JUDGMENT D. RAJU, C.J.—The above appeal has been filed by the Himachal Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Transport Corporation), the first Respondent in MAC. Petition No. 29-S/2 of 1992 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Solan, challenging the award of compensation in a sum of Rs. 5,60,000 with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of payment with default interest at 15 per cent per annum, if the amount of compensation awarded was not remitted within 30 days. 2. The claimants before the Tribunal below, Respondents 1 and 2 herein, are the wife of the deceased-Deepak Dutta and the mother of the deceased. The second Respondent in the claim petition before the Tribunal below was the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation, who is impleaded in this appeal as pro forma Respondent No. 3. The deceased said to be 47 years of age working as partner in Messrs Chawdhary Enterprises, Chambaghat, earning a monthly income of Rs. 4,500, met with an accident at about 4 p.m. on 7.2.1992 at a place called Saproon, within the local limits of Solan Police Station. The claimants stated that the deceased was walking on the extreme left side of the road when the bus bearing registration No. HPA 2373 belonging to the appellant-Transport Corporation, driven by the third Respondent herein in a rash and negligent manner, hit him from behind and the deceased was not only crushed but died instantaneously due to crushing of skull, on the spot. The claimants prayed for the award of a compensation of Rs. 12 lacs of which Rs. 8 lacs was said to represent the loss of earnings on account of premature death of the deceased, Rs. 2 lacs for the shock and mental torture to the wife and in a similar sum for the mental torture and loss of love and affection of the mother. 3. 12 lacs of which Rs. 8 lacs was said to represent the loss of earnings on account of premature death of the deceased, Rs. 2 lacs for the shock and mental torture to the wife and in a similar sum for the mental torture and loss of love and affection of the mother. 3. The appellant-Transport Corporation while denying the relationship of the claimants with the deceased and placing the claimants to strict proof of the same contested the claim by contending that the accident occurred solely on account of the negligence on the part of the deceased in trying to suddenly cross the road to avoid a truck and that the vehicle belonging to the Transport Corporation was being run very carefully at the time of the accident. The income details furnished of the deceased was also strongly disputed as also the claim of compensation in a sum of Rs. 12 lacs as being not only excessive and arbitrary but also without any basis of law or on facts. The driver, the second Respondent in the claim petition, also filed a separate reply contending that the accident occurred on account of the indiscriminate and sudden crossing of the road by the deceased and that the deceased was not earning anything or doing any job and consequently the compensation claimed was too much on the excessive side and, therefore, not tenable. On the above claims and counter-claims, the claim petition came to be tried and PWs 1 to 8 were examined besides marking of certain documents and on the Respondents side RW-1 the driver was examined. On a consideration of the materials on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that it was the driver of the vehicle of the Transport Corporation who failed to exercise due and reasonable care in driving the same and the accident occurred as a result of his rash and negligent driving. As for the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal not only placed reliance but accepted the claim that the deceased was having an income of Rs. 4,000 per month, on the basis of the disclosure shown in the income-tax return, as disclosed in Ex. PW-1/C, which is an intimation of an assessment under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act. Thereupon, the Tribunal proceeded to fix the dependency in respect of the claimants at Rs. 32,000 and by adding a sum of Rs. 4,000 per month, on the basis of the disclosure shown in the income-tax return, as disclosed in Ex. PW-1/C, which is an intimation of an assessment under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act. Thereupon, the Tribunal proceeded to fix the dependency in respect of the claimants at Rs. 32,000 and by adding a sum of Rs. 3,000 as conventional damages determined the annual loss of dependency at Rs. 35,000. Taking into account the age of the deceased to be 47 years at the time of his death, the Tribunal below adopted a multiplier of 16 and determined the total compensation payable to the claimants at Rs. 5,60,000 and apportioned the same long the claimants at Rs. 4 lacs to the wife and Rs. 1,60,000 to the mother. Hence, the above appeal. 4. Mr. Deepak Gupta, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation strenuously contended that the Tribunal below committed an error in fixing responsibility for the accident on the Transport-Corporation and that at any rate a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 paid to the wife of the deceased on account of accident insurance policy held by the deceased is liable to be deducted from the compensation awarded in this case since that also had been paid on account of the death in the accident. The learned Counsel further contended that an isolated income tax return filed on the basis of which a similar order of assessment accepting the same came to be made cannot be the sole basis of determining the income of the deceased at the time of the accident and in the absence of any concrete and substantial material to prove such an income or assessment or submission of return with such figure of income, the Tribunal below committed a serious error in readily accepting the same to be the basis. Apart from this infirmity, the learned Counsel contended that the conventional damages of Rs. 3,000 has been wrongly included in the annual loss of dependency to be multiplied with the multiplier adopted and this is a serious error which undermines the compensation awarded. Apart from this infirmity, the learned Counsel contended that the conventional damages of Rs. 3,000 has been wrongly included in the annual loss of dependency to be multiplied with the multiplier adopted and this is a serious error which undermines the compensation awarded. Serious objection was also taken to the multiplier of 16 adopted in this case, which, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, is very much on the higher side and according to the learned Counsel if at all the multiplier, having regard to the age of the deceased and the judicial pronouncements on the subject, could not exceed 10. As for the income there is no justification, according to the learned Counsel to adopt anything more than Rs. 2,000 per month of the deceased at the time of his death. The learned Counsel in support of such submissions invited our attention to the fact that the return on the basis of which self-assessment came to be made was filed on 6.4.1992 by the wife after the death of the deceased Deepak Dutta and that the parties were able to manipulate the matters to file such self-serving documents taking advantage of the fact that out of six partners in M/s. Chawdhary Enterprises, four partners belong to the member of the family of the claimants, which is inclusive of the deceased, his mother, father and brother and that, therefore, no reliance could be placed on such material in the absence of some independent proof based on contemporaneous records and consequently the rate of income adopted without any basis vitiate the award. It was also contended that the mother of the deceased was herself a partner in the business and with her husband alive cannot claim herself to be a dependent for the purpose of determining the total compensation awarded in this case and everything was assumed in the case in favour of the claimants and the exercise of powers by the Tribunal below was opposed to law and judicial conscience. Adverting to the multiplier of 16 adopted, it has been stated that going by the standard and the principles laid down by the judicial pronouncements, it is the age of the victim as also that of the claimants, whichever is higher, is to be taken into account and viewed thus the multiplier not more than 10 could not have been adopted for a person of the age of 47. 5. Per contra, Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Counsel for the claimants with equal force and vehemence contended that the award of compensation in this case is very reasonable and based on relevant, valid and proper materials and the monthly income of the deceased fixed was on the basis of relevant material legally acceptable and that, therefore, annual dependency or multiplic and fixed cannot be said to be vitiated in any manner. It was also reiterated that at the time of his death and from 1991 onwards he was the Managing Director of the firm and the challenge in this regard is merely beyond acceptance. As for the multiplier of 16 adopted, it was contended that taking into account the longevity of father 79, who is still alive and mother 74 and the possibility of the deceased living for a longer life, the multiplier of 16 cannot be said to be on the excessive side, particularly, when viewed with the age of the wife, who has been rendered a widow at the age of 32. In traversing the contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellant, the learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the fact that the firm and business is being continued inspite of the death of the deceased is no reason to deny the income in the form of salary received by the deceased being taken into account in determining the annual loss of dependency for the reason that the income from the profits of a firm is one thing payable to him qua partner but the salary paid to him for the services rendered notwithstanding that he is a partner has to be taken to be his income, and the loss of which could form a reasonable basis for arriving at the loss of annual dependency. The learned Counsel for the third Respondent was also present and adopted the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant. 6. The learned Counsel for the third Respondent was also present and adopted the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant. 6. Before undertaking and adjudication of the issues raised, it would be appropriate to refer to some of the earlier decided cases touching the issues though it would be unnecessary for us to refer to all the judgments that have been referred to on the side of the appellant. The multiplier system in the form it ultimately came to be recognised was envisaged in a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as early as in 1980 A.C.J. 1 (H.P. Road Transport Corporation v. Pundit Jai Ram and others). The next important judgment to be adverted to in this connection is one reported in AIR 1988 A.P. 99 (Bhagwandas v. Mohd. Arif). The said judgment was rendered by His Lordship M. Jagannadha Rao, J. as the learned Judge then was. After an instructive and illuminative discussion and analysis of the different categories of methods for computing the loss of future earnings as prevalent in countries at international levels and also in this country and found to be in vogue in their application by several High Courts, the learned Judge has formulated a multiplier table with reference to the age. While doing so for a victim with an age of 40, the multiplier proposed was 12.79 and for one with 45 years of age, the multiplier proposed was 10.45 and for one with 50 years of age, it was 7.68. A reference to many of the judgments relied upon for the appellant becomes unnecessary as we noticed earlier in view of the two decisions of the apex Court reported in (1994) 2 S.C.C. 176 : 1994 (1) A.C.J. 1 (General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C. v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and others) and (1996) 4 S.C.C. 362 =:1996 A.C.J. 831 (U.R State Road Transport Corporation and others v. Trilok Chandra and others). In the first of the judgments, referred to above, the Court dealt with a claim presented by the parents, widow and children of a victim of an accident, who was aged 38-39 years and held that a multiplier of 12 alone would be reasonable. In the first of the judgments, referred to above, the Court dealt with a claim presented by the parents, widow and children of a victim of an accident, who was aged 38-39 years and held that a multiplier of 12 alone would be reasonable. Their Lordships of the apex Court also observed about the manner of arriving at the damages to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his dependants, and to deduct there from such part of his income as the deceased was accustomed to spend upon himself, as regards both self-maintenance and pleasure and to ascertain what part of his net income the deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit of the dependants and then that should be capitalised by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of years purchase. It was further observed therein that the multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances r of the case and capitalising the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier and the choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased 1 or that of the claimants whichever is higher and by the calculation as to i what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable [ economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest in addition to having regard to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed-up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last. ln the later judgment of the apex Court reported in 1996(4) SCC 362, the apex Court was considering a claim arising out of the death of a person aged 26 years. In determining the compensation in such a case the Tribunal appears to have adopted a multiplier of 24 in contrast to the multiplier of 34 adopted by the High Court. While dealing with such a situation, the apex Court was critical of adopting such multipliers observing that they showed lack of awareness of the background of the multiplier system itself declaring the position that in no case, it should exceed 18 years purchase factor, thereby making slight improvement over the earlier position laid down in the first of the decisions, noticed above, wherein it was held that ordinarily it should not exceed 16. Their Lordships ultimately in that case declined to interfere with the quantum awarded observing that while the multiplier used was found to be excessive having regard to a very low multiplicand adopted as the loss of dependency the compensation awarded by the Courts below called for no interference having regard to the fact that the correction of multiplicand and the use of multiplier would work out to near about the same figure of compensation. 7. The learned Counsel brought to our notice a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 1991 A.C.J. 825, (Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. Arvind Singh Mann and others), wherein a multiplier of 8 has been adopted in respect of a victim aged 52 years. In an unreported decision, which has been rendered by us in F.A.O. No. 254 of 1991, decided on 7.8.1998 (State of HP. and another v. Sandeep Bhardwaj and others), in respect of a victim aged 44 years 3 months and 1 week, a multiplier of 11 has been adopted after reviewing the relevant judgments on the issue. 8. So far as the contention on behalf of the appellant pertaining to the cause for the accident is concerned, we are of the view that there is no merit whatsoever in the same. The Tribunal below adverted to the oral evidence on record, particularly that of PW-8 an eye-witness to the accident, and taking into account also the surrounding circumstances, the nature and manner of occurrence, in our view, rightly came to the conclusion that it was on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver of the Transport-Corporation that the accident occurred resulting in the death of the victim. The said finding arrived at on a proper consideration of the relevant material, are not shown to suffer any infirmity in law in the matter of appreciation of the evidence, and we see no reason to interfere with the said finding. The learned Counsel also could not bring to our notice any material to take a different view than the one arrived at by the Tribunal below. The learned Counsel also could not bring to our notice any material to take a different view than the one arrived at by the Tribunal below. Equally untenable is the plea that the mother, being herself a partner in the business, with her husband also alive, cannot be a dependant at all, in our view not only for the reason that a mother is a Class-I heir under the Hindu Succession Act in respect of an estate of the deceased and loss to which only is assessed while assessing the loss of future income but the right of the mother to always fall back upon the son for protection and maintenance, cannot be disputed and therefore there is no justification in law to deny totally the right of the mother for compensation as a dependant of her son though in apportioning the amount of compensation awarded in a given case among the various claimants such considerations could be taken into account to deny the mother an equal share. Consequently, we see no merit in this objection also taken for the appellant. 9. So far as the method of arriving at the annual loss of dependency by the Tribunal below in adding even the conventional damages of a flat rate of Rs. 3,000 as part of the income to have it multiplied by the multiplier adopted is concerned the same, is contrary to law and against the settled proposition of law. The multiplicand representing the loss of dependency, which is usually multiplied with a multiplier is always of the pecuniary loss suffered in the form of net income the deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefits of the dependants alone and not also the conventional damages awarded on account of deprivation of the company and consortium of the victim. The inclusion of Rs. 3,000 as part of the multiplicand in this case is a serious error which vitiates the award made in this case to that extent. So far as the multiplicand or the annual loss of dependency otherwise determined by the Tribunal below on the basis of the income tax assessment order is concerned, we are equally unable to approve of the said method adopted by the Tribunal below. So far as the multiplicand or the annual loss of dependency otherwise determined by the Tribunal below on the basis of the income tax assessment order is concerned, we are equally unable to approve of the said method adopted by the Tribunal below. The Tribunal does not appear to have adverted to the vital fact that the assessment in question has come to be made in this case on a posthumous return filed by the wife after the death of her husband and that no such returns or orders for the previous years disclose any such quantum of income having been earned. The absence of any such return having been made with such rates of income or anywhere near the said range and the conspicuous non-production of any such proof would certainly cast serious doubts on the veracity of the claim made in the return submitted by the wife after the death of the victim. It is common knowledge that in self-assessment procedure the return is accepted as filed and it could not be said that any statutory authority has objectively so determined the income by adopting a guasi-judicial approach. That apart though PW-5 has produced the records of the firm and it is stated by production of a certificate marked as Ex. PW-5/A that a total sum of Rs. 45,000 was paid to the deceased during the period between 1.4.1991 and 7.2.1992, in cross-examination this witness admitted that as per the records brought by him the deceased was drawing Rs. 1,800 per month and the rest of the amount was being deposited in his account by the firm. The firm has not been shown to have filed its income-tax return disclosing such payment by way of salary to the deceased for the previous years and no other contemporaneous record for the period immediately prior to the year in question has been made available by the firm through PW-5 to support the tall claim now made, (n this context, we cannot brush aside as of no significance the criticism levelled by the learned Counsel for the appellant that with four closely-related family members being partners out of total 6 partners they were able to manipulate and adjust matters to blow up and produce such inflated income in the form of salary for the purpose of the case. Keeping in view all these aspects, the nature of the materials made available and the absence of independent material to sufficiently establish the income to be Rs. 4,000 per month and taking into account the admission made in the cross-examination by PW-5 that he was drawing and taking home Rs. 1,800 per month and even giving a reasonable allowance, adopting a liableral approach the net monthly income for computing loss of dependency could not be fixed at more than Rs. 2,000 per month even keeping into account future prospects. The rate adopted by the Tribunal below in this regard on the basis of perfunctory material without properly scrutinising the credibility of such materials, in our view, vitiate not only the multiplicand but also the ultimate compensation awarded on such basis. 10. So far as the multiplier to be adopted in this case is concerned, keeping in view the very decision of the apex Court reported in (1994)2 S.C.C. 176 (supra) as also the unreported decision of ours rendered recently, referred to supra, there is no scope for adopting a multiplier of more than 11 which itself in our view will be slightly on the higher side at least by one number. Consequently, we revise the compensation and re-determine the same by adopting multipicand of Rs. 2,000 and multiplier of 11, which in our view will be the just and reasonable compensation having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, proved in accordance with law Though only a sum of Rs.3,000 has been awarded for the conventional damages for the loss of consortium, it is by now well recognised that an amount in the range of Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 10,000 will be reasonable depending upon the facts of a given case. In this case taking into account the fact that within two years of marriage the wife had lost her husband, and she is aged 32 years, we enhance the same and award a sum of Rs.10,000 and thus viewed the total amount of compensation awardable comes to Rs.2,74,000. The said amount can be rounded of to Rs. 2,75,000. This amount awarded, as ordered by the Tribunal below, will carry interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of payment. Of the total compensation, so awarded, 2/3rd shall go to the first claimant-widow and 1/3rd to the 2nd claimant-mother. The said amount can be rounded of to Rs. 2,75,000. This amount awarded, as ordered by the Tribunal below, will carry interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of payment. Of the total compensation, so awarded, 2/3rd shall go to the first claimant-widow and 1/3rd to the 2nd claimant-mother. The appeal is allowed on the above terms. No costs. Appeal allowed.