JUDGMENT K. Kannan, J.:- I The Accident 1. FAOs Nos.680 and 681 of 2000 are taken up together with the consent of both the parties since they arise out of the same accident. FAO No. 680 of 2000 is against the decision in MACT Case No. 91 of 1994 and FAO 681 of 2000 is against the judgement in MACT Case No.92 of 1994. In the motor accident that took place on 16- 07-1994, Bhupinder Singh was driving Maruti Car No. PB-10K-7773 and his father Harcharan Singh was travelling with him in the said car. Both of them died in the accident in collision with the truck bearing No.PCR-8422. The petitioners before the Tribunal were the wife and children of Harcharan Singh. The two claim petitions were filed as dependents of both Harcharan Singh and Bhupinder Singh. The widow of Harcharan Singh (the mother of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3) also died during the pendency of the appeal on 21-09-1995 and the case was prosecuted only by the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3. II Evidence regarding status and income 2. Before the Tribunal, evidence was adduced to the effect that the father and the brother were both doing business as contractors and they had a lucrative income out of their respective work as contractors with the Government. Evidence had also been tendered before the Tribunal that both the deceased persons had been paying income tax. Income tax deducted at source and the TDS certificates issued by the Government when it had availed the services of the deceased persons, had been produced. There was also evidence that the father was earning per month Rs.13,709.04p and Rs.14867.57p during the year 1991-1992 and 1992-1993 respectively. The income-tax practitioner had been examined as AW4 relating to income of Harcharan Singh and Bhupinder Singh. Even apart from the income from their business in doing contracts by the Government, evidence had been tendered to the effect that the father was cultivating the land on lease and was paying lease amount of Rs.3500/-per acre per year. The lease deed had been marked as Exhibit A8. The appellants’ contention in oral evidence was that the father was earning at least Rs.25,000 to Rs.30,000/-per month and the brother Bhupinder Singh was earning between Rs.15,000 to Rs.20,000/-per month. The lease deed had been marked as Exhibit A8. The appellants’ contention in oral evidence was that the father was earning at least Rs.25,000 to Rs.30,000/-per month and the brother Bhupinder Singh was earning between Rs.15,000 to Rs.20,000/-per month. The T.D.S.Certificates for the father had been marked as Exhibits A2 to A11 while the T.D.S. Certificates for the brother had been marked as Exhibits A17 to A20. III Dispensation at the Tribunal: 3. The Trial Court found that the evidence produced by the appellants regarding the income of the deceased stood unrebutted but all the same , that the contribution of the family could have been only Rs.3000/-per month and reckoned the annual dependency of children to be Rs.36,000/-. The Tribunal applied a multiplier of “10” and awarded compensation of Rs.3,60,000/-as the amount payable to the appellants for the death of the father. While considering the compensation arising out of the death of the brother, the Tribunal took note of the fact that his own contribution towards the family would have fallen after his marriage if he had been alive and that he would have contributed Rs.800/-per month to the appellants. Their annual dependency was calculated at Rs.9600/- and multiplier of “16” had been adopted to arrive at Rs.1,53,600/-as compensation payable. IV Claims for enhancement, how justified: 4. The appellants seek for enhancement in both the cases. Counsel for the appellants contends on the finding of the Tribunal that the income of the deceased person stood unrebutted, it ought to have taken the income as stated in the petition and the dependency calculated at Rs.3000/-per month was grossly low. In a similar way, the counsel also contended that the contribution of the brother to the family as assessed at Rs.800/-per month was also grossly low and the compensation arrived at was erroneous. Counsel for the respondent supports the judgement of the Tribunal by pointing out that the dependency at Rs.3000/-had been reckoned only on the basis that the monthly income would have been only Rs.4500/-and the appellants not having put in evidence the best material by producing the income tax returns the assessment orders cannot merely rely on the T.D.S.Certificates for boosting their claims. He would also submit that the assessment of compensation for the death of the brother was also realistic that the appellants cannot duplicate their claim after making a claim for the death of the father .If they had been depending on the father, they could not be said to be dependent on the brother for their living. According to him, the award of compensation of Rs.1,56,300/-for the death of the brother was more than adequate. 5. It is an unfortunate situation where the appellants who are young in age who were minors at the time of presentation of the petition, had become orphans by the death of their mother during the time of the trial. The appellants took trial at a time when their father had died, their eldest brother had also met the same fate and their mother had died a natural death. I see significant force in the contention of the counsel for the appellants that when the Tribunal found that there was uncontroverted evidence regarding the income of the deceased persons, the Tribunal could not have taken only Rs.3000/-as contribution to the family arising out of the death of the father. The Tribunal had also not taken note of the income from agricultural operations which their father had been shown to have carried out by production of lease deed. It is no doubt true that the income-tax returns have not been filed but filed the T.D.S. Certificates and the tax deducted at source is a percentage of income and it is not difficult to assess what could have been earned by the deceased father as brought out through evidence of AW4 . There is no reason to doubt either the T.D.S. Certificates or the income charts made by the income-tax practitioner and produced in court evidence as Exhibit A21 to A22. The monthly income of the father had been shown as ranging between Rs.13,000 to Rs.14,800/-. Having regard to the fact that the father would have under the normal circumstances lived long enough to support the family and bring up the children he could have earned at least Rs.15,000/-per month and the father would have contributed at least Rs.5000/-towards the children . Given the social and cultural traits of Indian families, the contribution of the elder brother cannot be doubted. I assess the dependency of the appellants on their elder brother at Rs.1500/-per month. Given the social and cultural traits of Indian families, the contribution of the elder brother cannot be doubted. I assess the dependency of the appellants on their elder brother at Rs.1500/-per month. The choice of multiplier by the Tribunal at “10” is on the lower side, even less than what is set out in Schedule-II to the Motor Vehicles Act. The relevant multiplier given under the Schedule is “13” for a person between 50-55, I take the appropriate multiplier to be “12” in view of the fact that the income more than what is set out in the Schedule. The compensation towards their extent of dependence of their father is estimated at Rs.5000x12x12=7,20,000/-. As regards the claim of the appellants as dependent upon their brother while increasing the amount to Rs.1500/-per month, I deem it necessary to reduce the multiplier from “16” to 10, having regard to the fact that the brother would have got married and his contribution to the family would have reduced. I cannot, however, assume that the brother would not have contributed to the family and that his father would have alone done the same. Assuming that the brother would have played an important role in supporting the family offering emotional and physical support to his younger siblings, the appropriate amount that would be payable on account of the death of the brother comes to be Rs.1500x12x10 =1,80,000/-. As regards the father’s death, the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.3,60,000/-and the appellants would be entitled to an additional sum of Rs.3,60,000/-being the dependents . As regards the claim in respect of the death of their brother, the appellants would be entitled to difference between Rs.1,80,000/-and Rs.1,53,600/- i.e. Rs.26,400/-rounded to Rs.27,000/-. Even apart from the above, the petitioners would also be entitled to Rs.20,000/-towards loss of love and affection of their father. V Result: 6. Under the circumstances, the appellants would be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.3.80 lacs (Rs.three lakhs eighty thousand only) with simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment as regards their claim in FAO 680 of 2000 and an additional sum of Rs.27,000/-{Rs.twenty seven thousand only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum due to the death of their brother which is the subject matter of appeal in FAO 681 of 2000. 7. Both FAOs Nos. 7. Both FAOs Nos. 680 and 681 of 2000 are allowed partially in the above terms. ------------------