JUDGMENT :

PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, J.

1. The instant appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 12.01.2021 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur.

2. The New India Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as “appellant”) has filed this miscellaneous appeal challenging the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Japiur, whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.53,94,565/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of institution of filing the claim petition against the appellant-insurer and in favour of claimant-respondent Nos.1 to 3.

3. The appellant questions the occurrence of the accident so also the application of the statutory deduction and multiplier adopted by the Tribunal in awarding the compensation to respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

4. The claimants-respondents (hereinafter referred to as “claimants”) have preferred the appeal for enhancement against the impugned award on the grounds of fewer interest rates, wrong application of the deduction towards dependency, the meagre amount in the heads of love and affection and non-granting of the award under the head of loss of estate.

5. Vide impugned award the Tribunal awarded the claim of Rs.53,94,565/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of institution of filing the claim petition, the break up of the same under different heads is under:

6. Heard learned counsels of both the parties and perused the record as well as the impugned judgment.

Factual aspect regarding the involvement of the offending vehicle and its rash & negligent driving by respondent No. 4:

7. As far as the factual aspects regarding involvement of the offending Bus, the Driver's rash and negligent driving and resulting in the death of deceased Navratan are concerned, AW-1 Santosh, wife of the deceased, was examined before the Tribunal. In her deposition, she produced the relevant documents Exhibit-1 to Exhibit-10.

8. The exhibited documents show that police after a thorough investigation has submitted the charge sheet under Sections 279, 304A and 338 of the Indian Penal Code against the erring Driver of the offending vehicle.

9. Further, the eyewitness AW-2 Santosh Tiwari has categorically deposed that the driver of the erring vehicle drove the Bus at high speed resulting in its turtling at the curve. He further deposed that due to the capsizing of the vehicle, he and other passengers also sustained injuries and one passenger died.

In his cross-examination, he did not depose anything contradictory, which makes him unreliable. Thus, the Tribunal rightly concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Bus driver.

10. Non-examination of the First Informant was not essential for proving the factum of the accident. This fact stands proved by AW-2 Santosh. Consequently, on this account, the impugned award cannot be questioned.

On the question of the application of deduction of income tax on assessed annual income, multiplier and the deduction towards personal and living expenses:

11. Whether the Tribunal wrongly applied the multiplier of 11 and the deduction of 1/3rd amount towards personal and living expenses of the deceased so also the income slab for deducting the tax?

12. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal has wrongly deducted Rs.70,000/- as the income tax on the total assessed amount, whereas, against the calculated amount of Rs.7,96,077/- the Tribunal ought to have deducted 20% of the amount as income tax.

13. He also contended that the Tribunal has also wrongly applied the multiplier of 11. He further asserted that the mother of the deceased died during the pendency of the