs.200/- as professional tax and Rs.4,000/- towards income tax. The net amount came to Rs.53,266-00. So, Ex.X2 shows the deduction of professional tax of Rs.200/- and the income tax as Rs.4,000/-. These two deductions ought to be deducted from the total earnings. However, the amount of Rs.4,061/- towards EPF deduction is not to be deducted. The net amount therefore comes to Rs.53,266/- + Rs.4,061/- = Rs.57,327/-. The net income per annum come to Rs.57,327/- x 12 = Rs.6,87,924/-. On the said amount, the claimants were entitled to 30% of salary towards future prospects, which comes to Rs.6,87,924/- x 30/100 = Rs.2,06,377-20 ps., thus total come to Rs.8,94,301-20 ps. After 1/3rd deduction towards living expenses of the deceased, 2/3rd salary would come to Rs.8,94,301-20 – Rs.2,98,100-40 ps = Rs.5,96,200-80. Applying the multiplier ‘14’, the total amount would come to Rs.5,96,200-80 x 14 = Rs.83,46,811-20 ps. Point-B: 26. The Tribunal awarded only Rs.40,000/- towards medical expenses, as the same amount was claimed in the claim petition. 27. Ex.X4 the medical bills summary/statement, the same has not been doubted by the Tribunal, but it confined the medical expenses to the claim amount. Under this head, as per Ex.X4, the total net bill amount comes to Rs.1,80,279/-. We allow the amount of Rs.1,80,000/- (on round it of the amount of Rs.1,80,279/-) under the head of Medical Expenses, based on Ex.X4. It is settled that the claimants are entitled for just compensation, if they are entitled for higher amount than the amount claimed. The awarded amount cannot be restricted to the claim amount. 28. We allow the amount of Rs.1,80,000/- (on round it of the amount of Rs.1,80,279/-) under the head of Medical Expenses, based on Ex.X4. It is settled that the claimants are entitled for just compensation, if they are entitled for higher amount than the amount claimed. The awarded amount cannot be restricted to the claim amount. 28. Additionally, the respondents/claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.48,000/- to each of the claimants being Rs.1,44,000/- for loss of consortium, towards funeral expenses Rs.18,000/- and towards loss of estate Rs.18,000/-, in view of a three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Ors., (2021) 11 SCC 780 after considering National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 (supra), observed that the aforesaid conventional heads are to be revised every three years @ 10%. Accordingly, the three conventional heads have increased by 20%. 29. The Tribunal granted interest @ 7.5% per annum in Kumari Kiran v. Sajjan Singh and others, (2015) 1 SCC 539 , the Hon’ble Apex Court seet aside the judgment of the Tribunal therein awarding interesti @ 6% as also the judgment of the High Court awarding interest @ 7.5% and awarded interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the claim petition. In Rahul Sharma & another v. National Insurance Company Limited and others, (2021) 6 SCC 188 , the Hon’ble Apex Court awarded @ 9% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition. Also, in Kirthi and another v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2021) 2 SCC 166 , the Apex Court allowed interest @ 9% p.a. 30. Thus, the claimants are entitled for just and fair compensation in total as under: 1. Net income, per annum comes to Rs.57,327/- x 12 = Rs.6,87,924/- Rs. 6,87,924-00 2. Future prospects @ 30% thereon Rs.6,87,924/- x 30/100 = Rs. 2,06,377-20 Total: Rs. 8,94,301-20 3. Deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses Rs.8,94,301-20 – 2,98,100-40ps (1/3rd)= Rs. 5,96,200-80 4. Applying multiplier ‘14’ (Rs.5,96,200.80 x 14) Rs.83,46,811-20 5. Medical expenses Rs. 1,80,000-00 6. Transportation charges Rs. 5,000-00 7. Conventional Head: Non-pecuniary i) Consortium Rs.48,000/- x 3 =1,44,000/- ii) Loss of Estate = Rs.18,000/- iii) Funeral expenses = Rs.18,000/- with an enhancement @ 20% Total: Rounded to (Rupees eighty seven lakh eleven thousand eight hundred and eleven only) Rs. 87,11,811.20 ps Rs.87,11,811-00 31. Medical expenses Rs. 1,80,000-00 6. Transportation charges Rs. 5,000-00 7. Conventional Head: Non-pecuniary i) Consortium Rs.48,000/- x 3 =1,44,000/- ii) Loss of Estate = Rs.18,000/- iii) Funeral expenses = Rs.18,000/- with an enhancement @ 20% Total: Rounded to (Rupees eighty seven lakh eleven thousand eight hundred and eleven only) Rs. 87,11,811.20 ps Rs.87,11,811-00 31. Result: (i) The appeal is dismissed with costs throughout to the claimants. (ii) The claimants/respondents are entitled for the amount as per this judgment and we grant the same with interest therein @ 9% per annum to the claimants; (iii) The appellant to deposit the amount as aforesaid, adjusting the amount already deposited/paid, if any, before the Tribunal, failing which, the amount shall be recovered, as per law; (iv) On such deposit being made, the claimants/respondents shall be entitled to withdraw the same, as per the award of the Tribunal; Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.