ORDER : Mr. Goverdhan Bardhar, J. 1. Instant appeal has been filed by the claimants/appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirohi (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide impugned judgment and award dated 03.12.2012 passed in Claim Case No. 109/2011, whereby compensation in the sum of Rs. 8,96,000/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants/appellants. 2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that on 08.02.2011 the husband (deceased) of the appellant No.1 was traveling in his car bearing registration No. RJ-24-CA-1203 with two more passengers i.e. Smt. Rasila and Smt. Sangeeta from Sirohi to Harji and when he reached near the farm of Pandit Kali Das Ji at Mandwada, at about 7:45 am, a car bearing registration No. RJ-16-UA-1635, which was being driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently, came from the wrong side and hit the car of the husband of appellant No.1 which resulted into severe accident wherein the husband of the appellant No.1 as well as Smt. Rasila died on the spot and other passenger Smt. Sangeeta was severally injured. 3. An FIR was lodged and after investigation police came to the conclusion that the vehicle No. RJ-16-UA-1635 was involved in the accident and filed challan against respondent No.1 for driving rashly and negligently. 4. The non-applicant respondent Nos.1 & 2 submitted their reply and stated that the accident was not caused due to the negligence of the respondent No.1 and further the vehicle in question is insured with the respondent No.3-Insurance Company, therefore, liability to make payment of compensation would be of the respondent-Insurance Company. 5. The respondent No.3 insurance company also filed its reply and stated that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the deceased himself. Further the driver of the offending vehicle did not have the valid driving license on the date of accident and since he violated the terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to make payment of compensation. 6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed five issues including the issue of relief. The claimants got examined three witnesses and got exhibited 31 documents. No evidence was produced on behalf of the respondents. 7. 6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed five issues including the issue of relief. The claimants got examined three witnesses and got exhibited 31 documents. No evidence was produced on behalf of the respondents. 7. The learned Tribunal after hearing both the parties and taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, vide its judgment and award dated 03.12.2012 awarded a compensation of Rs. 8,96,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6 per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization in favour of the claimants/appellants. Hence, this misc. appeal for enhancement of compensation. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has committed grave error of law while passing the impugned award as the Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of compensation. The learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- while ignoring the fact that the deceased was running his own business i.e. colouring and wood polishing and was earning a sum of Rs. 16,000/- per month. Income tax certificate was also produced on record as Exhibit-19 and 20. Despite production of income tax certificate, the learned Tribunal only on the ground that the income tax certificate does not specify the source of income and discarded the same and assessed only Rs. 6,000/- per month as income of the deceased out of which ¼th was deducted towards personal expenses which is against the evidence and documents produced on record. Further it is submitted that the learned Tribunal has only awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 30,000/- towards consortium which also deserve to be enhanced. It is further argued that not a single penny has been awarded towards future prospects although the deceased was a young man at the time of accident and his income would have certainly increased in the future. To buttress his contentions, counsel has relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 , Shivakumar M. v. Managind Rector, BMTC [ 2017 (2) WLN 34 (SC)]. 9. To buttress his contentions, counsel has relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 , Shivakumar M. v. Managind Rector, BMTC [ 2017 (2) WLN 34 (SC)]. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has opposed the submissions advanced by the counsel for the claimants/appellants and submitted that the learned Tribunal while holding that the income tax return does not specify the source of income of the deceased and income tax return was filed without balance sheet, has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/-. Therefore, the award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and proper and warrants no interference. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties. I have gone through the record and perused the impugned judgment/award passed by the learned Judge, MACT cases, Sirohi. 11. So far as the monthly income of the deceased is concerned, Smt. Meena (AW-1) in her evidence adduced that his husband (deceased) was running his own business for more than 15 years and getting income of Rs. 16,000/-. A bare perusal of the income tax returns (Ex-19 & Ex-20) shows that the income tax returns filed only on 31.07.2010 whereas they related to the year 2009-10 and 2010-11. Along with Exhibit- 19 & Exhibit-20 balance sheet was not filed. The learned Tribunal holding that since the income tax return does not specify the source of income of the deceased, assessed Rs. 6,000/- per month income of the deceased. 12. In the case of Shivakumar M. (Supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has assessed the income of the appellant as Rs. 15,000/- per month despite the fact of non-availability of evidence with regard to the income of the appellant. In the present case, the deceased was running his own business for more than 15 years and getting income of Rs. 16,000/- per month. Therefore, this Court assesses his monthly income as Rs. 15,000/- instead of Rs. 6,000/- per month. After deducting ?rd on account of personal expenses, the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs. 10,000/-. 13. In the present case, the deceased was running his own business for more than 15 years and getting income of Rs. 16,000/- per month. Therefore, this Court assesses his monthly income as Rs. 15,000/- instead of Rs. 6,000/- per month. After deducting ?rd on account of personal expenses, the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs. 10,000/-. 13. As far as the applicability of the multiplier is concerned, at the time of accident, the deceased was 32 years old and the learned Tribunal while computing the compensation has rightly applied the multiplier of 16 according to second schedule of Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act so also in consonance with the view expressed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 . 14. In the case of Sarla Verma (supra) the Apex Court had dealt with the issue of future prospect of addition to the income, and had observed as under:- ...In view of the imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. (Where the annual income is in the taxable range the words “actual salary” should be read as “actual salary less tax”). The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardise the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculation being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments, etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure there from should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. 15. Admittedly, the deceased was 32 years old when he expired and there is no evidence with regard to fixed salary and permanent job. Since there were no exceptional or special circumstances for deviating from the guidelines, the Tribunal was justified in not granting any compensation for future prospects. 16. 15. Admittedly, the deceased was 32 years old when he expired and there is no evidence with regard to fixed salary and permanent job. Since there were no exceptional or special circumstances for deviating from the guidelines, the Tribunal was justified in not granting any compensation for future prospects. 16. While accepting the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 10,000/- after deducting one-third amount on account of personal expenses and applying the multiplier of 16, a sum of Rs. 19,20,000/- is liable to be awarded to the claimants. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as consortium for mental agony, loss of love and affection. As regards consortium for mental agony, loss of love and affection for the wife of the deceased, in the opinion of this Court, it has been awarded on a lower side as at the time of accident. The wife of the deceased must have suffered a great shock and agony and should have been awarded at least Rs. 1,00,000/- on this count. Thus, it is held that the claimant wife appellant no.1 is entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/- towards consortium for mental agony and deprivation of married life. The award of Rs. 2,000/- toward funeral expenses is also on lower side and in the opinion of this Court at least Rs. 25,000/- should have been awarded on this Court. It is held that the claimants are entitled to Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses. 17. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and while modifying the judgment and award dated 03.12.2012, the claimants are held to be entitled to a sum of Rs. 19,20,000/- instead of Rs. 8,64,000/- on account of loss of income and the claimant-wife is held to be entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental agony and deprivation of married life as also Rs. 25,000/- for funeral expenses. In all, the claimants/appellants are entitled to get compensation to a sum of Rs. 20,45,000/- instead of Rs. 8,96,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The claimants will also be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount of compensation at the rate of 6% per cent per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realisation.