JUDGMENT: (Per Dr.Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa) The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988[for short ‘M.V.Act’] has been filed by the Appellant/Oriental Insurance Company Limited, impugning the Order dated 22.03.2013 passed in M.V.O.P.No.193 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge at Rajahmundry[For short ‘the Tribunal’]. 2. Heard Mrs.S.A.V.Ratnam, learned counsel for the Appellant and Sri Hari, learned counsel representing Sri T.D.Pani Kumar, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3/Claimants. 3. Learned counsel for the Appellant would submit that the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants is high and the concept of just compensation has been lost sight of. Learned counsel would further submit that the deceased was left only four years one month service, as such, the actual loss of salary has to be taken upto the superannuation period and notional income after the superannuation. Learned counsel would further submit that the deceased is an income tax assessee and 30% of his gross salary has to be deducted towards the income tax. Learned counsel would further submit that the family pension has not been taken into consideration. 4. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3/Claimants would submit that the Tribunal failed to award just compensation and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not adequate. Learned counsel would further submit that the Tribunal has not awarded future prospects which is to be granted @ 15% as the deceased was aged about 53 years at the time of the accident. Learned counsel would further submit that the amount awarded under conventional heads is not in accordance with law. 5. A perusal of the impugned award would show that, on the application filed by the Claimants, who are the dependants of the deceased Chintaluri Murali Krishnababu, who was working as a Teacher in Bala Vignana Mandir, Rajahmundry, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.33,62,328/- towards compensation with proportionate costs and subsequent interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against Respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally, who are the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle respectively. Aggrieved thereby, the Insurer preferred the present appeal. 6. There is no dispute with regard to the age, avocation, income of the deceased and the relationship of the claimants with the deceased. Aggrieved thereby, the Insurer preferred the present appeal. 6. There is no dispute with regard to the age, avocation, income of the deceased and the relationship of the claimants with the deceased. The main contention of the Appellant is that, though the deceased is an income tax assessee, only professional tax of Rs.200/- has been deducted from his salary instead of 30% of the gross salary. In the case of Vimal Kanwar and Ors. Vs Kishore Dan and Ors., (2013) 7 SCC 476 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that in the absence of any evidence that the income tax on the estimated income of the employee was not deducted from salary of the employee during the particular month or the financial year, it is presumed that the salary paid to the deceased as per the last pay certificate was paid in accordance with law i.e., by deducting the income tax on the estimated income of the deceased by that month or the financial year. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Vimal Kanwar (supra) held as under in paras 22 to 25 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 (Supra), this Court held “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 “24…..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). 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. 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 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 Assessment Year applicable in the instant case is 1997-1998 and not 1996-1997 as held by the High Court. The appellants have specifically stated that 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 the Assessment Year 1997-1998 the rate of tax on income more than 40,000/-and upto 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. 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 at Rs. 8,920/- should be accepted which if rounded off comes to Rs. 9,000/- for calculating the compensation payable to the dependent(s).” 7. In ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Dasari Nagalakshmi, MACMA (SR)No.15314 of 2015, APHC, decided on 18.12.2023, 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. 8. In the case on hand, as per the salary certificate of the deceased, his gross salary was Rs.38,181/- and after deducting the professional tax of Rs.200/-, his monthly salary was taken as Rs.37,981/-. No amount was shown towards income tax in the deductions of the salary certificate of the deceased. In view of the judgments referred to supra, this Court is of the view that, in the absence of any evidence, the learned Tribunal has rightly taken the salary as shown in the Last Pay Certificate at Rs.37,981/- for calculating the compensation payable to the dependents. 9. In view of the judgments referred to supra, this Court is of the view that, in the absence of any evidence, the learned Tribunal has rightly taken the salary as shown in the Last Pay Certificate at Rs.37,981/- for calculating the compensation payable to the dependents. 9. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3/Claimants that the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the head ‘future prospects’ is concerned, it apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , held as follows: “59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.” 10. In the instant case, admittedly, the deceased was working as a Teacher in Bala Vignana Mandir, Rajahmundry and the age of the deceased was 53 years at the time of the accident. Therefore, in view of the judgment in Pranay Sethis’s case (supra), the Claimants are entitled to future prospects @ 15% on the monthly income of the deceased, in addition and the same is awarded. 11. The other contention of the learned counsel for the Claimants is that compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional heads namely loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is not in accordance with law. 11. The other contention of the learned counsel for the Claimants is that compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional heads namely loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is not in accordance with law. Since the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their family members, in cases of genuine claims, in view of Pranay Sethis’s case (supra), Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, 2018 ACJ 2782 (SC) and United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Others, (2021) 11 SCC 780 , under the head of loss of consortium, the Claimants are entitled to Rs.48,400/-each, Rs.18,100 towards funeral expenses and Rs.18,100/- towards loss of estate with enhancement @ 10% on every three years. 12. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the Appellant is that the learned Tribunal erred in not taking the family pension into consideration while granting the compensation. With regard to the said aspect, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Lal Dei and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport, (2007) 8 SCC 319 at Para No.4 held as follows: “4.….. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal as well as the High Court could not have deducted the amount of family pension given to the family while calculating the dependency of the claimants. In Helen C. Rebello Vs. Maharashtra SRTC this Court has specifically dealt with this question and said that the family pension is earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in the service in terms of the service conditions receivable by the heirs after his death. The heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental death. There is no co-relation between the two and therefore, the family pension amount paid to the family cannot be deducted while calculating the compensation awarded to the claimants…….” 13. By applying the same analogy and the principles laid down in the judgment referred to above, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Meesala Nageswaramma and three others Vs. By applying the same analogy and the principles laid down in the judgment referred to above, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Meesala Nageswaramma and three others Vs. Siva Cheederla and another, (2015) 2 ALT 702 at Para No.18 held as follows: “18.…….receipt of family pension by the first petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased, cannot be termed as pecuniary advantage warranting while determining the compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act…….” 14. In view of the principles laid down in the decisions cited supra, family pension, which cannot be termed as ‘pecuniary advantage’, will not come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act. The family pension is earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in the form of his contribution, for the services rendered by him, in terms of the service conditions, receivable by the heirs after his death. The family pension amount, paid to the 1st claimant- wife cannot be deducted while calculating the compensation awarded to the claimants. As such, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal has committed no error while awarding the compensation, without taking the family pension, received by the wife of the deceased, into consideration. 15. In Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), the Hon’ble Apex Court, while elaborating the concept of ‘just compensation’ observed as under: “Just compensation is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit.” 16. In view of the judgments referred to supra, in our view, the Respondents 1 to 3/claimants, are entitled to the following amount being just and fair compensation. S.No. Head Amount of compensation awarded 1. Net Annual Income (Rs.38,181 – Rs.200) Rs.37,981 x 12 = Rs.4,55,772/- 2. Future Prospects Rs.68,366/- (i.e., 15% of the income) + Rs.4,55,772/- = Rs.5,24,138/- Deduction towards personal expenditure (i.e., 1/3rd) Loss of Income by applying multiplier ‘11’ for the age of 53 years Rs.3,49,425 /- (Rs.5,24,138 - Rs.1,74,713) Rs.3,49,425 x 11 = Rs.38,43,675/- Conventional Heads 2 Loss of Consortium To Claimants 1 to 3 @ Rs.48,400 x 3 Rs. Future Prospects Rs.68,366/- (i.e., 15% of the income) + Rs.4,55,772/- = Rs.5,24,138/- Deduction towards personal expenditure (i.e., 1/3rd) Loss of Income by applying multiplier ‘11’ for the age of 53 years Rs.3,49,425 /- (Rs.5,24,138 - Rs.1,74,713) Rs.3,49,425 x 11 = Rs.38,43,675/- Conventional Heads 2 Loss of Consortium To Claimants 1 to 3 @ Rs.48,400 x 3 Rs. 1,45,200.00 3 Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,100.00 4 Loss of Estate Rs. 18,100.00 Total Rs. 40,25,075.00 17. In the present case, though the claimants did not file any cross-objections, it is well-settled that Order XLI Rule 33 CPC empowers the Appellate Court to grant relief to a person, who is neither appealed nor filed any cross-objections. The object of this provision is to do complete justice between the parties. In National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Komal and others, 2012 SCC Online Del 2442 = 2014 ACJ 1540 it is crystal clear that under Order XLI Rule 33 CPC, the Appellate Court has the power to enhance the compensation even in the absence of any appeal/Cross Objections. Para No.12 of the decision reads as follows: “12. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 empowers the Court to award such compensation as appears to be just which has been interpreted to mean just in accordance with law and it can be more than the amount claimed by the claimants. The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are clearly a beneficial legislation and hence should be interpreted in a way to enable the Court to assess just compensation. The scope of Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the power of the High Court to enhance the award amount in accident cases in the absence of cross- objections has been discussed by the Supreme Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, AIR 2003 SC 674 where the Apex Court has held that the Court is required to determine just compensation and there is no other limitation or restriction for awarding such compensation and in appropriate cases wherefrom the evidence brought on record if the Tribunal/Court considers that the claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award and would empower the Court to enhance the compensation at the appellate stage even without the injured filing an appeal or cross-objections.” 18. Under the above provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is no restriction that the compensation could be awarded only upto the amount claimed by the claimants. In an appropriate case, where from the evidence brought on record, if the Tribunal/Court considers, the claimant is entitled to get more compensation than the claimed, the same can be awarded to the Claimants. Following the guidelines in the decisions supra, this Court is of the view that the claimants are entitled to enhance the compensation at the appellate stage even without the filing an appeal or cross-objections. 19. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants interference to enhance the compensation from Rs.33,62,328/- to Rs. 40,25,075/-. 20. The learned Tribunal has granted interest @ 7.5% per annum on the awarded compensation. In view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rahul Sharma @ another Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others, (2021) 6 SCC 188 and Krithi and another vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited,. (2021) 2 SCC 166 , the Claimants herein are entitled to the interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization and the same is granted by this Court. 21. For the reasons as aforesaid, the appeal preferred by the Appellant-Insurance Company is hereby dismissed. (ii) The compensation amount is enhanced from Rs.33,62,328/- to Rs. 40,25,075/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. (iii) The Appellant shall deposit the amount as aforesaid, adjusting the amount already deposited, if any, before the Tribunal within one month. (iv) On such deposit, the Claimants shall be entitled to withdraw the same in the proportion as per the award, failing which the amount shall be recovered as per law. (v) The Claimants shall pay the requisite Court-fee in respect of the enhanced amount awarded over and above the compensation claimed. (vi) The costs throughout are made in favour of the Respondents 1 to 3/Claimants as against the Appellant. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending for consideration, if any, shall stand closed.