Judgment ( 1. ) THIS appeal is at the behest of the claimants for enhancement of compensation on account of death of Sheikh nawab aged 40 years in an accident dated 22. 9. 2005. When he was coming back from his sisters house in a jeep No. MH 20-E 5777, he was dashed by a truck No. HR 55-C 8052, driven by Anil Singh Yadav in a rash and negligent manner. M. A. C. T. , burhanpur, awarded total compensation of rs. 4,59,500 along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation in Claim Case No. 8 of 2006 as per award dated 20. 5. 2006. ( 2. ) IT was submitted by the claimants widow, two minor daughters, two minor sons and mother of the deceased, that the deceased was a transporter, used to run two trucks, apart from that he was having agricultural land also. Deceased was an income tax payee, he owned two trucks and five acres of irrigated land. He had also started dhaba on Burhanpur-Indore Road, he was earning a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 per annum. 80 per cent of the amount he used to give to the claimants and remaining 20 per cent he used to spend on himself. He wanted that sons and daughters to obtain proper education for their bright future. They were obtaining education in an English school. Due to death of the only bread-earner of the family compensation of Rs. 53,00,000 was claimed. Truck was owned by ARC india Ltd. and insured with National Insurance co. Ltd. ( 3. ) THE driver was proceeded ex pane before the Claims Tribunal. The owner in the written statement contended that the deceased himself was negligent. He was driving the jeep rashly and negligently. The insurer in the written statement inter alia contended that driver of the truck was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. Driver, owner and insurer of the jeep were also necessary parties. Deceased drove the jeep rashly and negligently. Excessive passengers were carried in the jeep at the time of accident. ( 4. ) THE Tribunal has found that accident was outcome of rash and negligent driving by Anil Singh Yadav. Sheikh Nawab sustained injuries. It was not established that driver of the truck was not holding valid and effective driving licence. Deceased drove the jeep rashly and negligently. Excessive passengers were carried in the jeep at the time of accident. ( 4. ) THE Tribunal has found that accident was outcome of rash and negligent driving by Anil Singh Yadav. Sheikh Nawab sustained injuries. It was not established that driver of the truck was not holding valid and effective driving licence. Truck was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. The owner and insurer of the jeep were not necessary parties. Loss of dependency has been worked out at Rs. 30,000 per annum, multiplier of 15 was applied, thus aforesaid compensation has been worked out. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, this appeal has been preferred for enhancement. ( 5. ) MR. J. A. Shah, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that accident took place on 22. 9. 2005. Deceased used to pay income tax for the last several years. Income tax return (Exh. P6)for financial year 2002-03 indicated the income from business to be Rs. 68,500, income tax return (Exh. P7) for the financial year 2003-04 indicated the income at rs. 99,500 and for the financial year 2004-05 income was shown to be Rs. 1,24,000. Apart from that there was agricultural land as apparent from Bhu Adhikar and Rin pustika (Exh. P11) on record. Thus without making assessment of the income of the deceased, the loss of dependency has been taken at Rs. 30,000 per annum. The finding arrived at by Claims Tribunal is perverse. Income be taken as reflected in the income tax return. Appropriate multiplier has not been applied, consequently compensation be suitably enhanced. ( 6. ) MR. Rakesh Jain, the learned counsel appearing for insurer has submitted that income from the truck remains as trucks are being plied by nephew and brother-in-law. Income from agricultural land also remains, hence the loss of dependency has rightly been worked out at Rs. 30,000. ( 7. ) THE main question for consideration is, what was the income of the deceased? learned Member, Claims Tribunal has not made any endeavour to arrive at the figure of income of the deceased per annum. We find on record the aforesaid income tax returns showing income for the year 2002-03 of Rs. 68,500, for the year 2003-04 of rs. 99,500 and for the year 2004-05 of rs. 1,24,000. learned Member, Claims Tribunal has not made any endeavour to arrive at the figure of income of the deceased per annum. We find on record the aforesaid income tax returns showing income for the year 2002-03 of Rs. 68,500, for the year 2003-04 of rs. 99,500 and for the year 2004-05 of rs. 1,24,000. However, land remained and trucks are also being plied but there is a substantial loss of income. In the circumstances, it would be appropriate to assess the income at Rs. 75,000 per annum. After making conventional 1/3rd deduction for self expenditure, annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 50,000, multiplier of 15 is applicable as age was approximately 40-41 years, same is applied, thus compensation on account of loss of dependency comes to Rs. 50,000 x 15 = Rs. 7,50,000. In addition claimants are entitled for further sum of Rs. 30,000 under the customary heads such as funeral expenses, loss to estate and loss of expectancy of life inclusive of a sum of Rs. 7,500 awarded to the widow on account of loss of consortium. Thus the total compensation comes to Rs. 7,80,000 (rupees seven lakh eighty thousand ). The compensation enhanced by this court to carry the interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. ( 8. ) RESULTANTLY, the appeal is allowed in part to the aforesaid extent. Parties to bear their own costs as incurred of this appeal. Appeal partly allowed.