The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal provisions related to the deduction of insurance amounts, provident fund, and gratuity from compensation, as well as the principles governing the calculation of compensation and the application of multipliers for computing compensation.

2. The deceased was aged 52 years at the time of accident and was working as a Telephone Supervisor in B.S.N.L., Vellore. On 210. 2003, about 9.30 a.m., when the deceased was travelling in a motor-cycle, bearing Registration No.TN 22H 1611 along the left side of the road from his residence to his office, near Ponnu marriage hall, a lorry, bearing Registration No.T.P.02 T 0473 dashed against the motor-cycle from the rear side and the deceased sustained multiple injuries and died on the same day.

3. Respondents/claimants claimed Rs.15,00,000/-as compensation. The Tribunal on evaluation of pleadings and evidence awarded compensation of Rs.12,12,096/-with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, under the following heads:

.(i) Loss of earning Rs. 10,97,096.00

.(ii) Funeral expensesRs. 5,000.00

(iii) Loss of consortium Rs. 25,000.00

.(iv) Loss of dependencyRs. 25,000.00

.(v) Shock & mental agonyRs. 20,000.00

.(vi) Loss of happiness due to the death of the deceased Rs. 20,000.00

(vii) Loss of love and affection Rs. 20,000.00

Total Rs.12,12,096.00

The award amount was apportioned as Rs.3,63,696/-to the first respondent wife and Rs.1,21,200/- to each of respondents 2 to 8.

4. Heard Mr. M.Krishnamoorthy, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr.G.Jeremiah, learned Counsel for the respondent.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal has erred in awarding an exorbitant compensation for the death of a person, who was aged about 52 years when he had only 6 years of remaining service. He further contended that the Tribunal has erred in determining the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.12,467/- by taking into account his gross income, which is contrary to the decision reported in 2004 ACJ 448 (Asha and others vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and another).

The next contention of the learned Counsel is that the Tribunal has erred in fixing the age of the deceased as 52 years, overlooking the evidence of P.W.3, Deputy Divisional Engineer, B.S.N.L. and Ex.P5-Service Certificate of the deceased, wherein his age is mentioned as 54 years at the time of accident. Considering the remaining years of service, Counsel for the appellant submitted that the application of 11 as multiplier for the purpose of computing compensation is erroneous.

Learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the conventional damages awarded to respondents/claimants, such as, compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of dependency; Rs.20,000/- towards shock and mental agony suffered by respondents/claimants are excessive.

As regards the rate of interest, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the accident had occurred on 210. 2003 and therefore, the interest rate has to be scaled down from 9% to 7.5% per annum.

Inviting my attention to the evidence of P.W.3, Deputy Divisional Engineer, B.S.N.L. Department, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the witness had deposed that Income Tax has been deducted from the salary of the deceased. Learned Counsel also submitted that since the witness has not clearly stated as to whether the promotional aspect was in the near future, the determination of monthly income of the deceased at Rs.12,467/- is erroneous. He further contended that the Tribunal ought to have taken only the net income for the purpose of computing compensation.

6. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondents/claimants submitted that the decision rendered in Asha and others vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd., and another (2004 ACJ 448) cannot be said to be a binding precedent on the issue as to whether the net income should alone be taken for the purpose of computing compensation.

7. It is worthwhile to consider some of the decisions of various Courts dealing with the issue as to whether the Insurance amount, Provident Fund, Group Provident Fund, Premium paid towards Group Insurance Scheme or any other Social Security Scheme can be deducted from the compensation paid