JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Both these appeals are interconnected together, hence are being disposed of by this single judgment. 2. The accident occurred on 31.12.2009 on Haldwani Kashipur Road at about 8 AM. The deceased Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta, a businessman of around 41 years of age, was travelling in his Indica Car, which was being driven by Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta. A Maruti Zen was coming from in front. That Maruti Zen somehow dashed with the left side of the Indica Car making such car disbalanced and ultimately the Indica swerved from the main road. Driver Pawan Kumar Gupta could not control the vehicle and it dashed against a roadside tree. This accident caused the death of the husband/father of the claimants on the same day. A Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 129/2013 was launched by Smt. Meenakshi Gupta, the wife of the deceased, along with her two minor daughters Km. Gauri and Km. Rakhi. Such petition was decreed on 29.9.2014 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarding Rs. 27,46,300/-, in total, as compensation to the claimants. Being dissatisfied, both the parties have filed these cross-appeals against the said award. 3. A very germane fact in the present controversy is that both the cars were insured with The United India Insurance Company Ltd. So, there is no dispute as regards the fastening of the liability i.e. leaving The United India Insurance Company Ltd. and passing on such liability to another insurance company. However, learned Counsel on behalf of the insurance company has urged that the Tribunal has adverted the finding of negligence on the driver of the Indica Car, and not on the Maruti Zen. So, the matter is covered under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, wherefor there was no necessity to prove the negligence of the driver of the Maruti Zen. 4. The Court does not find any substance in such submission of learned Counsel for the insurance company for the reason that the person, who was sitting on the rear seat of that Indica Car, has been examined before the Tribunal as an eyewitness of the accident and he has deposed about the accident in the manner in which it had taken place. So, to attribute the liability entirely on the driver of the Indica Car does not sound proper in its place. So, to attribute the liability entirely on the driver of the Indica Car does not sound proper in its place. Certainly, it could have a matter of contributory negligence, but this by itself does not give any relief to The United India Insurance Company Ltd. because it was the insurer of both the cars at the relevant time. 5. That apart, looking to the language of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is apparent that the Legislature has nowhere used the word “negligence” in the entire provision, under which the application seeking compensation was moved. 6. As regards the quantum, learned Counsel of the insurance company has urged that even if the income of the deceased is taken into consideration on the basis of the income tax assessment pertaining to the year 2009-10, as has been taken by the learned Trial Judge, then also in such financial year, after deducting the standard amount to the tune of Rs. 1,10,000/-, at least ten per cent of the income should also have been deducted as tax from the rest of the amount. If this exercise is done, then in that financial year, the income tax exigible from the deceased businessman was around Rs. 16,000/-. So, his income in such financial year could have been Rs. 2,62,150/-. Applying the notion of deducting one-third for his own expenses, the amount comes to Rs. 1,74,847/-. 7. Learned Counsel of the insurance company has agreed that the multiplier of 14 has rightly been applied by the learned Tribunal. So, this way, after applying that multiplier, the amount comes to Rs. 24,47,858/-. 8. As regards the enhancement of the total amount of award, learned Counsel for the claimants has submitted that future prospects of the deceased have not at all been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. This argument has been refuted by the learned Counsel of the insurance company by submitting that the deceased was an ordinary businessman, engaged in the business of real state. He further submitted that there always remains uncertainty as regards the augmentation of such a business and an entrepreneur may even face fall in such business. 9. So, on the above aspect, this Court is not inclined to enhance the award. However, at the same time, instead of rupees one lakh, awarded by the Tribunal for the loss of consortium, is increased to rupees one lakh fifty thousand. 9. So, on the above aspect, this Court is not inclined to enhance the award. However, at the same time, instead of rupees one lakh, awarded by the Tribunal for the loss of consortium, is increased to rupees one lakh fifty thousand. This way the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 25,97,858/- (rupees twenty five lakhs ninety seven thousand eight hundred and fifty eight). Other amounts, awarded by the Tribunal towards other heads, are left intact. This way, the final amount of compensation is assessed as Rs. 26,47,858/- and the same is enhanced to its nearest round figure total of Rs. 26,50,000/- (rupees twenty six lakhs fifty thousand). The interest awarded by the Tribunal shall remain intact. 10. The impugned award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above. 11. The modified amount of compensation, the break up of which has been given above, shall be deposited by The United India Insurance Company Ltd. before the Tribunal concerned within six weeks from today. The same shall be released in favour of the claimants, as per their respective share, without asking any surety/security from them. 12. Both these appeals stands disposed of accordingly. 13. Let the lower court record be returned back.