JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Anand (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 3148/2006 (Old MACP No. 809/1998) by which the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the said claim petition preferred by the original claimants and has awarded the total sum of Rs. 41,30,200/- towards compensation for the death of deceased Dilipbhai Shantilal Patel, original opponent No. 3 - insurance company of the Matador No. GJ-7T-703 involved in the accident has preferred the present First Appeal No. 647/2016. 1.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, the original claimants have also preferred the Cross Objection No. 70/2016 requesting to enhance the amount of compensation. 2. In a vehicular accident which occurred on 11.10.1997 and while deceased Dilipbhai Patel was traveling in Matador No. GJ-7V-703 as a passenger, due to rash and negligent driving of the said Matador driven by the original opponent No. 1, the driver of the Matador lost control over the steering and the matador turned turtle and deceased Dilipbhai Patel sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Therefore, the original claimants - widow and children of the deceased filed the aforesaid claim petition before the learned Tribunal claiming a total sum of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- towards compensation under different heads towards the death of the deceased Dilipbhai Patel. 2.1 It was the case on behalf of the original claimants that at the time of accident the deceased was hale and hearty. He had started his business at an early stage, dealing in agricultural products and in the hotel business also. He was having his own company named Savshanti Anandam Club Pvt. Ltd. situated at Chikhodara having facilities of health club, social club, marriage hall with facilities for lodging and boarding. According to the original claimants, deceased also was doing the business in the real estate at different hill stations and big cities to start chain of hotels. According to the original claimants the deceased also purchased at Mount Abu, Saputara, Valsad etc. the real estate properties for his own hotel business. According to the original claimants, the deceased was also having agricultural lands at village Bakrol, Bedva, Vaghasi etc. According to the original claimants the deceased also purchased at Mount Abu, Saputara, Valsad etc. the real estate properties for his own hotel business. According to the original claimants, the deceased was also having agricultural lands at village Bakrol, Bedva, Vaghasi etc. According to the original claimants the deceased was having various companies and was also dealing in tobacco business and had also invested with M.M. Sons Pvt. Ltd. According to the original claimants the deceased Dilipbhai Patel was earning Rs. 5 lakh per annum. Therefore, the original claimants claimed compensation at Rs. 1.50 Crore. 2.2 The claim petition was opposed by the original opponent No. 3 - insurance company only by filing the written statement at Exh. 15 whereby the insurance company denied all the averments made by the original claimants in their application. The insurance company also denied the negligence on the part of the driver of the matador. The insurance company also denied the income of the deceased as claimed by the original claimants. 2.3 That the learned Tribunal framed the issues at Exh.12. 2.4 The original claimants led the oral as well as documentary evidence. The original claimant No. 1 - Dakshaben widow of Dilipbhai Patel deposed before the learned Tribunal in the form of affidavit at Exh.18. To prove the income of the deceased, the original claimants produced a certificate of Chartered Accountant; income tax returns of the relevant years; 7/12 abstracts of agricultural lands of the deceased in various villages and registration certificates of various companies formed by the deceased. 2.5 That on appreciation of evidence the learned Tribunal has held the original opponent No. 1 - driver of the matador sole negligent for the accident. That on appreciation of evidence and considering the income of the deceased mentioned in the income tax returns for the assessments 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97, the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,54,164/- per annum i.e. Rs. 2,28,164/-from the Savshanti Anandam Club Pvt. Ltd.; Rs. 42,000/- from the agricultural income and Rs. 84,000/- from seven companies formed by the deceased. That thereafter, after adding 30% towards future rise in income, the learned Tribunal has considered the prospective income at Rs. 4,60,413/- per annum and thereafter, after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and applying the multiplier of 13, by impugned judgment and award the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 84,000/- from seven companies formed by the deceased. That thereafter, after adding 30% towards future rise in income, the learned Tribunal has considered the prospective income at Rs. 4,60,413/- per annum and thereafter, after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and applying the multiplier of 13, by impugned judgment and award the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 39,90,246/- towards future loss of dependency. The learned Tribunal has further awarded Rs. 1 lakh towards loss of consortium, Rs. 1 lakh towards loss of love of father, Rs. 1 lakh towards loss to the estate and Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, by impugned judgment and award the learned Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 41,30,246/- under all the heads with 9% interest thereon from the date of claim petition till realization. 2.6 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, both the insurance company as well as the claimants have preferred the present First Appeal and Cross Objections respectively. 3. Shri R.G. Dwivedi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant - insurance company has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs. 39,90,246/- towards future loss of income/loss of dependency. 3.1 It is vehemently submitted by Shri Dwivedi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in assessing the income of the deceased at the time of accident at Rs. 3,54,164/- per annum. It is further submitted by Shri Dwivedi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in assessing the income of the deceased from Savshanti Anandam Club Pvt. Ltd. at Rs. 2,28,164/- per annum. It is vehemently submitted that if the income tax returns of the assessment years 1994-95 to 1997-98 (Exh. 35) are considered, in that case, it can be seen that the income of the deceased was from the dividend and interest only. It is submitted that as such there was a loss incurred by the deceased during the aforesaid financial years/assessment years. It is submitted that therefore on death the income from the dividend/interest would be continued and therefore, it cannot be said that there was any loss of income to the original claimants, on the death of the deceased. It is submitted that as such there was a loss incurred by the deceased during the aforesaid financial years/assessment years. It is submitted that therefore on death the income from the dividend/interest would be continued and therefore, it cannot be said that there was any loss of income to the original claimants, on the death of the deceased. It is further submitted by Shri Dwivedi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that in absence of any evidence cogent evidence on record, the learned Tribunal has materially erred in assessing the income from the loss at Rs. 42,000/- per annum. 3.2 It is further submitted by Shri Dwivedi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant - insurance company that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in assessing the income at Rs. 84,000/- per annum from various companies of which the deceased was the Director. It is submitted that in absence of any evidence led with respect to the income from the aforesaid companies, the learned Tribunal has materially erred in believing that at the time of accident the deceased earning Rs. 1,000/- per month from each company i.e. Rs. 7,000/- per month from all the 7 companies i.e. Rs. 84,000/- per annum. 3.3 It is further submitted by Shri Dwivedi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in adding 30% towards future rise in income while considering the prospective income. It is submitted that it is evident from the income tax returns produced at Exh.35 that the deceased was incurring loss and only income was from the dividend and interest and therefore there was no question of any future rise in income. It is submitted that therefore the learned Tribunal has materially erred in adding 30% towards future rise in income. It is submitted that while awarding the future loss of income, the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence of Chartered Accountant, who was examined at Exh.22. It is submitted that even the Chartered Accountant who has been examined on behalf of the claimants has categorically stated in his cross-examination that after the death of the deceased, all the companies/partnership firms are continued and the income have been increased substantially. It is submitted that he has also admitted in his cross-examination that even the agricultural income, after the death of the deceased, has also increased substantially. It is submitted that he has also admitted in his cross-examination that even the agricultural income, after the death of the deceased, has also increased substantially. It is submitted that he has also categorically admitted in the cross-examination that due to the death of the deceased, there is no loss caused to the companies/firms/partnership firms. It is submitted that in view of the above, the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs. 39,90,246/- towards loss of dependency/future loss of income. It is further submitted by Shri Dwivedi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs. 1,30,000/- under the conventional heads. Making above submissions, it is requested to allow the present First Appeal to the aforesaid extent and modify the impugned judgment and award accordingly. 4. Present First Appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri Paresh Darji, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants. He has made submissions in support of the Cross Objections preferred by the original claimants. 4.1 It is vehemently submitted by Shri Darji, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants that in the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the status of the deceased and that the deceased was the Director/partner in number of firms/companies and was also the Managing Director in Savshanti Anandam Club Pvt. Ltd. and having large area of agricultural lands, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding Rs. 39,90,946/- towards future loss of income. It is submitted that as such the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal can be said to be on lower side and therefore, as such the Cross Objections preferred by the original claimants are required to be allowed. 4.2 Shri Darji, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,28,164/- per annum from the business of Savshanti Anandam Club Pvt. Ltd. It is submitted that looking to the income tax returns produced at Exh.35 of last 5 years, the income of the deceased can be said to be Rs. 11,14,824/- and therefore the average income of 5 years would come to Rs. 2,28,164/- per annum from the business of Savshanti Anandam Club Pvt. Ltd. It is submitted that looking to the income tax returns produced at Exh.35 of last 5 years, the income of the deceased can be said to be Rs. 11,14,824/- and therefore the average income of 5 years would come to Rs. 2,28,164/- from Savshanti Anandam Club Pvt. Ltd. It is submitted that whatever the income mentioned in the income tax returns is required to be considered and/or can be considered while assessing the income of the deceased at the time of accident and while awarding future loss of income. In support of his above submissions, Shri Darji, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants has heavily relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pallaviben Harsukhbhai Sorathia Wd/o. Harsukhbhai L. & Ors. reported in 2015(3) GLR 2069 . 4.3 Now, so far as considering 30% future rise in income while awarding future loss of income is concerned, Shri Darji, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants has relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Fulashankar Umiyashankar Pandit and Ors. v. G.S.R.T.C. & Ors. reported in 2016(2) GLH 91 . It is submitted that even otherwise considering the fact that the deceased was aged 49 years of age at the time of accident, even considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009)6 SCC 121 , 30% future rise was required to be considered and the same is rightly considered by the learned Tribunal. 4.4 It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case as such the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding Rs. 1,30,000/- under the conventional heads. It is submitted that as such the claimants shall be entitled to atleast Rs. 2,00,000/- under the conventional heads. 4.5 Shri Darji, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants has also heavily relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramchandra Sindji Chauhan & Ors. v. Arvindkumar S. Mehta & Anr. It is submitted that as such the claimants shall be entitled to atleast Rs. 2,00,000/- under the conventional heads. 4.5 Shri Darji, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants has also heavily relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramchandra Sindji Chauhan & Ors. v. Arvindkumar S. Mehta & Anr. reported in 2012(5) GLR 3807 and has submitted that as observed by the Division Bench in the aforesaid decision, while determining the income of the deceased, the gross income reflected in the income tax returns is to be taken into consideration. Making above submissions and relying upon above decisions, it is requested to dismiss the present First Appeal preferred by the insurance company and allow the Cross Objection preferred by the original claimants. 5. Heard learned advocates appearing for respective parties at length. Perused the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. We have re-appreciated the entire evidence on record more particularly the oral evidence as well as the documentary evidences (Exhs.35 and 36). At the outset it is required to be noted that by impugned judgment and award the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 39,90,946/- towards future loss of income/loss of dependency. From the impugned judgment and award it appears that the learned Tribunal has awarded the future loss of income considering the income of the deceased from three different sources i.e. from Savshanti Anandam Club Pvt. Ltd.; (2) agricultural income and (3) from the different 7 companies floated by the deceased. 5.1 Now, so far as the income from Savshanti Anandam Club Pvt. Ltd. is concerned, from the income tax returns produced at Exh.35 for the assessment years 1994-95 to 1998-99, the income mentioned is as under:- Assessment Year Income (Rs.) 1994-95 3,36,923 1995-96 2,15,492 1996-97 1,57,065 1997-98 1,15,682 1998-99 3,15,653 It is true that taking the average income of the aforesaid five years, the average income would come to Rs. 2,28,164/-. However, it is required to be noted that if the income tax returns produced at Exh.35 are considered, as such the deceased has declared loss so far as the income from the aforesaid companies is concerned. Whatever the income is mentioned in the said income tax return, is the income from the interest/dividend only, which shall continue even after the death of the deceased. Whatever the income is mentioned in the said income tax return, is the income from the interest/dividend only, which shall continue even after the death of the deceased. At this stage the deposition of the Chartered Accountant who has been examined by the claimants is required to be considered. The Chartered Accountant who has been examined at Exh.32 has specifically and categorically admitted in his cross-examination that after the death of the deceased, all the firms/companies have been continued. He has also categorically admitted in the cross-examination that there is no loss caused to the firms/companies after the death of the deceased and/or due to the death of the deceased. He has also categorically admitted that even the agricultural income after the death of the deceased has been increased substantially. Therefore, as such it cannot be said that there is any economic loss caused/sustained by the claimants after the death of the deceased. The aforesaid is required to be considered considering the fact that as such the deceased was suffering loss in the business from 7 different companies, which is evident from the income tax return and the income which is stated/mentioned in the income tax returns is from the dividend/interest income only. Under the circumstances, the learned Tribunal has materially erred in adding 30% towards future rise in income while determining the prospective income. However, considering the status of the deceased and that he was the partner in partnership firm and Director in number of companies, his income can be considered/assessed at the rate of Rs. 2,50,000/- per annum. 5.2 Now, so far as the agricultural income assessed at Rs. 42,000/- per annum is concerned, it is true that after his death the agricultural lands have remained intact and the agricultural income has been continued. However, as per the catena of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the claimants shall be entitled to supervisory charges. Looking to the fact that the deceased was having vast area of agricultural lands in different villages like Bakrol, Bedva, Vaghasi etc., it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error in assessing the agricultural income at Rs. 42,000/- per annum. Now, so far as the income from the learned Tribunal from 7 companies at Rs. Looking to the fact that the deceased was having vast area of agricultural lands in different villages like Bakrol, Bedva, Vaghasi etc., it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error in assessing the agricultural income at Rs. 42,000/- per annum. Now, so far as the income from the learned Tribunal from 7 companies at Rs. 84,000/- per annum is concerned, we are of the opinion that in absence of any other cogent evidence with respect to the income from the aforesaid 7 companies, the learned Tribunal has committed a grave error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 84,000/- per annum from 7 companies. Merely because 7 companies were registered companies, in absence of any cogent evidence, it cannot be presumed that the deceased was earning Rs. 84,000/- per annum from the aforesaid 7 companies. Under the circumstances, impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal considering Rs. 84,000/- per annum as income from 7 different companies cannot be sustained. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding Rs. 1,30,000/- under the conventional heads. 5.3 Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decisions in the case of Ramchandra Sindji Chauhan & Ors. (Supra); Pallaviben Harsukhbhai Sorathia Wd/o. Harsukhbhai L. & Ors. (Supra) and Fulshankar Umiyashankar Pandit and Ors. (Supra) by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants in support of his submissions that the income mentioned in the income tax returns is required to be considered and the gross income reflected in the income tax returns is to be taken into consideration is concerned, it is true that the gross income reflected in income tax returns can be taken into consideration. However, the source of income is also a relevant aspect which is required to be considered while assessing income for awarding future loss of income. It is also required to be considered that if the source of income is interest and dividend which shall be continued even after the death of the deceased and so far as the business income is concerned, there is a loss, the aforesaid is also relevant consideration while assessing the income and while awarding future loss of income. 5.4 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the income of the deceased can be assessed at Rs. 2,92,000/-. 5.4 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the income of the deceased can be assessed at Rs. 2,92,000/-. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and thereafter applying the multiplier of 13, the original claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 25,30,671/- towards loss of dependency/future loss of income. The original claimants shall also be entitled to Rs. 1,30,000/- under the conventional heads as awarded by the learned Tribunal. The original claimants shall also be entitled to Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the original claimants shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs. 26,70,671/- towards compensation under different heads as above with 9% interest thereon from the date of claim petition till realization. The present First Appeal is required to be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. The impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is required to be modified to the extent and consequently Cross Objection deserve to be dismissed. 6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present First Appeal is partly allowed. Impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Anand in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 3148/2006 (Old MACP No. 809/1998) is hereby modified to the extent and it is held that the original claimants shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 26,70,671/-. It is reported that the appellant - insurance company has deposited the amount of compensation, as awarded by the learned Tribunal, with the learned Tribunal. The appellant - insurance company shall be entitled to recover the difference amount of Rs. 14,59,529/- (Rs. 41,30,200 - Rs. 26,70,671) from the original claimants with interest. Cross Objection No. 70/2016 is hereby dismissed. Civil Application No. 3376 of 2016 In view of disposal of main First Appeal, Civil Application No. 3376/2016 also stands disposed of.