Hon’ble Saral Srivastava, J.—Heard Sri Anand Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and Sri A.N. Bhargava, learned counsel for the respondent-claimant.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company, challenging the order dated 29.3.2007 passed by Additional District Judge/M.A.C.T./F.T.C.4, Etah whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 7,69,028/- as compensation to the claimant-respondent.

3. The claimant-respondent have filed cross-objection No. 228618 of 2007 under Order 41 Rule 22 C.P.C. for enhancement of compensation.

4. We would first deal with the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. The claim petition was instituted by one Anil Kumar Maheshwari for the death of his wife Smt. Praveen Kumari in an accident on 10.7.2004 at about 05:30 P.M. It was alleged in the claim petition that Smt. Praveen Kumari was travelling in Jeep No. U.P. 80 T/9619 alongwith her mother-in-law and other persons from Kashganj to Saron. It was further alleged that the driver of the jeep was driving it rashly and negligently, and when the jeep reached near village Fish Farm in village Prahladpur, it dashed with a tree and turned turtle. In the said accident Smt. Praveen Kumari suffered serious injuries and died. The deceased was Assistant Teacher and was earning salary of Rs. 9,265/- per month. The claimants prayed for compensation of Rs. 15,25,000/- alongwith 12% interest.

5. The owner of the jeep did not appear before the Tribunal to contest the claim petition and therefore, the Tribunal proceeded ex parte against the owner of jeep vide order dated 6.5.2006.

6. The insurance company contested the claim petition by filing a written statement wherein it denied the factum of accident. The insurance company also denied the negligence of the driver of jeep and the income of the deceased, and further pleaded that the liability of the company was subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The Insurance Company prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

7. On the basis of pleadings between the parties, the Tribunal framed several issues. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, decided the issue of occurrence of accident and negligence of driver of jeep in the accident in favour of the claimant. The issue of driving license was also decided by the Tribunal in favour of the claimant-respondent.

8. On the issue of quantification of compensation, the Tribunal held the deceased was an Assistant Teacher and her salary was Rs. 9,265/- P.M. as per the salary certificate. The tribunal for the purpose of computation of compensation accepted Rs. 8,631/- P.M. only as income which the deceased was carrying home after compulsory deductions. The Tribunal, thereafter, deducted 1/3rd from Rs. 8,631/- towards personal expenses of the deceased and multiplied it by 12 to arrive at the annual income of the deceased. Thereafter, the Tribunal computed the compensation towards loss of income by applying the multiplier of 11 on the annual income and awarded Rs. 7,69,028/- towards loss of income.

9. Challenging the quantification of compensation, counsel for insurance company has urged that there were only two units in the family i.e. husband and wife and therefore, contribution of the deceased towards the family could not be more than 50%. He further submits that in the present case, husband and wife both were earning, and if one of them had died then the contribution towards the family affairs from the income of deceased could not be more than 50 per cent. Consequently, he submits that the Tribunal should have deducted 50% towards the personal income of the deceased instead of 1/3rd while computing the compensation. In this regard he has placed reliance upon paragraph 30 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others, 2009 (6) SCC 121, which is extracted herein below.

“30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made to