JUDGMENT : 1. Challenge, in this appeal, is to the judgment under the award dated 10/05/2006 delivered by the Court Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal and (EC Act), Jaipur in claim case No. 331/2004 (2709/2001) whereby the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 9,12,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimants-appellants and against respondents-non-claimants. 2. Brief facts of the case are that one Ramballabh Sadh died on account of injuries sustained in a motor accident which occurred on 04/12/2001 involving a truck bearing No. DL-1G-A-6208 belonging to respondent No. 2 (non-applicant No. 2). At the time of the accident and untimely death, the deceased was aged about 45 years and was involved in printing business. His widow and four children filed a claim for Rs. 64,67000/-before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal and (EC Act). The Tribunal, by its judgment and award dated 10/05/2006, allowed the claim in part. Dissatisfed with the quantum of compensation, the appellant preferred this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that while deciding issue No. 4 learned Tribunal wrongly applied the multiplier of 11 only despite the fact that the age of the deceased was duly proved to be 45 years. Thus, the multiplier of 15 should have been applied. In this regard, the Tribunal has not considered the postmortem report in which the age of the deceased is mentioned as 45 years. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal failed in not considering the income of the deceased to be Rs. 18,000/- per month while assessing the amount of compensation to be awarded, as also, the future prospects of the deceased. Given the age of the deceased, the income should have been doubled while considering future prospects. It is also submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed serious error in deducting one-third (1/3rd) amount towards personal expenses whereas looking to the age of the deceased and number of dependents, the amount for personal expenses should not have been deducted as one-third (1/3rd). Lastly, it is submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded lesser sum towards the loss of consortium, love and affection as also, the funeral expenses incurred. In support of the arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 (Supreme Court), Rajesh and Ors versus Rajbeer Singh and Ors. 4. Lastly, it is submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded lesser sum towards the loss of consortium, love and affection as also, the funeral expenses incurred. In support of the arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 (Supreme Court), Rajesh and Ors versus Rajbeer Singh and Ors. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 supported the impugned judgment and award and submitted that the same is just and proper, warranting no interference. 5. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. 6. So far as the age of the deceased is concerned, as per the oral testimony of PW-1 Smt. Vimla Devi, the deceased was a post graduate. In this situation, in my considered opinion, the appellants could have conveniently produced the record of the school and college of the deceased, to prove his age but they failed to do so. 7. Admittedly, deceased was engaged in the business of printing and was an income tax payer. Ex-16 Income Tax Return which was filled in by the deceased himself reveals the date of birth of the deceased as 25/11/1950. Thus, the age of the deceased is proved to be 50-51 years. In light of these facts and circumstances, only on the basis of the oral evidence, it is not proved that the age of the appellant was 45 years at the time of his death i.e. on 4/12/2001. 8. In my opinion, looking to Ex-16 and other facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above merely on the basis of postmortem report the age of the deceased could not be proved to be as 45 years at the time of death. As mentioned above, the age of the deceased is proved to be 50-51 years, hence, the multiplier of 11 was rightly applied by the Tribunal. 9. As far as the income of the deceased is concerned, it is proved from the evidence that deceased was engaged in business in the name of M/s. Vinay Enterprises and he was the proprietor of the above firm. Income Tax Returns Ex-16, 17 and 18 which were duly proved by AW-2 Prashant Garg, shows the annual income in financial year 1999-2000 as 96,131/-, in financial year 2000-2001 Rs. 1,08,391/- and in financial year 2001-2002 Rs. 1,19,310/-. Income Tax Returns Ex-16, 17 and 18 which were duly proved by AW-2 Prashant Garg, shows the annual income in financial year 1999-2000 as 96,131/-, in financial year 2000-2001 Rs. 1,08,391/- and in financial year 2001-2002 Rs. 1,19,310/-. In these circumstances, AW-1 Vimla Devi, who stated in her oral testimony as well as in her cross-examination that her husband's income was Rs. 18,000/- per month, is not reliable. In this regard, learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal has given detailed reasons in the impugned judgment which are in my view not factually and legally incorrect and learned Tribunal has not erred in determining the average annual income of the deceased as Rs. 1,20,000/- on the basis of above income tax returns. 10. So far as future prospects are concerned, in the case at hand, the age of the deceased is proved to be as 50-51 years. Therefore, no addition in the income of the deceased towards future prospects is required. Although, Hon'ble Supreme Court in an earlier Judgment Rajesh and Ors. versus Rajbeer Singh and Ors. (supra) that increase of income for future prospects may also be applied to persons who were self employed or were engaged on fixed wages but in later Judgment reported in 2013 (2 TAC 369) Reshma Kumari and Ors. Versus Madan Mohan and Anr. Hon'ble (Supreme Court) observed as under:- “36. The standardization of addition to income for future prospects shall help in achieving certainty in arriving at appropriate compensation. We approve the method that an addition of 50% of actual salary be made to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years and the addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years and no addition should be made where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the actual salary shall mean actual salary less tax. In the cases where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increments, the actual income at the time of death without any addition to income for future prospects will be appropriate. A departure from the above principle can only be justified in extraordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases.” 11. In the cases where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increments, the actual income at the time of death without any addition to income for future prospects will be appropriate. A departure from the above principle can only be justified in extraordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases.” 11. In the above Judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically observed that in the cases where the deceased was self employed or was on fixed wages without provision for annual increments, the actual income at the time of death without any addition to income for future prospects will be appropriate. Also, as mentioned above the age of the deceased is proved to be 50-51 years and in this regard, Hon'ble Apex Court in the above Judgment clearly held in the cases where the deceased was above 50 years, no addition to the income should be made. 12. As far as the contention of deduction of one-third (1/3rd) amount towards personal expenses is concerned, looking to the age of the deceased and number of dependents the amount for personal expenses should not have been deducted as one-third (1/3rd). I found substance in this contention. Admittedly, deceased left his wife and 4 children behind him as dependents. The judgment reported in 2013 (2TAC 369) (Supreme Court), Reshma Kumari and Ors. Versus Madan Mohan and Anr. Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under: - “37. As regards deduction for personal and living expenses, in Sarla Verma, (supra) this Court considered Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra (supra) and Fakeerappa and Anr. v. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory and Other, (2004) 2 S.C.C. 473 : 2004 (2) TAC 8 and finally in paras 30, 31, and 32 held as under: “30. ...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. 31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. 31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. 32. Thus, even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.” 13. In the above judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed 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. Therefore, in the case at hand, one-fourth (1/4th)should have been deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. The learned Tribunal erred in deducting only one- third (1/3rd) towards personal and living expenses, therefore, the impugned award is liable to be modified accordingly. 14. So far as the compensation against loss of consortium is concerned, I am of the view that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that the deceased died at an age of 50-51 leaving behind a widow and four children. 14. So far as the compensation against loss of consortium is concerned, I am of the view that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that the deceased died at an age of 50-51 leaving behind a widow and four children. The non pecuniary loss of companionship love and affection was underestimated by the learned Tribunal and awarding of a nominal sum of Rs. 10,000/- without furnishing any reason for the same, was not just and fair. Hence, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, as also, the view of the judgment in Rajesh and Ors versus Rajbeer Singh and Ors. (supra), the amount of the compensation towards loss of consortium is hereby enhanced from 27,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-. So far as funeral expenses are concerned, considering the fact that the cost of living index has risen, in my view, the learned Tribunal has had a paltry approach towards assessing the actual expenses incurred in the performance of rituals and custom pursuant to the death of a family member, “funeral expenses” is a compendious term and includes not only payment of compensation but also expenses for every other religious practice which is incidental to the performance of the rites. Awarding a meagre sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards the funeral expenses by the learned Tribunal is not just and proper. I hence, consider it just and proper to grant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- under this head. 15. From the above discussion, the compensation must be reassessed as follows:- Annual income of the deceased = 1,20,000/- One-fourth (1/4th) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased = 1,20,000/- 30000,/- = 90,000/- Compensation after multiplier of 11 is applied = 9,90,000/- Losss of consortium and care and guidance for children = 50,000/- Funeral expenses 10,000/- Total = 10,50,000/- 16. Accordingly, the award is enhanced from Rs. 9,12,000/-to Rs. 10,50,000/- in total. The appellants shall be entitled to the interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal on the enhanced amount. As regards, the liability of the respondent for the enhanced amount is concerned, it will be same as held by the Tribunal. The Tribunal is free to make the distribution of enhanced amount as per its discretion for which the parties are free to file an application. Appeal is disposed off accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.