ORDER : This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.04.2014 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case no.219/2013 whereby the learned Tribunal directed the appellant-Insurance Company to pay the awarded compensation amount of Rs.36,64,500/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from 31.08.2013 till its realisation. 2. The claimants' case is that the deceased-Rahul Srivastava was traveling with his friends, in the car bearing Registration no.JH-011-8118 from Hazaribagh to Ranchi and when they reached near Saru Bera More, at NH-33, then all of a sudden a truck bearing Registration no.JH-02P-0223 came from the opposite direction and dashed the car of the deceased as a result of which all the occupants of the car sustained multiple injuries. That with the help of the local people they were brought to Nai Sarai Central Hospital, Ramgarh but injured Rahul Srivastava succumbed to the injuries. On the basis of the evidence and materials on record the Tribunal has passed the judgment/award impugned in the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has contended that in view of the ratio laid down in Sarla Verma's case, reported in (2009)6 SCC 121 wherein catena of decisions has been discussed and considered by the Apex Court, guidelines for determining and computing the compensation has been laid down and it has been enumerated that the multiplier applicable, for assessing the loss of dependency should be the age of the deceased. It is submitted that in view of the ratio laid down in Sarla Verma's case (Supra) the multiplier applicable in the present case should be 9 as the deceased was aged 55 years two months and two days. That the multiplier of 11 is applicable when the deceased is aged 50 to 55 years. Since the age of the deceased was above 55 years the Tribunal has erred in assessing the loss of dependency by applying the multiplier of 11 which is applicable in the case where the age of the deceased is between 50 to 55. It is argued that even in a case where the age of a deceased exceeds 55 years by one day the multiplier applicable is 9 for the age group of 56 to 60 years and the loss of dependency has to be computed by using the multiplier of 9. It is argued that even in a case where the age of a deceased exceeds 55 years by one day the multiplier applicable is 9 for the age group of 56 to 60 years and the loss of dependency has to be computed by using the multiplier of 9. That in the present case the learned Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 11 whereas the applicable multiplier is 9. It is urged by the learned counsel that this is a case of contributory negligence since theere was a head on collision between both the vehicles as is evident from the recital of F.I.R and the charge-sheet. It is submitted that the claimants have filed the income-tax returns of the deceased which are Ext. X/2, X/3 and X/4. It is argued that only Ext. X/2 should have considered by the Tribunal as this discloses the actual income of the deceased since it was filed by the deceased prior to his death. To buttress his argument learned counsel emphasised that in the decision reported in (2008) 4 SCC 224 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the income tax return which was filed after the death of the deceased is unacceptable. It is contended that in view of the aforesaid decision the Tribunal has erred in law by assessing the loss of dependency by computing the actual income of the deceased on the basis of the average of the three income tax returns without considering that Exts.X/3 and X/4 are income tax returns were filed subsequent to the death of the assessee i.e. the deceased. It is argued that by giving such a finding the Tribunal has acted against the settled legal position. On the above grounds it is canvassed that the impugned judgment/award is inflated and exorbitant and has been computed in contravention of the settled principles, consequently it is fit to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-claimants has contended that the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 11 for assessing the loss of dependency. It is contended that in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the learned Tribunal should have added future prospects at the rate of 50% or at least at 30% which the learned Tribunal has failed to do. It is contended that in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the learned Tribunal should have added future prospects at the rate of 50% or at least at 30% which the learned Tribunal has failed to do. In support of the contention learned counsel has referred to and relied on the decisions reported in (2012)6 SCC 421 ; AIR 2014 SC 706 ; (2013) 16 SCC 711 ; AIR 2014 SC 218; (2014) 13 SCC 254 . 5. Heard the counsels. On the aspect of future prospects it is pertinent to state that in the case of Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh, reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 , the ratio laid down in Sarla Verma's case was considered and it has been held that in case the deceased who is self-employed or having fixed wages and is aged between 50-60 years it will be just and equitable to provide an addition of 15% as future prospects. 6. On perusal of the materials on record and the decision reported in (2008) 4 SCC 224 relied on by the counsel for the appellant, it is amply clear that in the said case there is no discussion or finding whether the deceased was an income tax payee or he had filed any income tax returns of the year prior to the death of the deceased rather it transpires that in the said case a solitary income tax return was filed after the death of the deceased, whereas in the instant case, it is evident that Ext.X/2 i.e. income tax return of the deceased is of the financial year 2010-11 filed on 28.01.2012; Ext.X/3 is the return of financial year 2011-12 filed on 31.03.2013. The third income tax return i.e. ext.X/4 was filed on 10.05.2013. The deceased had died due to the motor accident on 16.01.2013. It is abundantly clear that the appellant-insurance Company never challenged the veracity of the said income tax returns neither alleged that it was filed or procured with the intent and purpose or for the sake of claiming higher compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant has at this juncture contended that objection was raised before the Tribunal that income tax returns (Ext.X/2 & Ext.X/3) were filed by the claimants after the death of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellant has at this juncture contended that objection was raised before the Tribunal that income tax returns (Ext.X/2 & Ext.X/3) were filed by the claimants after the death of the deceased. The contention of the learned counsel is not acceptable because the authenticity or genuinity of the income tax returns was never questioned nor any evidence led by the appellant in rebuttal for showing the said tax returns were created or procured with an object to claim higher compensation. Thus in the absence of any evidence to the contrary and the discussions made hereinabove, there is no reason or ground for interference with the computation of actual income of the deceased on the basis of average of returns of the three financial years as brought on record by the claimants. 7. From the delineated tabular chart contained in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) it is amply clear that in the case of a deceased aged between 56 to 60 years the multiplier applicable is 9. In the present case it is not disputed that the deceased was aged 55 years two months and two days at the time of his death. In the decision in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) there is no recital or mention as to what would be the multiplier in the case of a person who is aged between 55 to 56. Multiplier of 9 is applicable if the deceased is between 56 years to 60 years and apparently the deceased had not attained 56 years. Therefore, the multiplier of 11 has been rightly applied by the Tribunal. 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that this is a case of contributory negligence hence it can be appreciated in the light of analysis and evaluation of evidence by the learned Tribunal. Admittedly, the deceased was travelling in the car going from Hazaribagh towards Ramgarh whereas the truck was coming from Ramgarh and going towards Hazaribagh. Both the vehicles were plying on the National High Way which is a four lane road. The appellant-Insurance Company has examined the Surveyor of the Insurance Company who has opined that there was head on collision between both the vehicles. He has admitted that the accident took place in the lane which was meant for the vehicles travelling from Hazaribagh towards Ramgarh. The appellant-Insurance Company has examined the Surveyor of the Insurance Company who has opined that there was head on collision between both the vehicles. He has admitted that the accident took place in the lane which was meant for the vehicles travelling from Hazaribagh towards Ramgarh. This amply clarifies the situation and sequence of event leading to the accident, meaning thereby the car of the deceased was travelling on the right side as it was plying on the lane earmarked for the vehicles travelling from Hazaribagh towards Ramgarh. The offending truck was being driven in the opposite direction going from Ramgarh towards Hazaribagh. The Surveyor's evidence discloses that the truck diverted from its lane and crossed over to the lane meant for the vehicle coming from Hazaribagh to Ramgarh. Evidently truck was on the wrong side and it hit the car which was being driven on the right side of the road. The head on collision was on account of contravention of the traffic rules by the truck which veered towards the wrong lane. Had it been a case where both the parties were driving on the same road in opposite direction on a single road without any demarcation of the lane on the road and a head on collision had taken place then a case of contributory negligence could have been considered and appreciated if evidence to that extent was adduced but in the instant case, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the deceased was negligent or had contributed towards the accident. On the contrary the Surveyor's evidence demonstrates that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck. 9. In the backdrop of the evidence on record and the judicial pronouncements it is held that there is no infirmity or illegality in the finding of the learned Tribunal in fastening the liability on the owner of the truck which was validly insured by the appellant-Insurance Company. In view of the decision in the case of Rajesh vrs. Rajbir Singh (Supra) and the decision reported in (2015) 6 SCC 347 , it would be just and equitable to provide for addition of 15% as future prospects of the actual income as the deceased was self-employed and aged 55 years. The Tribunal has assessed the average annual income(less the tax paid) at Rs.4,75,841/-. Rajbir Singh (Supra) and the decision reported in (2015) 6 SCC 347 , it would be just and equitable to provide for addition of 15% as future prospects of the actual income as the deceased was self-employed and aged 55 years. The Tribunal has assessed the average annual income(less the tax paid) at Rs.4,75,841/-. Now by addition of 15% as future prospects, the annual income is computed at Rs.5,47,217/-. One third of the said annual income is deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased accordingly the annual loss of dependency is assessed at Rs.3,64,812/-. Since the deceased had not attained the age of 56 years the multiplier applicable is 11. Thus the total loss of dependency is assessed at Rs.3,64,812 x 11 = 40,12,932 + Rs.50,000/- towards loss of estate + Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium + Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and affection + Rs.25,000/- as funeral expenses accordingly the compensation is computed at Rs.41,87,900/-. 10. The appellant-Insurance Company shall pay the compensation amount of Rs.41,87,900/- with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the application i.e. 31.08.2013 till the date of award and 9% from the date of award till the date of payment so made within two months from the date of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. 11. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company shall be returned to the appellant by the Registry of this Court. 12. Accordingly, the judgment and award dated 16.04.2014 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case no. 219/2013 is modified to the extent as noted above. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that he does not want to press the Cross Objection. Accordingly Cross Objection No. 04/2015 is dismissed as not pressed. 13. In the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed with modification of the award to the extent as noted above.