1 fa1191 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1191 OF 2011 New India Assurance Co.Ltd. ...Appellant vs. Smt.Jyoti vinayendra Bande & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.A.S.Vidyarthi for the appellant Mr.A.M.Gokhale i/b Mr.M.B.Kotak for the respondent no.1 CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JULY 13, 2011 P.C.: 1 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Impugned Award has been passed on the claim petition filed by the first and second respondents under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988. The first and second respondents are widow and son of the deceased respectively. Compensation of Rs.19,92,000/- inclusive of No Fault Liability has been granted. 2 The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the age of the deceased was 58 years and he was on the verge of the retirement. Therefore, multiplier of 9 could not have been applied. He submitted that there cannot be dependency of 9 years considering the age of the deceased. He relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Shyamwati Sharma & Ors. vs. Karam Singh & Ors. in Civil Appeal no.5316 of 2010 decided on 13th July 2010. Relying upon the said decision, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that deduction of 30% ought to have been made on account of income tax but the learned Member of the Tribunal has made deduction of only 10%. He submitted that compensation granted is 2 fa1191 excessive. 3 I have considered the submissions. The deceased at the time of his death was serving as a Manager of State Bank of India, IOA Department of Belapur in New Bombay. The claimants examined the Chief Manager of the Bank and Senior Assistant of the bank to prove the income of the deceased. The tribunal relied upon the salary slips at Exh.46 to Exh.49 and found that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.29,992.46. Deduction of about 30,000/- has been made on account of income tax. Reliance placed on the decision in case of Shaymwati Sharma (supra) will not help the appellant. In paragraph 8 of the said decision, the Apex Court has observed that the rate of income tax is a varying figure. The Apex specifically observed that in facts of the case before it, the deduction made by the Trial Court of 30% has not been disturbed. 4 The learned counsel for the appellant produced for my perusal salary slips which were on record. Some Salary slips show deduction of Rs.1000/- per month on account of income tax and in case of one month a deduction of Rs. 4000/- was made. Therefore, in the facts of the case, deduction of only 10% has been rightly made on account of income tax. 5 Multiplier of 9 has been correctly applied as laid down by the Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another [(2009) 6 SCC 121]. Hence, there is no merit in the Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 6 Appellant will be entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs. 3 fa1191 25,000/- with interest, if any, accrued thereon. 7 Civil application no.2222 of 2011 does not survive and the same is disposed of. JUDGE