JUDGMENT 1. - These two miscellaneous appeals, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arise out of the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur in claim case No.1790/99 decided on 17.09.2001. 2. Brief facts relevant for consideration are that the deceased Kamal Kishore Sabu was travelling in a Jeep, which met in an accident near Sodium Company Gobindi, Nawa City. The Jeep collided with the bus belonging to the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation bearing registration No.RJ-14-P-4573. As a result of the aforesaid accident, which took place on 25.01.1999 Kamal Kishore received injuries and consequently, he died on 01.02.1999. 3. The learned Tribunal held while deciding Issue No.1 that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus of the appellant-R.S.R.T.C. which is in appeal S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.144 of 2002. 4. As a consequence, the learned Tribunal determined the amount of compensation and awarded compensation to the extent of Rs. 15,30,000/- to the claimants, who are the parents, in the appeal being S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.65 of 2002, with interest @ 9% per annum. 5. In the appeal filed by the R.S.R.T.C. i.e. S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.144/2002, the learned counsel for the appellant-RSRTC has challenged the award on the findings on Issue No.1 relating to the rash and negligent driving. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the accident took place as a result of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep itself and not on account of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus. 7. As per the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant the accident took place on account of the driver of the jeep trying to over take a tractor trolley and loosing the control and colliding with the bus in question belong to the R.S.R.T.C. 8. Learned counsel for the claimants, on the other hand, contended that so far as the aforesaid submission is concerned, the learned Tribunal has taken into account the entire set of evidence and has arrived at a finding of fact on the basis of the appreciation of evidence available on record in Paragraph No.15 of the award which calls for no interference on the basis of the reasons stated therein. 9. 9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the record, and I find that the learned Tribunal while deciding the aforesaid issue has taken into consideration the material on record, including the documents pertaining to the challan of the driver of the bus Bhagwan Singh on account of the accident for the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A I.P.C. and other documents which include the site-plan Exhibit-4, wherein the location of the Jeep as well as bus have been shown and have been taken into account by the learned Tribunal. On that basis prima-facie the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the location of the two vehicles goes to show that the driver of the bus was negligent in driving the vehicle. This is apparent as the Jeep is well on the left side of the road and the bus has been shown in the middle of the road. This definitely leads to the conclusion that the driver of the bus did not take evasive action to all allow the Jeep to pass and continue to drive the bus in the middle of the road. 10. The learned Tribunal has also taken into account the statement of the eye witness Smt. Meena wife of the deceased, who was travelling along with the deceased in the said Jeep. No other eye witness from the side of the R.S.R.T.C. other than the driver has been produced. 11. The statements of the applicants-witnesses find corroboration from the documentary evidence, which was produced before the learned Tribunal and which was collected during investigation by the Police in the case registered on the F.I.R. lodged by the claimants on account of which the challan against the driver of the bus was filed. 12. The learned Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the theory, which was put by the R.S.R.T.C. before the learned Tribunal and before this Court that the accident occurred on account of the driver of the Jeep trying to over take a tractor trolley does not find corroboration, as no question to that effect was put to Smt. Meena, AW-1, who was an eye-witness and travelling in the jeep. If the case of the R.S.R.T.C. was that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Jeep in the manner as said to be contended before this Court the aforesaid case ought to have been put by way of cross-examination to the witness, who appeared before the learned Tribunal and who were the eye witnesses. This obviously omission show that the submission is an after thought. 13. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, it cannot be said that view which has been taken by the learned Tribunal while deciding Issue No.1 regarding the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus is erroneous so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 14. The aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the R.S.R.T.C. is accordingly rejected. 15. Next submission of the learned counsel for the R.S.R.T.C. is with regard to the determination of the quantum of compensation. 16. The learned counsel for the appellant-RSRTC contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in determining the income of the deceased on the basis of the Income Tax Returns of the deceased immediately preceding the time of the accident and not the Income Tax Returns as a whole by taking the average of the income on the basis of the returns from 1991 upto the year 1999. 17. Learned counsel sought to contend that the Returns for the year 1999 is highly exaggerated and should not have been relied upon. 18. The learned counsel for the claimants, on the other hand, contended that the learned Tribunal has not based the computation of income merely upon the last Income Tax Return submitted by the claimants but has taken into account the average based on the last three Income Tax Returns for the year 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000. 19. Learned counsel contended that so far as the filing of the returns before the learned Tribunal for the year 1991 is concerned the same were filed only with a view to satisfy the learned Tribunal that the deceased was paying income tax regularly and that the return had not been filed merely to create evidence with regard to the present claim petition. 20. So far as the determination of the income of the deceased is concerned the period relevant is the date of death. 20. So far as the determination of the income of the deceased is concerned the period relevant is the date of death. What was the income of the deceased prior to the accident in the past is not of so much importance when there is proof of the income of the more recent period immediately preceding the accident as in this case. 21. In any event, the learned Tribunal has taken the average income of the preceding three years while computing the income of the deceased which can not be said to be an erroneous approach. 22. In that view of the matter, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-R.S.R.T.C. that the learned Tribunal has erred in taking into account the income for the year 1999-2000 alone for computing the income of the deceased cannot be accepted. 23. So far as the appeal filed by the claimant for enhancement is concerned, the learned counsel for the claimant contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in taking an average of the income based upon the last three years as reflected in the Income Tax Returns. 24. Learned counsel submits that only the income of the last returns for the year 1999-2000 ought to have been taken into account and not by taking the average of the last three years. 25. So far as the aforesaid is concerned, I am of the view that looking to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the income for the preceding year was Rs. 79,738/- in 1997-98, Rs. 98,310 for the year 1998, which increased to Rs. 1,86,246/- in the year 1999-2000 as claimed, the learned Tribunal has acted by adopting a safe and prudent method by taking an average of the last three years as it can not be ruled out in a given case when a return is filed after the accident/death that an inflated return may be filed. 26. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case the approach of the learned Tribunal cannot be said to be erroneous in taking an average and computing the income by rounding it up. 27. Submission of the learned counsel for the claimant for enhancement of the claim based upon the fact that the last returns of the deceased reflected an income of Rs. 27. Submission of the learned counsel for the claimant for enhancement of the claim based upon the fact that the last returns of the deceased reflected an income of Rs. 1,86,000/- and odd cannot be accepted and no exception can be taken to the finding of the learned Tribunal. 28. Next submission of the learned counsel for the claimant is that the learned Tribunal has erred in adopting the multiplier of 15, when the age of the deceased had been shown to be 38 years. 29. The learned counsel for the R.S.R.T.C. on the other hand, contended that so far as the age of the deceased is concerned the postmortem report reflected that the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 40 years and, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the age of the deceased was 40 years and the multiplier of 15, which is applicable in the case of person between the age group of 40-45 years, as mentioned in the II Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 has rightly been adopted. 30. The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that there was evidence on record to show that the deceased was not 40 years, as has been held by the learned Tribunal and that his date of birth is 05.09.1960, which is there in the Income Tax Returns filed by the claimant as Exhibit-18-19 on record, wherein the date of birth of the deceased has been given as 05.09.1960. 31. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that based upon the aforesaid material available on record on the date of the accident i.e. 25.01.1999 the age of the deceased would not exceed 40 years and, therefore, the multiplier for the age group of 35-40 ought to have been adopted as per the provisions of the II Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 32. Having considered the rival submissions and having perused the evidence on record, including Exhibit 18 and 19, which are the Income Tax Returns of the deceased, I find that the deceased had stated his date of birth to be 05.09.1960. It cannot be said that the deceased was incorrectly showing his date of birth in the Income Tax Returns, merely upon the assumption that the same may be required for the purposes of determination of his age in any proceedings and there by creating evidence in his favour. It cannot be said that the deceased was incorrectly showing his date of birth in the Income Tax Returns, merely upon the assumption that the same may be required for the purposes of determination of his age in any proceedings and there by creating evidence in his favour. Thus, it cannot be presumed that the deceased was giving his date of birth in the Returns incorrectly. 33. In that view of the matter, taking the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it would be safe to presume that the deceased at the time of the accident on 01.02.1999 was below 40 years of age. 34. In that view of the matter, the multiplier to be adopted would be 16, which is applicable in the case of the death of a person between the age group of 35-40 years. Accordingly the loss of income to the estate of the deceased is assessed as Rs. one lac per annum after deduction of ⅓rd towards personal expenses and adopting a multiplier of 16, it would come to 16-lacs under this head. 35. In the facts and circumstances of the case, so far as the compensation under other head is concerned, the same does not call for any interference. 36. Accordingly, the miscellaneous appeal No.65 of 2002 filed by the claimants is allowed to the limited extent that the appellant would be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. one lac on the basis of the aforesaid findings with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of this miscellaneous appeal i.e. 21.12.2001. 37. The aforesaid amount to be paid to the claimants by means of demand draft before the learned Tribunal within a period of 90-days from today. 38. The miscellaneous appeal bearing No.144 of 2002 filed by the R.S.R.T.C. is accordingly dismissed. 39. In the facts and circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs.Appeal No. 65/2002 allowed/Appeal No. 144/2002 dismissed. *******