JUDGMENT :

N. Kirubakaran, J.

1. CMA No. 130 of 2014 has been filed by the wife and minor child of the deceased and CMA No. 3312 of 2017 has been filed by the parents of the deceased.

2. The appeals have been preferred by respective appellants aggrieved by the award passed by the Claims Tribunal in MCOP No. 164 of 2009 for the death of one Suresh Sundar, aged about 30 years, an Assistant Consultant (Grade C3A) in TCS Co. Ltd., allegedly earning a sum of Rs. 84,279 in the accident occurred on 16.4.2008 when he was driving his two-wheeler near Siruseri which was hit down by the bus belonging to Parveen Travels Pvt. Ltd. and insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

3. Heard Mr. A.S. Bilal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the wife and the child of the deceased, Mr. S. Parthasarathy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parents of the deceased, and Mr. Chandrasekara Bharathy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company.

4. The only question to be decided in this case is with regard to adequacy of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. There is no appeal filed by the insurance company against the finding of the Tribunal regarding negligence that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the bus. Therefore, the negligence aspect has attained its finality.

5. The deceased was working as an Assistant Consultant (Grade C3A) in TCS Co. Ltd., Siruseri, at the time of accident, as per the evidence of PW 3 and PW 4 who are respectively Assistant General Manager and Assistant Manager of Tata Consultancy. Apart from Exh. P8/letter of appointment issued by TCS, Exh. P9/pay slip of the deceased for the months of January and February with earning statement for the financial year 2007-2008, Exh. P10/pay slip of the deceased for the months of March and April 2008 were also marked before the Tribunal to prove the income of the deceased. The claim of the appellants was that monthly salary earned by the deceased was Rs. 84,279. However, the Tribunal had taken the gross salary at Rs. 73,446.53 per month. Therefore, the appellants sought for re-determination of the monthly income at Rs. 84,279. However the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company would seek to reduce the same. The Claims Tribunal after determining the monthly income of Rs. 73,446.53 deducted a sum of Rs. 4,209 which was given to the deceased towards conveyance allowance, personal allowance and vehicle maintenance allowance and fixed a sum of Rs. 69,237 as monthly income of the deceased.

6. Though Mr. Chandrasekara Bharathy, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company, relied upon the two-Judge Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava, 2008 ACJ 614 (SC), to contend that reimbursement towards medical allowance is to be deducted, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants relied upon the three-Judge Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Manasvi Jain v. Delhi Transport Corpn., 2014 ACJ 1416 (SC), where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the deduction towards income tax/surcharge alone should be considered to arrive at the net income of the deceased. Para 12 of the said judgment is usefully extracted as follows:

"(12) This court in Shyamwati Sharma v. Karam Singh, 2010 ACJ 1968 (SC), while considering the issues of deduction of taxes, contributions, etc., for arriving at the figure of net monthly income, held that 'while ascertaining the income of the deceased, any deductions shown in the salary certificate as deductions towards GPF, life insurance premium, repayments of loans, etc., should not be excluded from the income. The deduction towards income tax/surcharge alone should be considered to arrive at the net income of the deceased'."

Therefore, this court is inclined to follow the larger Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

7. Accordingly, this court fi