SHANTANU KEMKAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the claimants against the award dated 14. 9. 1998 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shajapur, in Motor accident Claim Case No. 74 of 1994. ( 2 ) IT is not in dispute that Dr. Sushil kumar Sinha died in an accident caused by truck No. CIG 8535 when the deceased was standing near his parked motor cycle on Agra-Bombay Road near Khujner crossing. Appellant No. 1 is widow, appellant no. 2 is daughter and appellant Nos. 3 and 4 are sons of the deceased. The appellants filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 12,50,000 for the death of Dr. Sushil Kumar Sinha. They claimed that the deceased was aged 48 years and was a private doctor practising in Homoeopathy and Ayurveda Systems of Medicine and was earning Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 12,000 per month. ( 3 ) THE Tribunal found that the deceased was aged 48 years at the time of death and assessed his income to Rs. 18,000 per year making deductions of 1/3rd on account of his personal expenditure, living expenses, contribution to the family was arrived at rs. 12,000 per year. By applying the multiplier of 13 it arrived at the total loss of dependency at Rs. 1,56,000 a further sum of Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses, Rs. 5,000 as consortium to widow was added and the award was made for Rs. 1,63,000, with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application. ( 4 ) IN this appeal the only question involved is whether the compensation amount as awarded by the Tribunal is just or not. ( 5 ) ALONG with this appeal a certificate dated 20/1/1999 issued by the office of income Tax Officer, Guna certifying that the income of the deceased was assessed for the financial period, i. e. , 1/4/1992 to 31/3/1993 relating to the assessment year 1993-94 to be Rs. 34,350 has been filed along with an application LA. No. 2975 of 2000. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company has seriously disputed this certificate and contended that in the absence of income tax return, such certificate is not admissible and that there is no justification in taking on record the said certificate. We find substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent insurance company. No. 2975 of 2000. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company has seriously disputed this certificate and contended that in the absence of income tax return, such certificate is not admissible and that there is no justification in taking on record the said certificate. We find substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent insurance company. It is significant that the copy of income tax return has not been filed. The date on which return was filed in not disclosed. Appellants did not produce any evidence about income tax return before the Tribunal nor stated that any return has been filed. They did not even plead that the deceased was an income tax payee or assessee. It is thus clear that a return of income has been filed on behalf of deceased, after his death. Such a return showing conveniently a higher income filed after the death resulting in any assessment cannot be a relevant piece of evidence and cannot be entertained. In this view of the matter, we feel that the application deserves to be rejected and the same is accordingly rejected. ( 6 ) ABOUT assessment of income of the deceased by the Tribunal, we feel that it is on lower side. Deceased was practising in homoeopathy and Ayurveda Systems of medicine. His income can be safely assessed to Rs. 2,500 per month or Rs. 30,000 per year instead of Rs. 18,000 as assessed by the Tribunal. Having regard to the fact that family of the deceased consisted of himself, his wife, daughter and two sons, it is appropriate to deduct th and not 1/3rd for his personal expenditure and living expenses. Thus, the annual dependency comes to Rs. 22,500. By applying the multiplier of 13, the total loss of dependency is Rs. 2,92,500. To this, we add Rs. 2,500 for funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000 for loss of consortium. Thus, total amount of compensation is determined at Rs. 3,00,000 which according to us is just compensation. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, we allow this appeal in part and increase compensation from rs. 1,63,000 to Rs. 3,00,000. The rate of interest in regard to Rs. 1,63,000 awarded by the Tribunal shall remain unaltered. However, the increased sum shall carry interest only at the rate of 5 per cent per annum from the date of application till its realization. No order as to costs. 1,63,000 to Rs. 3,00,000. The rate of interest in regard to Rs. 1,63,000 awarded by the Tribunal shall remain unaltered. However, the increased sum shall carry interest only at the rate of 5 per cent per annum from the date of application till its realization. No order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed. .