JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. The claimants have thrown challenge to the judgment and award dated 23.3.2012, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Shimla in M.A.C. No. 04-S/2 of 2011, titled Smt. Anubha Sood and others versus Sh. Krishan Chand and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.7,72,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum came to be awarded in favour of the claimants/appellants herein and against the respondents and insurer came to be saddled with the liability, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award” for short, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. The insurer, driver and owner have not questioned the impugned award on any ground, thus it has attained finality so far it relates to them. The claimants/appellants have questioned the impugned award only on the ground of adequacy of compensation on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal read with the averments contained in the claim petition and evidence led before the Tribunal. 3. Thus, the only question to be determined in this appeal is whether the compensation awarded is adequate or otherwise? 4. In order to determine whether the amount awarded is just and appropriate, it is necessary to give a brief resume of the relevant facts. 5. The claimants being the victims of a vehicular accident filed claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, for short “the Tribunal”, for the grant of compensation as per the break-ups given in the memo of appeal, on the ground that they have lost source of dependency on account of death of Sh.Rajesh Sood in a road accident, which was caused by respondent No.2 Sh.Satish Kumar, while driving Canter bearing registration No. HR-64-5419, rashly and negligently, owned by Sh.Krishan Chand, respondent No.1. It is averred in the claim petition that on 27.5.2010, Sh.Rajesh Sood was travelling in his Scorpio bearing registration No. HP-06B-0144 towards Solan and when he reached Mansar, aforementioned Canter came from opposite side and hit his vehicle. He received severe injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. FIR was lodged in police station Solan. It is averred that the deceased was a businessman, orchardist and agent of the Life Insurance Corporation and was 42 years of age, at the time of accident. He received severe injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. FIR was lodged in police station Solan. It is averred that the deceased was a businessman, orchardist and agent of the Life Insurance Corporation and was 42 years of age, at the time of accident. He was drawing salary to the tune of Rs.1,06,483/ from his firm M/s Mehar Chand Mool Raj, Main Bazar Rampur Bushahar, Rs.21,400/- as profit from the said firm, Rs.3,64,440/- per annum, from orchards, Rs.1,40,334/- from house property and Rs.42,000/- per annum as commission, being agent of the LIC of India, the details of which have been given in paras 4 and 6 of the claim petition. He was an income tax payee and in his income tax return for the assessment year 2010-2011, his income is shown Rs.10,77,710/- and has paid Rs.77373/- as tax for the said assessment year. The claimants have lost source of dependency. 6. Respondents contested the averments contained in the claim petition by filing separate replies. 7. Following issues were framed by the Tribunal on 18.2.2011: (i) Whether on 27.5.2010, the respondent No.2 drove truck No. HR-64-5419 in a rash and negligent manner resulting into death of Rajesh Sood? OPP (ii) If issue No. 1 is proved, to what compensation the petitioners are entitled and from whom? OPP (iii) Whether accident occurred due to negligence of Rajesh Sood, if so its effect? OPR-1 (iv) Whether offending vehicle was being driven in violation of terms and condition of insurance policy? OPR-3 (v) Whether respondent No. 2 was not holding effective and valid driving license at the time of accident? OPR-3 (vi) Relief. 8. The claimants examined as many as seven witnesses, namely, H.C. Kanshi Ram (PW1), Sh. Satya Parkash, (PW2), Mrs. Santosh (PW3), Mrs. Anubha Sood claimant No.1.(PW4), Dr. Rajan Sood (PW5), Ravinder Kumar (PW6) and Prem Singh (PW7) and have also placed on record documents, i.e., copy of RIR, Ext. PW1/A, copy of DL, Ext. PW2/A, copy of RC, Ext. PW2/B, copy of Insurance policy Ext. PW3/A. 9. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence held that the claimants have proved by oral as well as documentary evidence that driver Satish Kumar had driven the vehicle rashly and negligently on the date of accident due to which deceased sustained injuries and succumbed the injuries on the spot. 10. PW2/B, copy of Insurance policy Ext. PW3/A. 9. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence held that the claimants have proved by oral as well as documentary evidence that driver Satish Kumar had driven the vehicle rashly and negligently on the date of accident due to which deceased sustained injuries and succumbed the injuries on the spot. 10. Neither driver nor owner have questioned the findings returned by the Tribunal, not to speak of findings returned on issue No. 1., so, the findings returned on issue No. 1 are upheld. 11. The findings returned on issues No. 3 to 5 are not in dispute because the onus to prove these issues was on the respondents, i.e., owner and the insurer, have failed to discharge the same and have not questioned the impugned award. Thus, the findings returned on these issues are also upheld. 12. Issue No.2. The factum of insurance is not in dispute. At the cost of repetition, the insurer has not questioned the impugned award. Thus, the issue is whether the amount awarded is just and appropriate? 13. The word “just compensation” has been used in Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”). In order to award just compensation, the Tribunal has to weigh all the aspects to come to the conclusion as to what is the just compensation. 14. In the case titled as State of Haryana and Another vs. Jasbir Kaur and Others, AIR 2003 SC 3696 , the Apex Court has discussed the expression 'just'. It is apt to reproduce para 7 of the judgment herein: "7. It has to be kept in view that the Tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in S. 168 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which is to be in the real sense "damages" which in turn appears to it to be 'just and reasonable'. It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. But at the same time it has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate the compensation must be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza; nor a source of profit; but the same should not be a pittance. But at the same time it has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate the compensation must be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza; nor a source of profit; but the same should not be a pittance. The Courts and Tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just. What would be "just" compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of "just" compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Though by use of the expression "which appears to it to be just" a wide discretion is vested on the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness. The expression "just" denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness, and non-arbitrary. If it is not so it cannot be just. (See Helen C. Rebello vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, AIR 1998 SC 3191 ." 15. The same view has been taken by the Apex Court in a case titled as The Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C. vs. Mahadeva Shetty and Another, AIR 2003 SC 4172 . 16. The Apex Court in the case titled as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mohd. Nasir & Another, 2009 AIR SCW 3717, laid down the same principle while discussing, in para 27 of the judgment, the ratio laid down in the judgments rendered in the cases titled as Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh & Others, (2003) 2 SCC 274 ; Devki Nandan Bangur and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others, 1995 ACJ 1288; Syed Basheer Ahmed & Others vs. Mohd. Jameel & Another, (2009) 2 SCC 225 ; National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut, (2007) 3 SCC 700 ; Punjab State Electricity Board Ltd. vs. Zora Singh and Others, (2005) 6 SCC 776 ; A.P. SRTC vs. STAT and State of Haryana & Others vs. Shakuntla Devi, 2008 (13) SCALE 621. 17. Jameel & Another, (2009) 2 SCC 225 ; National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut, (2007) 3 SCC 700 ; Punjab State Electricity Board Ltd. vs. Zora Singh and Others, (2005) 6 SCC 776 ; A.P. SRTC vs. STAT and State of Haryana & Others vs. Shakuntla Devi, 2008 (13) SCALE 621. 17. The Apex Court in another case titled as Ningamma & Another vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2009 AIR SCW 4916, held that the Court is duty bound to award just compensation to which the claimants are entitled to. It is profitable to reproduce para 25 of the judgment herein: “25. Undoubtedly, Section 166 of the MVA deals with “Just Compensation” and even if in the pleadings no specific claim was made under section 166 of the MVA, in our considered opinion a party should not be deprived from getting “Just Compensation” in case the claimant is able to make out a case under any provision of law. Needless to say, the MVA is beneficial and welfare legislation. In fact, the Court is duty bound and entitled to award “Just Compensation” irrespective of the fact whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the claimant or not. However, whether or not the claimants would be governed with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and whether or not the provisions of Section 147 of the MVA would be applicable in the present case and also whether or not there was rash and negligent driving on the part of the deceased, are essentially a matter of fact which was required to be considered and answered at least by the High Court.” 18. The Apex Court in the judgments delivered in the cases titled as A.P.S.R.T.C. & another vs. M. Ramadevi & Others, 2008 AIR SCW 1213 and Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza & Others vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service, 2013 AIR SCW 5800, discussed what is the just compensation. It is apt to reproduce para 9 of the judgment rendered in Sanobanu’s case supra, herein: “9. It is apt to reproduce para 9 of the judgment rendered in Sanobanu’s case supra, herein: “9. In view of the aforesaid decision of this Court, we are of the view that the legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to the compensation as mentioned under the various heads in the table as provided above in this judgment even though certain claims were not preferred by them as we are of the view that they are legally and legitimately entitled for the said claims. Accordingly we award the compensation, more than what was claimed by them as it is the statutory duty of the Tribunal and the appellate court to award just and reasonable compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased to mitigate their hardship and agony as held by this Court in a catena of cases. Therefore, this Court has awarded just and reasonable compensation in favour of the appellants as they filed application claiming compensation under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. Keeping in view the aforesaid relevant facts and legal evidence on record and in the absence of rebuttal evidence adduced by the respondent, we determine just and reasonable compensation by awarding a total sum of Rs. 16,96,000/- with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing the claim petition till the date payment is made to the appellants.” 19. The same principles of law have been laid down by this Court in case titled Jagdish versus Rahul Bus Service and others (FAO No. 524 of 2007) decided on 15.5.2015. 20. I, while dealing with a case of such a nature as Judge of Jammu and Kashmir High Court in case titled New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus Shanti Bopanna and others reported in 2014 ACJ 219, have taken all these things in view and the ratio laid down in this case is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and accordingly, the amount awarded merits to be enhanced. 21. Thus, in order to arrive at a conclusion whether the Tribunal has awarded just compensation, the Tribunal or the Appellate Court have to examine the pleadings of the parties and proof, i.e. evidence on the file. 22. The claimants have given details of the income and profession of the deceased. 21. Thus, in order to arrive at a conclusion whether the Tribunal has awarded just compensation, the Tribunal or the Appellate Court have to examine the pleadings of the parties and proof, i.e. evidence on the file. 22. The claimants have given details of the income and profession of the deceased. The reply of owner, driver and insurer are evasive, thus have not denied the same specifically, as per the mandate of Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for short “the Code”. However, they have stated that the claimants be put to strict proof. 23. The claimants have proved the date of birth of the deceased as 28.7.1968 in terms of certificate Ext. PW4/A and the Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased as 42 years and applied the multiplier of “14”. I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly taken the age of the deceased as 42 years and applied the multiplier of “14”, which is just and appropriate multiplier applicable, in view of Schedule-II of the Act, read with the ratio laid down in Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, AIR 2009 SC 3104 and upheld in Reshma Kumari and Others vs. Madan Mohan and another, 2013 AIR SCW 3120. 24. The Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased. The claimants have pleaded that the income of the deceased was Rs.10,77,710/- per annum and have placed on record the income tax return Ext. PW4/B, which do disclose that the income from the house property was Rs.1,44,334/-, salary from firm Rs.1,06,483/-, interest on capital from firm Rs.67,015/-, income from Bank/P.O deposits Rs.2,33,816/-, agriculture income Rs.3,64,440/- other deposits Rs.21,429/-, PPF deposit interest Rs.1,18,764 and total income recorded is Rs.10,77,710/-. The said document is also not denied by the respondents. 25. The apex Court in case titled Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others, (2012) 6 SCC 421 discussed this issue and it is profitable to reproduce para 11, 14 to 18 of the said judgment herein: “11. We have considered the respective arguments. The said document is also not denied by the respondents. 25. The apex Court in case titled Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others, (2012) 6 SCC 421 discussed this issue and it is profitable to reproduce para 11, 14 to 18 of the said judgment herein: “11. We have considered the respective arguments. Although, the legal jurisprudence developed in the country in last five decades is somewhat precedent-centric, the judgments which have bearing on socio-economic conditions of the citizens and issues relating to compensation payable to the victims of motor accidents, those who are deprived of their land and similar matters needs to be frequently revisited keeping in view the fast changing societal values, the effect of globalisation on the economy of the nation and their impact on the life of the people. 12-13.….…..….. 14. We find it extremely difficult to fathom any rationale for the observation made in paragraph 24 of the judgment in Sarla Verma's case that where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., the Courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death and a departure from this rule should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. In our view, it will be naïve to say that the wages or total emoluments/income of a person who is self-employed or who is employed on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., would remain the same throughout his life. 15. The rise in the cost of living affects everyone across the board. It does not make any distinction between rich and poor. As a matter of fact, the effect of rise in prices which directly impacts the cost of living is minimal on the rich and maximum on those who are self- employed or who get fixed income/emoluments. They are the worst affected people. Therefore, they put extra efforts to generate additional income necessary for sustaining their families. 16. The salaries of those employed under the Central and State Governments and their agencies/instrumentalities have been revised from time to time to provide a cushion against the rising prices and provisions have been made for providing security to the families of the deceased employees. The salaries of those employed in private sectors have also increased manifold. 16. The salaries of those employed under the Central and State Governments and their agencies/instrumentalities have been revised from time to time to provide a cushion against the rising prices and provisions have been made for providing security to the families of the deceased employees. The salaries of those employed in private sectors have also increased manifold. Till about two decades ago, nobody could have imagined that salary of Class IV employee of the Government would be in five figures and total emoluments of those in higher echelons of service will cross the figure of rupees one lac. 17. Although, the wages/income of those employed in unorganized sectors has not registered a corresponding increase and has not kept pace with the increase in the salaries of the Government employees and those employed in private sectors but it cannot be denied that there has been incremental enhancement in the income of those who are self-employed and even those engaged on daily basis, monthly basis or even seasonal basis. We can take judicial notice of the fact that with a view to meet the challenges posed by high cost of living, the persons falling in the latter category periodically increase the cost of their labour. In this context, it may be useful to give an example of a tailor who earns his livelihood by stitching cloths. If the cost of living increases and the prices of essentials go up, it is but natural for him to increase the cost of his labour. So will be the cases of ordinary skilled and unskilled labour, like, barber, blacksmith, cobbler, mason etc. 18. Therefore, we do not think that while making the observations in the last three lines of paragraph 24 of Sarla Verma's judgment, the Court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in the income of a person who is self-employed or who is paid fixed wages. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30 per cent increase in his total income over a period of time and if he / she becomes victim of accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation. 26. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30 per cent increase in his total income over a period of time and if he / she becomes victim of accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation. 26. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.1,06,483/-, per annum as salary from Firm Mehar Chand Mool Raj and after deducting 1/3rd towards the deductions and concluded and held that the net salary of the deceased was Rs.70667/- and further deducted 1/4th towards his personal expenses and held that the loss of source of dependency was Rs.53,000/- per annum, which is not correct. The Tribunal has lost sight off the very important fact that the salary of the deceased was Rs.,06,483/- per annum and no deduction was permissible. In one breath the Tribunal has deducted Rs.35,333/- and thereafter has also made further deductions, which is not permissible in law. As per the ratio laid down in Sarla Verma’s and other judgments referred to supra, the net salary for assessing compensation was to be taken as Rs.1,06,483/- and keeping in view the age of the claimants read with the fact that the widow has lost matrimonial home, sons have lost their father, love and affection, deductions of 1/4th was to be made towards personal expenses. Meaning thereby the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.1,06,483/-,rounded as Rs.1,06,000/-minus Rs.26,500/- = Rs.79,500/- per annum. Thus, the claimants are entitled to Rs.79,500/-x14= total Rs.11,13,000/-. 27. The Tribunal has not taken into consideration the agriculture income of the deceased, was having orchards and was managing the same. The claimants have specifically averred that the deceased was also managing the orchards. The widow, who has lost everything in her life, matrimonial home, love and affection, she is living broken life, can she manage the orchards? Virtually, the claimants have lost source of income from agriculture. They have to engage a person to manage and supervise the orchard. The compensation was to be awarded. 28. The apex Court in case titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Indira Srivastava and others, 2008 ACJ 614 has laid down the same principles. It is apt to reproduce paras 8, 9, 17 and 18 of the said judgment herein: “8. They have to engage a person to manage and supervise the orchard. The compensation was to be awarded. 28. The apex Court in case titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Indira Srivastava and others, 2008 ACJ 614 has laid down the same principles. It is apt to reproduce paras 8, 9, 17 and 18 of the said judgment herein: “8. The term 'income' has different connotations for different purposes. A court of law, having regard to the change in societal conditions must consider the question not only having regard to pay packet the employee carries home at the end of the month but also other perks which are beneficial to the members of the entire family. Loss caused to the family on a death of a near and dear one can hardly be compensated on monetory terms. 9. Section 168 of the Act uses the word 'just compensation' which, in our opinion, should be assigned a broad meaning. We cannot, in determining the issue involved in the matter, lose sight of the fact that the private sector companies in place of introducing a pension scheme takes recourse to payment of contributory Provident Fund, Gratuity and other perks to attract the people who are efficient and hard working. Different offers made to an officer by the employer, same may be either for the benefit of the employee himself or for the benefit of the entire family. If some facilities are being provided whereby the entire family stands to benefit, the same, in our opinion, must be held to be relevant for the purpose of computation of total income on the basis whereof the amount of compensation payable for the death of the kith and kin of the applicants is required to be determined. For the aforementioned purpose, we may notice the elements of pay, paid to the deceased : "BASIC : 63,400.00 CONVEY ANCEALLOWANCE : 12,000.00RENT CO LEASE : 49,200.00BONUS (35% OF BASIC) : 21,840.00 TOTAL : 1,45,440.00 In addition to above, his other entitlements were : Con. to PF 10% Basic Rs. 6,240/- (p.a.) LTA reimbursement Rs. 7,000/- (p.a.)Medical reimbursement Rs. 6,000/- (p.a.)Superannuation 15% of Basic Rs. 9,360/- (p.a.)Gratuity Cont.5.34% of Basic Rs. 3,332/- (p.a.)Medical Policy-self & Family @ Rs.55,000/- (p.a.)Education Scholarship @ Rs.500 Rs.12,000/- (p.a.)Payable to his two children Directly." 10 to 16………….. 17. to PF 10% Basic Rs. 6,240/- (p.a.) LTA reimbursement Rs. 7,000/- (p.a.)Medical reimbursement Rs. 6,000/- (p.a.)Superannuation 15% of Basic Rs. 9,360/- (p.a.)Gratuity Cont.5.34% of Basic Rs. 3,332/- (p.a.)Medical Policy-self & Family @ Rs.55,000/- (p.a.)Education Scholarship @ Rs.500 Rs.12,000/- (p.a.)Payable to his two children Directly." 10 to 16………….. 17. The amounts, therefore, which were required to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for computation of his monthly income as that would have been added to his monthly income by way of contribution to the family as contradistinguished to the ones which were for his benefit. We may, however, hasten to add that from the said amount of income, the statutory amount of tax payable thereupon must be deducted. 18. The term income in P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Advanced Law Lexicon (3rd Ed.) has been defined as under: "The value of any benefit or perquisite whether convertible into money or not, obtained from a company either by a director or a person who has substantial interest in the company, and any sum paid by such company in respect of any obligation, which but for such payment would have been payable by the director or other person aforesaid, occurring or arising to a person within the State from any profession, trade or calling other than agriculture." It has also been stated : INCOME signifies 'what comes in' (per Selborne, C., Jones v. Ogle, 42 LJ Ch.336). 'It is as large a word as can be used' to denote a person's receipts '(per Jessel, M.R. Re Huggins, 51 LJ Ch.938.) income is not confined to receipts from business only and means periodical receipts from one's work, lands, investments, etc. AIR 1921 Mad 427 (SB). Ref. 124 IC 511 : 1930 MWN 29 : 31 MLW 438 AIR 1930 Mad 626 : 58 MLJ 337." 29. Applying the test, it can safely be held that the claimants had to engage a labourer or a person, who has to supervise the orchards and have to pay, at least, Rs.5,000/- per month as salary to him. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to compensation under the head loss from agricultural income as Rs.5,000x12= Rs.60,000/-x14 total Rs.8,40,000/-. 30. The apex Court has also discussed the same issue in another case titled State of Haryana and another vs. Jasbir Kaur and others, (2003) 7 SCC 484 . Thus, the claimants are held entitled to compensation under the head loss from agricultural income as Rs.5,000x12= Rs.60,000/-x14 total Rs.8,40,000/-. 30. The apex Court has also discussed the same issue in another case titled State of Haryana and another vs. Jasbir Kaur and others, (2003) 7 SCC 484 . It is apt to reproduce para 8 of the said judgment herein: “8. It is clear on a bare reading of the Tribunal's decision as affirmed by the High Court that no material was placed before the former to prove as to what was the income. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellants, there was not even any material adduced to show type of land which the deceased possessed. The matter can be approached from a different angle. The land possessed by the deceased still remains with the claimants as his legal heirs. There is however a possibility that the claimants may be required to engage persons to look after agriculture. Therefore, the normal rule about the deprivation of income is not strictly applicable to cases where agricultural income is the source. Attendant circumstances have to be considered. Furthermore, there was no material before the Tribunal to arrive at the figure of Rs. 4500 per month. No reason has been indicated to arrive at this figure. In the light of what has been discussed above about "just compensation" the income cannot be estimated without any material to justify the estimation. In the normal course, we would have remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. But considering the fact that one young person lost his life and the matter was pending before the Tribunal and the High Court for some years, we feel it appropriate to take all relevant factors into consideration, and decide the matter. Gauzing the relevant aspects, noted above, the monthly income is fixed at Rs. 3000/- per month, and after deducting Rs. 1,000/- for personal expenses, financial contribution so far as the claimant are concerned is fixed at Rs. 2,000/- per month. Worked out on the basis of multiplier of 18, the compensation is fixed at Rs. 4,32,000/-. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for funeral expenses is not interfered with and thus the total compensation comes to Rs. 4,34,000/-. 2,000/- per month. Worked out on the basis of multiplier of 18, the compensation is fixed at Rs. 4,32,000/-. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for funeral expenses is not interfered with and thus the total compensation comes to Rs. 4,34,000/-. The rate of interest i.e. 9% per annum as fixed by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court is appropriate, and does not need any alteration. After adjusting the sum which was deposited pursuant to the order of this Court dated 14.12.2001, the balance amount along with interest shall be deposited within three months from today before the Tribunal. On the deposit being made along with the amount already deposited, a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs shall be kept in the fixed deposit in the name of the claimants and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- shall be kept in fixed deposit in the name of Smt. Baldev Kaur, mother of the deceased. They shall be entitled to draw interest on the deposit, which shall be re-deposited for further terms of five years. In case of urgent need, it shall be open to the claimants to move Tribunal for release of any part of the amount in deposit. The Tribunal shall consider the request for withdrawal and shall direct withdrawal in case of an urgent need and not otherwise of such sum as would meet the need. It shall be specifically indicated to the Bank where the deposits are to be made that no advance or withdrawal of any kind shall be permitted without the order of the Tribunal. It shall be open to the claimants to approach the Tribunal for variance of the order relating to deposit in fixed deposit, if any other scheme would fetch better returns and also would provide regular and permanent income. 31. The claimants have specifically pleaded that the deceased was an insurance agent and was earning Rs.42,000/- per annum as insurance agent. The said income is also reflected in the income tax return Ext. PW4/B. The said fact has not been disputed by the driver, owner and the insurer. The insured has not questioned the said income tax return and even they have not led any evidence to dislodge the same. The claimants have proved the income tax return. 32. The said income is also reflected in the income tax return Ext. PW4/B. The said fact has not been disputed by the driver, owner and the insurer. The insured has not questioned the said income tax return and even they have not led any evidence to dislodge the same. The claimants have proved the income tax return. 32. The learned counsel for the insurance company has argued that the income tax return cannot be taken into consideration without proving the same in accordance with law, is not correct. The judgment relied upon by him in case V. Subbulakshmi and others vs. S. Lakshmi and another, (2008) 4 SCC 224 , is not in his favour but in favour of the claimants. It is apt to reproduce paras 20 to 24 of the said judgment herein: “20. So far as the question in regard to the quantum of compensation awarded in favour of the appellants is concerned, we are of the opinion that the High Court has taken into consideration all the relevant evidences brought on record. 21. The accident took place on 7.5.1997. Income tax returns were filed on 23.6.1997. 22. The Income Tax Returns (Exp. P-14), therefore, have rightly not been relied upon. 23. Ex.P-8 is a deed of lease. It was an unregistered document. Although the document was purported to have been executed on 10.4.1993, the genuineness thereof was open to question. The stamp paper was purchased in the year 1983 but an interpolation was made therein to show that it was purchased in 1993. The purported receipts granted by the tenant were also unstamped. 24. In the aforementioned fact situation, the High Court has not relied upon all the aforementioned documents, filed by the appellant. It may be true that there was no basis for the High Court to arrive at the conclusion that the income of the deceased was Rs.4,000/- from agricultural operation and Rs. 3,000/- from his commission business, but no reliable document having been produced to show that the deceased was earning an income of Rs.12,500/- per month, as claimed. The High Court, in our opinion, cannot be held to have, thus, committed any grave error in this behalf. There is no dispute as regards application of the multiplier.” 33. 3,000/- from his commission business, but no reliable document having been produced to show that the deceased was earning an income of Rs.12,500/- per month, as claimed. The High Court, in our opinion, cannot be held to have, thus, committed any grave error in this behalf. There is no dispute as regards application of the multiplier.” 33. The apex Court in case titled Amrit Bhanu Shali and others vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others, (2012) 11 SCC 738 has laid down the principles how to grant compensation and how to reach the victim of a vehicular accident. It is apt to reproduce para 17 of the said judgment herein: “17. The appellants produced Income Tax Returns of deceased-Ritesh Bhanu Shali for the years 2002 to 2008 which have been marked as Ext.P-10-C. The Income Tax Return for the year 2007-2008 filed on 12.03.2008 at Raipur, four months prior to the accident, shows the income of Rs.99,000/- per annum. The Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration the aforesaid income of Rs.99,000/- for computing the compensation. If the 50% of the income of Rs.99.000/- is deducted towards personal and living expenses' of the deceased the contribution to the family will be 50%, i.e., Rs 49,500/- per annum At the time of the accident, the deceased-Ritesh Bhanu Shali was 26 years old, hence on the basis of decision in Sarla Verma (supra) applying the multiplier of 17, the amount will come to Rs 49,500/- x 17 =Rs 8,41,500/- Besides this amount the claimants are entitled to get Rs.50,000/- each towards the affection of the son, i.e., Rs 1,00,000/- and Rs 10,000/- on account of funeral and ritual expenses and Rs 2,500/- on account of loss of sight as awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the total amount comes to Rs.9,54.000/- (Rs.8,41,500/- + Rs. 1,00.000/ - + Rs. 10.000/- + Rs.2,500/-) and the claimants are entitled to get the said amount of compensation instead of the amount awarded by the Tribunal and the High Court. They would also be entitled to get interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition leaving rest of the conditions mentioned in the award intact.” 34. They would also be entitled to get interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition leaving rest of the conditions mentioned in the award intact.” 34. The apex Court has also discussed this issue in Kalpanaraj and others vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (2015) 2 SCC 764 and held that there should be a judicial approach, while granting compensation to the victims of a vehicular accident. It is apt to reproduce para 8 of the said judgment herein: “8. It is pertinent to note that the only available documentary evidence on record of the monthly income of the deceased is the income tax return filed by him with the Income Tax Department. The High Court was correct therefore, to determine the monthly income on the basis of the income tax return. However, the High Court erred in ascertaining the net income of the deceased as the amount to be taken into consideration for calculating compensation, in the light of the principle laid down by this Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Indira Srivastava and Others, 2008 2 SCC 763 . The relevant paragraphs of the case read as under: "14. The question came for consideration before a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Padmavathy and others wherein it was held: 7. Income tax, Professional tax which are deducted from the salaried person goes to the coffers of the government under specific head and there is no return. Whereas, the General Provident Fund, Special Provident Fund, L.I.C., Contribution are amounts paid specific heads and the contribution is always repayable to an employee at the time of voluntary retirement, death or for any other reason. Such contribution made by the salaried person are deferred payments and they are savings. The Supreme Court as well as various High Courts have held that the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory and that the deferred payments made to the employee are contractual. Courts have held that there cannot be any deductions in the statutory compensation, if the Legal Representatives are entitled to lump sum payment under the contractual liability. The Supreme Court as well as various High Courts have held that the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory and that the deferred payments made to the employee are contractual. Courts have held that there cannot be any deductions in the statutory compensation, if the Legal Representatives are entitled to lump sum payment under the contractual liability. If the contributions made by the employee which are otherwise savings from the salary are deducted from the gross income and only the net income is taken for computing the dependency compensation, then the Legal Representatives of the victim would lose considerable portion of the income. In view of the settled proposition of law, I am of the view, the Tribunal can make only statutory deductions such as Income tax and professional tax and any other contribution, which is not repayable by the employer, from the salary of the deceased person while determining the monthly income for computing the dependency compensation. Any contribution made by the employee during his life time, form part of the salary and they should be included in the monthly income, while computing the dependency compensation.' 15. Similar view was expressed by a learned Single Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court in S. Narayanamma and others vs. Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Telecommunications and others holding: 12. In this background, now we will examine the present deductions made by the tribunal from the salary of the deceased in fixing the monthly contribution of the deceased to his family. The tribunal has not even taken proper care while deducting the amounts from the salary of the deceased, at least the very nature of deductions from the salary of the deceased. My view is that the deductions made by the tribunal from the salary such as recovery of housing loan, vehicle loan, festival advance and other deductions, if any, to the benefit of the estate of the deceased cannot be deducted while computing the net monthly earnings of the deceased. These advances or loans are part of his salary. So far as House Rent Allowance is concerned, it is beneficial to the entire family of the deceased during his tenure, but for his untimely death the claimants are deprived of such benefit which they would have enjoyed if the deceased is alive. These advances or loans are part of his salary. So far as House Rent Allowance is concerned, it is beneficial to the entire family of the deceased during his tenure, but for his untimely death the claimants are deprived of such benefit which they would have enjoyed if the deceased is alive. On the other hand, allowances, like Travelling Allowance, allowance for newspapers/periodicals, telephone, servant, club-fee, car maintenance etc., by virtue of his vocation need not be included in the salary while computing the net earnings of the deceased. The finding of the tribunal that the deceased was getting Rs.1,401/- as net income every month is unsustainable as the deductions made towards vehicle loan and other deductions were also taken into consideration while fixing the monthly income of the deceased. The above finding of the tribunal is contrary to the principle of 'just compensation' enunciated by the Supreme Court in the judgment in Helen's case. The Supreme Court in Concord of India Insurance Co. vs. Nirmaladevi and Others, 1980 ACJ 55 held that determination of quantum must be liberal and not niggardly since law values life and limb in a free country in generous scales." 35. Thus, the claimants are entitled under the head loss of income as insurance agent but 1/4th is also to be deducted. Thus, the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.32,000/- per annum, under this head, are entitled to loss under the head income from LIC Rs.32000/-x14 = total Rs.4,48,000/-. 36. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- each under the heads “Loss of consortium”, “Funeral expenses” and loss of “love and affection”. Total to the tune of Rs.30,000/-. The amount awarded under these heads is too meager in view of the latest judgment delivered by the apex court. However, I deem it proper to maintain the same. But the Tribunal has fallen in an error in not awarding compensation under the head “Loss of Estate”. Therefore, I deem it proper to award Rs.10,000/- under the head loss of estate. 37. Having said so, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is too meager, is enhanced and accordingly claimants are held entitled to Rs.11,13,000/- + Rs.8,40,000/- + Rs.4,48,000/- Rs.30,000/- + Rs.10,000/= Total to the tune of Rs.24,41,000/- in all alongwith 9% interest, as awarded by the Tribunal. 38. 37. Having said so, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is too meager, is enhanced and accordingly claimants are held entitled to Rs.11,13,000/- + Rs.8,40,000/- + Rs.4,48,000/- Rs.30,000/- + Rs.10,000/= Total to the tune of Rs.24,41,000/- in all alongwith 9% interest, as awarded by the Tribunal. 38. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount along with 9% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, within six weeks from today in this Registry, and also to deposit the amount awarded by the Tribunal, if not already deposited. On deposit, the entire amount be released to the claimants, strictly, in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees’ cheque account. 39. Resultantly, the impugned judgment is modified and the amount of compensation is enhanced, as indicated hereinabove. 40. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. Send down the record forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.