HARKESH MANUJA, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 08.11.2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.20,85,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum was awarded on account of death of Ashok Raj @ Ashok Kumar in a motor vehicular accident dated 09.08.2009.

2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, a detailed narration of facts of the case is not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was on the lower side and deserved enhancement. It was argued that the Tribunal erred in deducting washing allowance and special diet allowance from the salary of the deceased. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal wrongly deducted income tax though the deceased was entitled to various exemptions and deductions under the Income Tax Act. It was also contended that deduction towards personal expenses ought to have been one-fourth instead of one-third keeping in view the number of dependents. Learned counsel further submitted that the amount awarded under conventional heads was extremely meager and required substantial enhancement in light of subsequent pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.2/INSURANCE COMPANY.

4. Per contra, learned counsel representing respondent No. 2/Insurance Company, neither refuted the factum of accident nor even the negligence of the offending vehicle, however submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal called for no interference.

DISCUSSION AND REASONING

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book of the case. I find substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants.

QUESTION OF INCOME ASSESSED

6. A perusal of the record shows that the deceased was working as a Constable in U.P. Police. PW-4 Ombir Singh Pundeer, Assistant Accountant, Police Department, Meerut, proved the salary certificate Ex.P9 and categorically deposed that the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.15,363/- per month. The learned Tribunal excluded washing allowance of Rs.30/- and special diet allowance of Rs.700/- while computing income. However, the said approach cannot be sustained. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in various decisions has consistently held that while determining income of a salaried employee, allowances forming part of regular emoluments and contributing towards the economic benefit of the family are liable to be included unless they are purely reimbursable in nature. In the present case, the allowances in question were being regularly paid to the deceased as part of his monthly salary. There is nothing on record to suggest that the same were merely reimbursable allowances. Furthermore, the Tribunal deducted income tax of Rs.7,040/-. However, no cogent evidence was led to establish the actual tax liability of the deceased. Moreover, the taxable income after permissible deductions under the Income Tax Act would substantially stand reduced. In absence of any reliable evidence regarding actual tax liability, deduction towards income tax was not justified. Reference in this regard can be made to “Vimal Kanwar and others vs. Kishore Dan and others,” reported as 2013 (7) SCC 476, wherein it was held that unless there is positive evidence regarding income tax liability, arbitrary deduction ought not to be made. Consequently, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.15,363/-.

QUESTION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS, MULTIPLIER AND DEDUCTION TOWARDS PERSONAL EXPENSES.

7. The deceased was aged about