JUDGMENT : B.N. Karia, J. 1. The appellants are aggrieved by decision of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Vadodara in M.A.C.P. No. 664/1991 and M.A.C.P. No. 665/1991 dated 11th July, 1997. 2. The only issue which requires adjudication by this Court is the quantum of compensation that ought have been awarded to the appellants, who were the claimants before the Tribunal in a proceeding under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The compensation was sought on account of death of one Mr. Mukeshbhai Shah, by his legal heirs in MACP No. 664 of 1991; and Mr. Navinchandra Shah, by his legal heirs and representatives in MACP No. 665 of 1991. 3. To appreciate the controversy arising in these Appeals, certain facts are necessary to be highlighted. 4. As per the case of the petitioners in MACP No. 664/1991, on account of the accidental death of Mr. Mukeshbhai Shah, a claim for compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/- on various grounds was made before the Tribunal. As per the say of the petitioners, the deceased was 36 years of age at the time of the accident and was running his partnership business in various firms; over and above his personal business as a Commission Agent. It is further stated that the net income of the deceased was about Rs. 1,00,000/- per annum. That, if he would have survived, then his profit would have been much more out of the said partnership business plus his own business as a Commission Agent. It is averred in the petition that because of his untimely accidental death, the petitioners have undergone lot of mental pain, shock and suffering, loss in income as well as future economic loss. It was further averred that soon after the accident, the deceased was removed to a private hospital of Dr. Sheth, where intensive treatment was given, but unfortunately during the course of treatment, he succumbed to accidental injuries. Therefore, as per the averments of the petitioners, they are entitled to get compensation for all the incidental expenses incurred, as they were the dependents upon income of the deceased. That, on numerous grounds; including the ground of dependency benefit, they claimed the above referred compensation from the opponents plus costs and interest thereon. 5. As per the averments made by the petitioners in MACP No. 665 of 1991, on account of accidental death of Mr. That, on numerous grounds; including the ground of dependency benefit, they claimed the above referred compensation from the opponents plus costs and interest thereon. 5. As per the averments made by the petitioners in MACP No. 665 of 1991, on account of accidental death of Mr. Navinchandra Shah, they claimed compensation amounting Rs. 15,00,000/-. As per their averments, at the relevant point of time, the deceased was 51 years of age and was a partner in various firms; over and above, his personal business. He used to earn yearly income of Rs. 1,00,000/- and even more. It is averred in the petition that he was assessed for Income-tax also and if he would have survived then definitely his income and profit would have been much more out of the above sources. All the petitioners were dependents upon the income of the deceased and because of his untimely accidental death, the petitioners have undergone lots of mental pain, shock and suffering and suffered loss in income as well as economic loss. According to the petitioners, soon after the occurrence, the injured was admitted to the hospital, where he survived for few hours and therefore, the petitioners are entitled to get incidental expenses on various counts. Therefore, on numerous grounds, including the ground of dependency benefit, they claimed the abovesaid compensation from the opponents plus costs and interest thereon. 6. The learned Tribunal, after considering the records, depositions of the petitioners and documentary evidence, was pleased to award compensation of Rs. 8,65,000/- to the claimants in MACP No. 664 of 1991 and Rs. 5,60,000/- to the claimants in MACP No. 665 of 1991. 7. Heard learned advocate Mr. Maulik Soni for Mr. NK Majmudar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants and learned advocate Mr. Maulik J. Shelat appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently urged that some amount on account of future prospects ought to have been awarded, while determining entitlement of the appellants for enhancement of the compensation. It was further urged that the deceased Mukeshbhai Shah was doing his business as a partner in various firms; over and above, his personal business as a Commission Agent and his net income was about Rs. 1,00,000/- per month. According to him, learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated quantum of compensation, as per evidence available on record. It was further urged that the deceased Mukeshbhai Shah was doing his business as a partner in various firms; over and above, his personal business as a Commission Agent and his net income was about Rs. 1,00,000/- per month. According to him, learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated quantum of compensation, as per evidence available on record. He has further urged that looking at the evidence on the record, the claim of petitioners was required to be allowed in toto. That, the learned Tribunal has erred in arriving at a final amount of dependency benefit, and therefore, there is an apparent error on the part of the Tribunal. That, the deceased was only 36 years of age at the time of his death, and therefore, proper multiplier ought to have been applied, while awarding the compensation. That, the income aspect of the deceased is not properly considered by the learned Tribunal. It ought to have been appreciated that over and above, his income from the partnership business, deceased was doing the work of Commission Agent and his total income was Rs. 1,00,000/- per annum. That, the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal is contrary to law and evidence available on the record, in so far as the Tribunal has not awarded full claim to the petitioners. 9. It was further argued by learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased Navinchandra Shah, who met with an accident and died due to injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. He was aged 51 years and being a partner in various firms and over and above, by carrying out his personal business, he was earning monthly Rs. 1,00,000/- and more. It is further argued that learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the quantum of compensation as per evidence on record and the claim of the petitioners is required to be allowed in toto. That, the final amount of dependency benefit is not granted to the petitioners, and therefore, it is an apparent error on the part of the Tribunal. That, learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence of the claimants at Ex. 112 and gravely erred in assessing the income of deceased at Rs. 74,521/- per annum, as well as by deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenditure of the deceased. That, learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence of the claimants at Ex. 112 and gravely erred in assessing the income of deceased at Rs. 74,521/- per annum, as well as by deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenditure of the deceased. That, awarding the amount on account of dependency benefit per annum, medical expenses was not sufficient or proper, and therefore, it was requested by learned counsel for the appellants to quash and set aside the judgment and order passed by learned Tribunal and allow the appeals, as prayed for. 10. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Maulik J Shelat appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3 has submitted that taking into account the fact that the deceased were engaged in a business of partnership firm; over and above, they were engaged in a business of commission agent, the learned Tribunal has rightly considered income of the deceased. That Income-tax return produced on the record was also considered by the learned Tribunal. That, however, cross objection was filed by the respondent No. 3 objecting multiplier adopted by the learned Tribunal to be not proper, as the age of the deceased was 36 years and 51 years respectively at the time of accident. That, learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased and no enhancement would be permissible considering the evidence led by the petitioners before the Tribunal. No interference is therefore required by this court by enhancing the amount as prayed by the appellants. Hence, it was requested by him to dismiss these appeals. 11. Having considered the respective submissions, findings of the learned Tribunal, it appears that the deceased Mukeshbhai Shah was paying Income-tax and was also filing his returns before the concerned I.T.O. The claimants have produced orders of assessment vide Ex. 59, 60 and 61. Ex. 59 is an assessment order for the Assessment Year 1989-90, wherein the total income of deceased is shown at Rs. 34,833/-. In the assessment order for the Assessment Year 1990-91 at Ex. 60, the total income of the deceased is shown at Rs. 21,000/- and while, in the assessment order (Ex. 61) for the Assessment Year 1991-92, the total income of the deceased is shown at Rs. 81,685/-. As per the documentary evidence, it is clear that the deceased was a partner in three firms and was earning a very handsome amount. 60, the total income of the deceased is shown at Rs. 21,000/- and while, in the assessment order (Ex. 61) for the Assessment Year 1991-92, the total income of the deceased is shown at Rs. 81,685/-. As per the documentary evidence, it is clear that the deceased was a partner in three firms and was earning a very handsome amount. At the time of accident, the age of deceased was 36 years and he was a partner in three firms dealing money lending business. Before the accidental death, income of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 81,685/- per annum during the Assessment Year 1991-92, which was derived out of all these concerns, as he was paying Income-tax on the said amount. The wife of the deceased was examined by the Tribunal. She has stated that the family members have not joined the said concerns as partners and they were residing with father of the deceased, who is the main partner of these concerns. From the documents produced vide Exhibit 91 to 110, it appears that after accidental death of the deceased, business of all these three concerns had started down ward trend from the income point of view. From these documents, it can be said that deceased was the main partner, having much skill and business grip and had he was not being the main partner, then the income of the firms would not have reduced to the extent shown in Exh. 91 to 110. The Tribunal has right by considered the income of deceased at Rs. 80,000/- per year and prospective income at Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rs. 80,000/- + Rs. 1,60,000/- divided by 1/2. 12. From the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly deducted the same at the rate of 40%, out of the said amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- and considered an amount of Rs. 72,000/- per year (60% of Rs. 1,20,000/-). It appears that 1/3rd of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 72,000/- is also deducted by the Tribunal and which would come to Rs. 24,000/-. Hence, the remaining amount is calculated at Rs. 48,000/- only which is dependency benefit available to the claimants per annum. It is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the deceased was 36 years old as per the birth certificate Ex. 51, and therefore, multiplier of 16 years was applied by the Tribunal. 24,000/-. Hence, the remaining amount is calculated at Rs. 48,000/- only which is dependency benefit available to the claimants per annum. It is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the deceased was 36 years old as per the birth certificate Ex. 51, and therefore, multiplier of 16 years was applied by the Tribunal. Considering the same, the future dependency available to the petitioners would come to Rs. 7,68,000/- (Rs. 48,000/- X 16). As the deceased was admitted in Sayaji Hospital and then to a clinic of Dr. Jwalit Sheth for further treatment, and ultimately, he succumbed to the accidental injuries on 05.03.1991 i.e., after nine or ten days and during that period he was suffering from mental pain, shock, suffering and agony and therefore, the family members incurred expenditure of around Rs. 48,924/- and collective bills were produced vide ex. 68. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 50,000/- in lump sum towards the medical expenses plus Rs. 15,000/- for mental pain, shock and suffering as well as agony underwent by the deceased. The conventional amount of Rs. 20,000/- for loss of expectation of life and Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses was also awarded to the claimants, which cannot be said to be unreasonable. The wife of the deceased namely Sunitaben Shah had lost her life partner, and therefore, on account of consortium, the Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs. 10,000/- and total claim amount would come to Rs. 8,65,000/-. 13. Learned counsel Mr. Maulik Shelat for the respondent No. 3 is unable to satisfy this court as to how the amount which the Tribunal is on higher side to the petitioners. 14. As per the opinion of this Court, the amount awarded to the petitioners by the Tribunal is just and proper and reasonable and no interference would be required by this Court. 15. So far as the petitioners of MACP No. 665 of 1991 are concerned, they have claimed Rs. 15,00,000/- for accidental death of Navinchandra Shah in motor vehicle accident. Wife of the deceased viz., Manjulaben Shah has deposed before the Tribunal vide Ex. 64 that her husband was a partner in a firm of Bechardas Gordhandas to the extent of 20 % and he was also a partner in Mukesh & Company to the extent of 25%. 15,00,000/- for accidental death of Navinchandra Shah in motor vehicle accident. Wife of the deceased viz., Manjulaben Shah has deposed before the Tribunal vide Ex. 64 that her husband was a partner in a firm of Bechardas Gordhandas to the extent of 20 % and he was also a partner in Mukesh & Company to the extent of 25%. According to her, the work of her husband was to administer the firms; make financial transactions, look after the writing of books of account and maintain relation with customers. Her husband was earning Rs. 1,00,000/- per month and was paying Income-tax. It appears that Exhibit 52 is an original partnership deed constituting the firm in the name of Bechardas Gordhandas which was produced on the record, wherein, the deceased is shown as a partner to the extent of 20%. Another partnership deed in the name of Mukesh & Company describes the deceased as a partner to the extent of 25% in the capacity of Karta of HUF, which was produced vide Exh. 70. The deceased was paying Income-tax. For Assessment Year 1989 to 1992, the assessment orders were produced vide Exhs. 66, 67 and 68. In the Assessment Year 1989-90, the income of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 42,449/-; while in the assessment order for the Assessment Year 1990-91(Ex. 67), the income of deceased is shown at Rs. 25,720/-, and in the assessment order for the Assessment Year 1991-92 (Exhibit 68), income of deceased is shown at Rs. 43,167/-. The assessment order of Mukesh & Company for the Assessment Year 1991-1992 produced on the record vide Exhibit-112, shows that the Company was assessed to tax at Rs. 1,46,000/- during the relevant year. Out of this income, a sum of Rs. 31,354/- was received by way of share of deceased in his capacity as Karta of HUF. From this document, it was clear that the deceased was earning Rs. 43,168/- from the partnership firm of Bechardas Gordhandas in his individual capacity and had earned Rs. 31,354/- from Mukesh & Company, being a Karta of HUF in the same year. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly considered the rounded off income of deceased at Rs. 74,000/- at the time of accident as well as rounded off prospective income at Rs. 1,10,000/- (Rs. 74,000/- + Rs. 1,48,000/- = Rs. 2,22,000/- divided by 1/2). 31,354/- from Mukesh & Company, being a Karta of HUF in the same year. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly considered the rounded off income of deceased at Rs. 74,000/- at the time of accident as well as rounded off prospective income at Rs. 1,10,000/- (Rs. 74,000/- + Rs. 1,48,000/- = Rs. 2,22,000/- divided by 1/2). It appears from the order that the Tribunal has apportioned the income in the ratio of 40:60 percentage. Considering the income of deceased at Rs. 66,000/- per annum in his supervisory or managerial capacity (60% of Rs. 1,10,000/-) and accordingly, income of deceased was assessed at Rs. 66,000/- per annum. 1/3rd amount by way of personal expenses was also deducted from the aforesaid amount of Rs. 66,000/-, which would come to Rs. 22,000/- and remaining amount of Rs. 44,000/- per annum was considered to be the dependency benefit available to the petitioners. The age of the deceased at the relevant point of time was 53 years, which was found from the birth certificate at Exhibit 69, and therefore, multiplier of 12 years was applied by the Tribunal. Even, the future dependency benefit to the claimants was considered at Rs. 5,28,000/- (Rs. 44,000 X 12). Thus, no error is committed by learned Tribunal in awarding a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium and on account of loss of love and affection of her life partner. A conventional amount of Rs. 20,000/- for loss of expectation of life and Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses was awarded by the learned Tribunal in a very right manner. In all total, Rs. 5,60,000/- was awarded to the petitioners in MACP No. 665/1991 by the Tribunal. 16. From the record and findings arrived by the learned Tribunal, this Court is of the view that no error is committed in arriving at the conclusion or in awarding amount, and therefore, no interference in the judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal, Vadodara dated 11th July, 1997 in MACP No. 664 of 1991 and MACP No. 665 of 1991 is called for. 17. Resultantly, the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Vadodara in MACP No. 664 of 1991 and MACP No. 665 of 1991 dated 11th July, 1997 is hereby confirmed.