JUDGMENT :

Rekha Palli, J.

1. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 preferred by the claimants, seeks to assail the award dated 07.12.2020 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal insofar as it relates to quantum of compensation.

2. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants has raised three primary submissions. The first submission being that once it was evident from the statement of PW-3, a colleague of the deceased who had just before the accident, travelled with him for about 12 kms in the car that he was driving the car properly, the deduction of 50% towards contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, as held by the learned Tribunal was wholly unwarranted. Furthermore, PW-4, the surveyor who had examined the car after the accident had also clearly stated as per his estimate, the car was being driven at a speed of 30 to 40 km per hour. While not denying that the alcohol level in the blood sample of the deceased just after accident was found to be 91.8 mg/100 ml of blood, he submits that once there was nothing to show that the deceased was driving the car roughly or negligently, the deduction of 50% amount on account of contributory negligence was highly excessive. He, therefore, prays that the same be reduced to 20%.

3. His next submission is that the learned Tribunal has also erred in computing future prospects of the deceased by taking into account only 25% of his income. The learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that the deceased, who was working in a well-known company M/s Panasonic Appliances India Ltd., had a permanent job. He, therefore, contends that in accordance with the decision in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 SCC 680, an addition of 30% be made to the income of the deceased towards his future prospects.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellants finally submits that the learned Tribunal, while taking the annual income of the deceased as only Rs.7,08,048/-, has failed to consider that the allowances being paid to him as also the amount being deposited by his employer towards his provident fund were in fact, part of his pay package and ought to have been taken into consideration while determining the loss of income and loss of future prospects. He, therefore, contends that the annual income of the deceased ought to have been taken as Rs.10,24,596/- instead of Rs.7,08,048/- from which a reduction of Rs.1,04,919/- was required to be made towards income tax. Consequently, his net annual income was required to be taken as Rs.9,19,676/-. He, therefore, prays that the compensation be accordingly enhanced.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, while supporting the impugned award submits that once it was found that the alcohol in the blood sample of the deceased was more than three times the permissible limit, the learned Tribunal was justified in deducting 50% amount towards contributory negligence. He is, however, not in a position to deny that, in the facts of the present case and taking into account that the deceased was working in a well-known company, the future prospects were required to be computed by making an addition of 30% to his income. He also fairly does not deny that except for income tax, no other deductions ought to have been made from the salary of the deceased for computing the amount payable towards loss of dependency.

6. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am inclined to accept the respondent’s plea that in the facts of the present case, the deduction of 50% towards contributory negligence by the learned Tribunal was justified. In my view, once it was found that as against the permissible limit of 30 mg/100 ml of the blood, the blood sample of the deceased contained 91.8mg alcohol/ 100 ml blood, this