JUDGMENT i) When an innovation has been made by the introduction of deeming provision regarding 'notional income' for the purpose of facilitating/providing compensation to the victims, in cases involving death/injury to 'no income group', whether the same provision can be misutilised for the purpose of mutilating the rights of the parties to get fair compensation, despite the availability of direct evidence for actual income? ii) Whether the deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses can be applied invariably in all cases, irrespective of the number of dependants? These are the issues raised in this appeal. 2. The first appellant / petitioner, Maheswari, (P-1), aged 29, Minor.Naveen (P-2), aged 8, Minor.Vishal (P-3), aged 11 months, father-Dharmalingam, (P-4), aged 67 and mother-Rajalingam, (P-5), aged 63, claimed a sum of Rs.20 lakhs as compensation, in respect of death of Babu. 3. The deceased Babu, aged 35 years, doing business in Garment Exports, earning a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month, died in an accident that took place on 25.10.2004. 4. The Tribunal quantified the compensation and awarded a sum of Rs.1,69,000/- under the following breakup details:- Loss of income - Rs.1,60,000/- Funeral expenses - Rs. 2,000/- Loss of consortium to P-1 - Rs. 5,000/- Loss to estate - Rs. 2,000/- ------------- Rs.1,69,000/- ------------- 5. While calculating the loss of income, the Tribunal took the presumptive income at Rs.15,000/- per annum, and deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses, took the dependency at Rs.10,000/- and adopting the multiplier of 16' (age of the deceased 35), awarded a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- towards loss of dependency. No amount has been awarded towards loss of love and affection. 6. The award passed by the Tribunal is impugned in this appeal. 7. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that when the income tax returns have been filed to show the income of the deceased the Tribunal is not justified in taking the notional income as the basis for calculation of the loss of income. 7.1. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to look into the documentary evidence adduced in this case. The principle involved in making calculations towards assessment of prospective increase in income has been laid down in the decision reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 (Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh). 7.1. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to look into the documentary evidence adduced in this case. The principle involved in making calculations towards assessment of prospective increase in income has been laid down in the decision reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 (Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh). It has been held in the above case that in the case of self-employed persons or persons with fixed wages, in case the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects of the deceased. Whether the Tribunal has adopted this principle is the issue to be considered. 7.2. It would be appropriate to quote the very same decision (reported supra in 2013 ACJ 1403 (Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh), wherein loss of consortium has been awarded at Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of care and guidance for the minor children. In this case, one of the minors was aged 11 months at the time of accident who would not have the pleasure of recollecting not even the face of the father. Admittedly, the minor children would lose the guidance, support, care, protection and development at the hands of their father. 8. The next contention is that when the deceased had large number of family members, to feed and support, there is no justification in deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased while calculating the loss of dependency. This issue has been answered by the decision Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. SLP (C) No. 24489 of 2010 dated 23.04.2012) (2012 ACJ 1428). The relevant observation reads as under:- “Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.” 9. The quantification has to be made in accordance with the principle laid down in the above two cases. The quantification has to be made in accordance with the principle laid down in the above two cases. 10. The claimants, in order to prove the income, have filed Exs.P-7 to P-9, income-tax returns, covering the income for the period 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005, respectively. During these three years, the income had been Rs.68,000 (Ex.P-7), Rs.1,00,548/- (Ex.P-8) and Rs.1,15,345/- (Ex.P-9) respectively. The average income, per year, is Rs.94,631/-. Even though the income-tax returns had been filed by the deceased himself, the status of the family has been shown as Hindu Undivided Family. Then, it means that the other partners/other members in Hindu Undivided Family, who are in the business, ought to be considered, who will be entitled to a share in the business/share in the income. 11.According to the partnership deed filed (Ex.P-10), the partners are two in number.As there are two partners, the income of the deceased would be Rs.94,631/- / 2 = Rs.47,315/-. Adding 30% towards future prospective increase in income, the total amount of compensation will be Rs.61,510/-. Deducting 1/4th (Rs.17,743/-) towards the personal expenses, the dependency would be Rs.46,132.5/-, rounded off to Rs.46,135/-. Adopting multiplier of 16', the loss of income would be Rs.7,38,160/-. Loss of income - Rs.7,38,160/- Loss of consortium to wife - Rs. 50,000/- Loss of love and affection to each of minors (2 x 50,000/-) - Rs. 1,00,000/- Loss of love and affection to parents (2 x Rs.20,000/-) - Rs. 40,000/- Funeral expenses - Rs. 5,000/- Loss to Estate - Rs. 33,000/- ------------- Rs.9,66,160/- ------------- 12. Before parting with the case, it is relevant to point out that the approach of the Tribunal in rejecting the evidence of PW1 Maheshwari, without giving any reason and placing misconstruction over the documents showing the income are not appreciable. 13. The Tribunal has taken the notional income as the income of the deceased. The notional income can be taken into account only when the deceased person might not have been earning person (i.e.) children etc. Even in cases where there is no acceptable evidence to show the income, the minimum income which one would have earned when he has to maintain the family consisting of five members ought to have been considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the income of the deceased in proper perspective, when there are documents produced to show the same. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the income of the deceased in proper perspective, when there are documents produced to show the same. Even assuming that the documents do not merit acceptance, even then the Tribunal should have taken atleast the minimum income that would have been earned by the deceased considering his age and his earning capacity. That has not been done. 14. The attitude of the Tribunal in not even considering the grant of award towards loss of love and affection when the age of two children was 8 years and 11 months respectively is highly deplorable. For the want of children, nobody can say either 'NO' or 'TOMORROW' as the blood and bones were being formed right from the time of birth. Nearly, after the decade, now the appeal has been decided. For the woman aged 29, (who lost her husband) with two infants and two in-laws, the award at Rs.1,69,000/- would have sent more intensified shockwaves than the death itself. 14.1. Access to justice did not mean access to court buildings and legal advise alone. It means the facility to obtain quality as well as speedy justice. It would be appropriate to quote Attorney General Robert McClelland on access to justice, wherein, he has said:- “An effective justice system must be accessible in all its parts. Without this, the system risks losing its relevance to and the respect of, the community it serves. Accessibility is about more than ease of access to sandstone buildings or getting legal advice. It involves an appreciation and understanding of the needs of those who require the assistance of the legal system.” 14.2. If the Tribunals, which are exercising jurisdiction involving compensatory jurisprudence, atleast, if keep in mind the meaning of access to justice, it will be beneficial/useful to the needy people. 15. In the result, this Appeal is allowed, enhancing the quantum of compensation from Rs.1,69,000/- to Rs.9,66,160/-, rounded of to Rs.9,66,200/-. The respondent / Transport Corporation shall deposit the entire amount of compensation, less the amount already deposited with interest at 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The first claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,66,200/-, and 2 and 3 a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- each, and 4 and 5 a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each, with proportionate interest. The first claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,66,200/-, and 2 and 3 a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- each, and 4 and 5 a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each, with proportionate interest. On such deposit, claimants 1, 4 and 5 are entitled to withdraw their share of compensation, less the amount already withdrawn, if any. The amount payable to the minors / claimants 2 and 3 will remain in fixed deposit, in any one of the Nationalised Banks, to be renewed periodically, till they attain majority and the mother / first appellant is entitled to withdraw the interest, once in three months, directly from the Bank, under intimation to the Tribunal and utilise the same for the benefit and welfare of the minors. No costs.