JUDGMENT : Easwaran S., J. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company questioning the grant of compensation by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-III, Pathanamthitta in OP(MV) No. 233/2014. 2. The facts for disposal of the appeal is as follows:- One Sri. N.T. Koshykunju died in a motor accident which happened on 18.01.2014, while he was walking through the Kaippattoor-Pandalam public road and when he reached near the place Mampilalil, an autorickshaw bearing Registration No.KL 26 C 796 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner came and hit the deceased and due to the impact of the hit, the deceased sustained severe injuries and succumbed to it on 19.01.2024. The claim was lodged by the legal heirs of the deceased N.T.Koshykunju. The appellant entered appearance and contested the claim and even disputed the cause of the accident and also the vehicle which caused the same. Based on the pleadings on records, the Tribunal frames the following issues: 1 Whether deceased Koshykunju died in the motor accident caused by his own negligence or that of R1? 2 Whether petitioners are the dependents of deceased Koshykunju? 3 Whether petitioners are entitled to get compensation? If any, what is the quantum? 4 Reliefs and costs? On behalf of the claimants, Exts.A1 to A25 were marked. The 3rd claimant was examined as PW1. On behalf of the insurance company, the Investigating Officer who investigated the accident was examined as RW1 and the eye witness was examined as RW2. 3. Based on the evidence and materials on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim and awarded the compensation as follows:- “10. As per Ext.A9 salary certificate salary of December 2013 as Rs.33022/-. Overtime benefit during the year 2013 is Rs.1,15,230 as per Ext.A10. Average monthly overtime benefit can be taken as Rs.9602/-. So total benefit derived from the employer during the year 2013 is Rs. 33022x12=3,96,264/-. Overtime benefit is Rs.9602x12=1,15,230/-. Thus the total income of deceased is Rs.5,11,494/-. 15% increase of the salary as per Praney Sethi’s case comes to Rs.59430/- so the total benefits taken for calculation Rs.5,11,494 + 59,430 = 5,70,924/-. Less income Tax deduction as per Ext.A11= Rs.10,753/-(5,70,924-10753=5,60,171/-) Less provisional tax as per Ext.A15 Rs.833/- (5,60,171-833=5,59,338) Less 1/3rd deduction personal expenses = 1,86,446/-. Yearly benefits derived to the claimants Rs.372892/-x Multiplier 11= 41,01,812/- (3,72,892x11). 15% increase of the salary as per Praney Sethi’s case comes to Rs.59430/- so the total benefits taken for calculation Rs.5,11,494 + 59,430 = 5,70,924/-. Less income Tax deduction as per Ext.A11= Rs.10,753/-(5,70,924-10753=5,60,171/-) Less provisional tax as per Ext.A15 Rs.833/- (5,60,171-833=5,59,338) Less 1/3rd deduction personal expenses = 1,86,446/-. Yearly benefits derived to the claimants Rs.372892/-x Multiplier 11= 41,01,812/- (3,72,892x11). Rs.5000/- has been granted towards transport to the hospital and Rs.1000/- has been granted towards extra nourishment. Rs.200/- has been granted towards bystanders expenses. Rs.15000/- has been granted towards funeral expenses. Rs.2000/- has been granted towards damage to clothing and articles, Rs.16725/- (Ext.A7 series) has been granted towards medical expenses. Rs.5000/- has been granted towards transportation charges of dead body, Rs.5000/- has been granted towards pain and sufferings. Rs.40,000/- is granted to the 1st petitioner for consortium. Rs.50,000/- each (50000x3) = 150000/- is granted towards love and affection to the petitioners. Rs.15,000/- is granted towards loss of estate. Thus I hold that petitioners are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.43,56,737/- (Rupees Forty Three Lakhs Fifty Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Seven only) from the respondents with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition ie.18.03.2014 till realization with proportionate costs except for the amount awarded for future prospects of the deceased.” While awarding the aforesaid compensation, the Tribunal took the income of the deceased as Rs.33,022/- as per Exhibit A9 salary certificate and added the overtime benefit to a tune of Rs.1,15,230/- as per Exhibit A10 certificate and then calculated the average of the same as Rs.9,602/- and thus arrived at the income of the deceased and accordingly calculated the compensation to be awarded. Aggrieved by the calculation of the income and also with regard to the finding of the cause of the accident, the insurance company has come up in appeal. 4. I have heard Sri. John Joseph Vettikad, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.A.N. Santhosh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3/claimants. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant primarily contended that the claimants have not proved the cause of the accident . 4. I have heard Sri. John Joseph Vettikad, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.A.N. Santhosh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3/claimants. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant primarily contended that the claimants have not proved the cause of the accident . According to him, going by the evidence of RW2, the eye witness exact vehicle which caused the accident was not identified and therefore, the Tribunal erred egregiously in coming to the conclusion that the accident was caused by the vehicle bearing Registration No.KL 26 C 796. He further pointed out that the Tribunal could not have taken the overtime allowances granted to the deceased while calculating the salary of the deceased. Still further it is contended that since the deceased was a Government Employee, the Tribunal ought to have adopted split multiplier for the purpose of calculating the compensation payable by the insurance company. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants supported the findings of the Tribunal and contended that the overtime allowances paid to the deceased were consistent. He further pointed out that the overtime benefits were claimed because the deceased had worked continuously from December 2012 onwards and the benefits were paying on a regular basis. In support of his proposition, the learned counsel for the claimants relied on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Jyni V. and others v. Raphel P.T. and others, [ 2016 (2) KHC 870 ]. 7. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the bar. 8. To deal with the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no evidence to show that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing Registration No.KL 26 C 796, it must be noted that the only evidence the insurance company relied on is the evidence of RW2. No doubt RW2 had spoken about the accident. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, he being the sole eye witness could not identify the vehicle in question and therefore the claim put forward by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 could not have been allowed by the Tribunal. It must be noticed that evidence of RW2 is lacking clarity. No doubt RW2 had spoken about the accident. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, he being the sole eye witness could not identify the vehicle in question and therefore the claim put forward by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 could not have been allowed by the Tribunal. It must be noticed that evidence of RW2 is lacking clarity. A reading of the entire evidence of RW2, leave no room for doubt that the accident was caused by an autorickshaw. Perhaps, the eye witness could not have recollected the number of the vehicle which caused the accident. As against the evidence of RW2, the claimants were successful in adducing the evidence through the production of documents such as copy of the F.I.R in Crime No.102/2014 of Pandalam Police Station dated 19.01.2014, Ext.A2 the copy of scene mahazar in Crime No.102/2014, Ext.A4 copy of MVI report in Crime No.102/2014 of Pandalam Police Station dated 04.02.2014. Ext.A6 is the copy of the charge sheet in the aforesaid crime. 9. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal and Others [ 2011 (3) KHC 595 ], a Division Bench considered the acceptability of a charge sheet to prove negligence. Para 7 of the Judgment reads as under: “In this context we feel it appropriate to refer to the practice adopted by many Tribunals in the State. Wherever a crime has been registered in respect of the accident and the investigation has culminated in the filing of a charge -sheet by the police, such charge - sheet is filed and the same is reckoned as sufficient to establish negligence on the part of the indictee. The practice has not received formal judicial approval and hence some Tribunals insist on oral evidence in support of negligence invariably. This consumes a lot of judicial time and the heavily over worked Tribunal spends its time on unnecessary oral evidence of negligence. We would certainly not want the Tribunals to be prisoners of the conclusions of police officers. If the Tribunal finds it suspicious, it can insist for better evidence. But as a general rule it can safely be accepted that production of the police charge - sheet is prima facie sufficient evidence of negligence for the purpose of a claim under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. A system cannot feed itself on a regular diet of distrust of the police. But as a general rule it can safely be accepted that production of the police charge - sheet is prima facie sufficient evidence of negligence for the purpose of a claim under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. A system cannot feed itself on a regular diet of distrust of the police. Prima facie, charge - sheet filed by a police officer after due Investigation can be accepted as evidence of negligence against the indictee If any one of the parties do not accept such charge - sheet, the burden must be on such party to adduce oral evidence. If oral evidence is adduced by any party, in a case where charge - sheet is filed, the Tribunals should give further opportunity to others also to adduce oral evidence and in such a case the charge - sheet will pale into insignificance and the dispute will have to be decided on the basis of the evidence. In all other cases such charge - sheet an be reckoned as sufficient evidence of negligence in a claim under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. We mean to say that on production of such charge sheet the shifting of burden must take place. It is not as though we are not conscious of the dangers and pit falls involved in such an approach. But we feel that adoption and recognition of such practice would help to reduce the length of the long queue for justice before the Tribunals. The judicial recognition of the practice will help the Tribunals to ensure the optimum use of judicial time at their disposal for productive ventures.” Pertinently, when the appellant company had disputed the findings in the charge sheet, the burden was definitely on the appellant to disprove the contents of the charge sheet. Based on the findings rendered by the Division bench in Pazhaniammal(Supra) this court has to see whether the appellant had satisfactorily discharged the burden. RW2 the so-called eyewitness alone was examined on the side of the Insurance Company. As against the evidence of RW2, evidence was on record in the form of F.I.R, charge sheet, scene mahazar etc. to prove the negligence of the offending vehicle. The said documents were proved by examination of RW1. The principles laid down in Pazhaniammal(supra) would apply only if there is inconsistency between the documents and the evidence on record. As against the evidence of RW2, evidence was on record in the form of F.I.R, charge sheet, scene mahazar etc. to prove the negligence of the offending vehicle. The said documents were proved by examination of RW1. The principles laid down in Pazhaniammal(supra) would apply only if there is inconsistency between the documents and the evidence on record. In the facts of the present case, the evidence of RW2 also establishes that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of an autorickshaw. It is pertinent to note that apparently there is no inconsistency between the evidence of the RW2 the eye witness, and the final report in Crime No.102/2014. RW1 and RW2 were unison in their version that the accident was caused by an autorickshaw. Merely because the eyewitness could not recollect the registration number of the offending vehicle will not render the evidence of RW1 worthless. Apart from RW2, the appellant did not examine any other witness to prove their case. Therefore it is clear that the appellant was not able to successfully discharge its burden. Hence, this Court has no hesitation to reject the contention of the appellant that the claimants were not successful in proving the accident was caused by the negligence of the offending vehicle. 10. Now coming to the second question raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court has to find out whether the Tribunal was justified in calculating the income of the deceased based on the overtime allowances drawn by him. The certificate, Ext.A10, no doubt shows that the deceased had drawn the overtime allowances over a period of one year from December 2012 to December 2013. However, the pointed question is whether the same could be tagged to the salary drawn by the deceased. Ext.A9-salary certificate shows that the total salary payable to the deceased employee was Rs.33,022/-. The ‘overtime allowance’ in the common parlance would necessarily mean the allowance which an employee is entitled to whenever he does the work on an overtime basis. It is an incentive paid to the employee for working beyond regular hours. 11. Ext.A9-salary certificate shows that the total salary payable to the deceased employee was Rs.33,022/-. The ‘overtime allowance’ in the common parlance would necessarily mean the allowance which an employee is entitled to whenever he does the work on an overtime basis. It is an incentive paid to the employee for working beyond regular hours. 11. In National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Indira Srivastava and others [ (2008) 2 SCC 763 ], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, whatever amounts that are required to be paid to the employee by the employer should be included in the compensation, since the same is used as contribution towards the purpose of his family. The above principle was later reiterated by the Supreme Court in Sunil Sharma and others Vs Bachitar Singh and others [ (2011) 11 SCC 425 ]. 12. The issue regarding adding of overtime allowance to the salary while computing compensation came up for consideration before the High Court of Delhi in, Usha & ors V. Akbar & ors (United India Insurance Co. Ltd, [MAC.App. 83 of 2017 dated 1-9-2023]. The learned Single Bench of the Delhi High Court after considering the principles laid down in Indira Srivastava(supra) held that allowances that were personal to the deceased and would not survive his death and were dependent on factors other than his salary, meaning thereby, were not constant, that is LTA, Other Allowances, Title Allowance, Special Allowances, Site Allowance, Overtime, and Leave Encashment, are not to be considered as part of the income of the deceased. 13. The question as to whether such overtime allowances could form the basis of calculation of the salary in a motor accidents claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in Jyni V. and others (supra). It was held by the Division Bench that the overtime allowances drawn by an employee could be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculating salary, only if such employee has drawn in such benefits on a regular basis. Applying these principles to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the evidence on record shows that over a period of one year alone, the deceased had drawn the overtime allowances. Applying these principles to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the evidence on record shows that over a period of one year alone, the deceased had drawn the overtime allowances. While calculating the disability compensation and also the future prospects, the Tribunal could not have taken the overtime allowances because it was not clear as to whether the deceased employee would have drawn the overtime allowances had he been alive or had he continued to work till the age of retirement. In this context, this Court finds force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant based on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Jasbhai Bhailalbhai Patel and Others v. Balmurbha K. Munipate Devre and Others [2016 KHC 7565]. 14. In Jasbhai Bhailalbhai Patel (supra), the question that came up for consideration before the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court was as to whether the overtime allowances would be tagged into the salary of the claimant and it was held by the Division Bench as follows: “Overtime allowance is never steady and/or never claimed as a matter of right. On the death of the employee naturally there will not be any overtime work and, therefore, the same was not required to be paid and, therefore, the overtime allowance is also not required to be included in the income of the victim for the purpose of awarding future economic loss.” Having said so, this Court will have to necessarily see as to whether applying the principles laid down by the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court, the same would stand in conflict with the principles laid down by this Court in Jyni V. (supra). 15. A reading of both these decisions shows that the two judgments do not stand in conflict with each other. The principles laid down in Jyni V. and others (Supra) by this Court as well as in Jasbhai Bhailalbhai Patel (Supra) by the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court expound the same proposition as regards the calculation of overtime allowances to the salary of the victim in a motor accident claim. Therefore, on a comparative analysis of these two judgments, this Court is of the considered view that the overtime allowances cannot be counted for the purpose of calculating the compensation and hence requires to be interfered. 16. Therefore, on a comparative analysis of these two judgments, this Court is of the considered view that the overtime allowances cannot be counted for the purpose of calculating the compensation and hence requires to be interfered. 16. Coming to the last question as to whether the Tribunal should have adopted the split multiplier by calculating compensation liable to be paid by the appellant, this Court finds that the question as to whether the split multiplier should be adopted is no longer res integra. 17. In R. Valli and others v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited [ (2022) 5 SCC 107 ], the Supreme Court held that, after the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ] and Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Another [ (2013) 9 SCC 65 ] the Tribunal has to apply a uniform rate of multiplier while calculating compensation. The said decision was applied by this Court in Kamala Vs Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co Ltd [2024 KHC Online 791] and thus this Court has no other alternative but to reject the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal ought to have adopted split multiplier. 18. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation to be paid to the claimants, this Court finds that in the light of the above findings, the award impugned in this appeal requires modification. It is to be noted that, while calculating the compensation the tribunal had granted a total amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards the love and affection to the petitioners/claimants. Going by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Limited v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Others [ (2021) 11 SCC 780 ], the compensation towards loss of consortium alone can be granted. Since the claimants are three in number, the Tribunal ought to have allowed the compensation under the head loss of consortium at Rs.1,20,000/- (40,000x3), instead of Rs.1,50,000/- awarded under the head love and affection. Hence, the compensation awarded towards the head love and affection is liable to be set aside. Since an amount of Rs.40,000/- has already been awarded to the 1st claimant under the head loss of consortium, an additional of Rs.80,000/- has to be granted towards loss of consortium. 19. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Hence, the compensation awarded towards the head love and affection is liable to be set aside. Since an amount of Rs.40,000/- has already been awarded to the 1st claimant under the head loss of consortium, an additional of Rs.80,000/- has to be granted towards loss of consortium. 19. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. It is declared that overtime allowance cannot form part of the income. The order of the Tribunal calculating the income of the deceased by taking into consideration the overtime allowance is set aside. The income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.29,099/-. Based on the aforesaid income, the compensation to which the claimants are entitled to are reworked as follows: The Income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.29,099/- (33,022- 3090+833). 15% of future prospects have to be added to the income now fixed by this Court, this would come to Rs.33,464/-. (29099 + 4364.85 (rounded to 4365).Therefore under the head loss of dependency, the claimants are entitled for Rs.29,44,832/- (33,464x12x11x2/3) only. Thus, the compensation granted by this Tribunal is modified as follows: Sl No. Headings Amount awarded by the Tribunal Compensation modified by this Court. (in Rupees) 1. Loss of dependency 41,01,812/- 29,44,832/- 2 Transport to hospital 5,000/- 5,000/- 3 Extra nourishment 1,000/- 1,000/- 4 Bystander expenses 200/- 200/- 5 Funeral expenses 15,000/- 15,000/- 6 Damage to clothing 2,000/- 2,000/- 7 Medical expenses 16,725/- 16,725/- 8 Transportation charge of dead body 5,000/- 5,000/- 9 Pain & suffering 5,000/- 5,000/- 10 Loss of consortium 40,000/- 1,20,000/- 11 Loss of love and affection 1,50,000/- -- 12 Loss of estate 15,000/- 15,000/- Total 43,56,737/- 31,29,757/- Total compensation as modified by this Court 31,29,757/- Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal in O.P.(MV) No.233/2014 dated 25.04.2019 is modified and it is directed that the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.31,29,757/- (Rupees Thirty One lakhs twenty nine thousand seven hundred fifty seven only). In all other aspects the award of the Tribunal will stand as such. The aforesaid amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application with costs before the Tribunal. The Insurance Company shall deposit the amount with costs within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The aforesaid amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application with costs before the Tribunal. The Insurance Company shall deposit the amount with costs within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Since this Court had directed the insurance company to deposit Rs.30 lakhs at the time of admission of the appeal, the appellant need to deposit only the balance amount with interest and cost before the tribunal within the aforesaid period. The Appeal is ordered accordingly. Costs in the appeal made easy.