JUDGMENT : Aravind Kumar, J. 1. This appeal and cross objections are filed by the insurer and claimants respectively against the judgment and award passed by II Additional District & Sessions Judge and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tumkur in MVC No.753/2013 dated 30.12.2014. 2. Parties are referred to as per their rank before Tribunal. 3. Facts in brief which has led to the filing of this appeal and cross objections are as under: Claimants sought for compensation of Rs. 75 lakhs contending interalia that husband of first claimant Sri Venkateshwara Reddy while proceeding on his two wheeler on 15.02.2013 at about 1.00 p.m. near SS Circle, Tumkur town, a Crane bearing registration No.GJ-10-K-3752 driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the said two wheeler and on account of the impact, rider of the motor cycle - Sri Venkateshwara Reddy fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries, as a result of which, he expired. It was contended by the claimants namely, wife, daughters and mother of the deceased that deceased was the only earning member and at the time of his death, he was doing civil contract work and also carrying on agriculture activities and earning Rs. 50,000/- per month. Hence, contending that respondents are liable to pay compensation of Rs. 75 lakhs with interest @ 12% p.a., claim petition came to be filed. 4. Insurer appeared and contested the matter by filing statement of objections and denying the averments made in the claim petition except to the extent expressly admitted thereunder. 5. Fourth Claimant got her self examined as P.W.1 and also examined two witnesses and in all, produced 26 documents by getting them marked as Exs.P-1 to P-26. On behalf of the insurer, its official was examined as R.W.1 and policy issued to the offending vehicle was got marked as Ex.R-1. After considering the pleadings, analyzing the evidence and taking note of the arguments advanced by the respective learned Advocates, Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part and awarded a total sum of Rs. 46,21,952/- under the following heads: Sl. No. Heads Amount (Rs.) 1 Conveyance 15,000/- 2 Funeral expenses 20,000/- 3 Loss of estate 10,000/- 4 Loss of consortium 60,000/- 5 Loss of love and affection 80,000/- 6 Loss of dependency 44,36,952/- Total 46,21,952/- 6. 46,21,952/- under the following heads: Sl. No. Heads Amount (Rs.) 1 Conveyance 15,000/- 2 Funeral expenses 20,000/- 3 Loss of estate 10,000/- 4 Loss of consortium 60,000/- 5 Loss of love and affection 80,000/- 6 Loss of dependency 44,36,952/- Total 46,21,952/- 6. Being aggrieved, insurer has filed the appeal interalia contending that IMV Report - Ex.P-8 would disclose that motor cycle which was driven by the deceased was damaged on the front side and the claimants contended that the offending vehicle had come from hind side and dashed against the motor cycle driven by the deceased and as such, accident in question occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the deceased himself. It is also contended that Tribunal has awarded exorbitant compensation without any basis. 7. Per contra, claimants who have filed Cross objections have contended that Tribunal erred in not considering the evidence tendered in proof of the income of the deceased and as such, he prays for enhancing the compensation. 8. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of the records secured from the Tribunal, we notice that on 15.02.2013 at about 1.00 p.m. the deceased Sri Venkataswamy Reddy was proceeding on his two wheeler and near SS Circle the offending vehicle namely, Crane is said to have rammed into the two wheeler on which deceased was proceeding. Though Mr. O. Mahesh, learned Advocate appearing for the insurer has vehemently contended that accident in question had occurred on account of the negligence of the deceased himself, we are unable to accept the said contention for more than one reason. Firstly, the FIR - Ex.P-1 and the charge sheet - Ex.P-6 would disclose that jurisdictional police after conducting due investigation have initiated the proceedings against driver of Crane bearing registration No.GJ-10-K-3572 for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304A of IPC. Secondly, the eye witness to the accident Sri Jaganmohan Reddy K - P.W.2 has categorically stated that he had seen the manner in which the accident in question occurred and has denied the suggestion that deceased himself had dashed against the offending vehicle. Nothing worthwhile has been elicited in his cross-examination to disbelieve his testimony. 9. Secondly, the eye witness to the accident Sri Jaganmohan Reddy K - P.W.2 has categorically stated that he had seen the manner in which the accident in question occurred and has denied the suggestion that deceased himself had dashed against the offending vehicle. Nothing worthwhile has been elicited in his cross-examination to disbelieve his testimony. 9. As already noticed herein above, the insurer has relied upon the IMV report - Ex.P-8 to contend that the motor cycle in which deceased was proceeding was damaged on the front side and as such, it had to be presumed that theory of the claimants about the offending vehicle having hit the motorcycle from the hind side must be disbelieved. Though, at first blush this argument looks attractive, it cannot be accepted inasmuch as, the impact of a heavy vehicle like the Crane even slightly touching a two wheeler like the motor cycle in question while it is being in motion, would be sufficient for the driver of the motor cycle/two wheeler to lose balance and fall from the said vehicle and this is what has exactly happened in the instant case. This finding is also fortified by the spot sketch - Ex.P-3. 10. That apart, when the insurer has raised a plea of the accident having occurred on account of the deceased, the least they could have done is to examine the driver of the Crane namely, the offending vehicle, since he would have been the best witness to state the mode, manner and method in which accident in question had occurred. This minimum exercise has also not been undertaken by the insurer. On the other hand, the claimants have examined the eye witness to the accident as P.W.2, as already noticed hereinabove, who has categorically stated that driver of the offending vehicle dashed against the motor cycle from the hind side. Thus, on account of the impact, front side of the motor cycle has been damaged and as such, the insurer would not be justified in contending that the accident in question had occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. As such, the first contention raised by the learned Advocate appearing for insurer stands rejected. 11. Thus, on account of the impact, front side of the motor cycle has been damaged and as such, the insurer would not be justified in contending that the accident in question had occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. As such, the first contention raised by the learned Advocate appearing for insurer stands rejected. 11. Insofar as rival contentions with regard to quantum of compensation when examined in the background of the findings recorded by the Tribunal and the records which came to be produced by the claimants in support of their claim for awarding compensation under various heads, it would disclose that Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 46,21,952/- under different heads as already noticed hereinabove. 12. The prime contention by the learned Advocates appearing for the claimants-cross objectors and the insurer is that Tribunal has erred in not considering the income tax returns of the deceased filed by the claimants, which came to be marked as Exs.P-15 to P-18, in proper perspective. 13. Tribunal while computing the compensation payable to claimants towards 'loss of dependency', as could be seen from the judgment, has taken note of not only income tax returns - Exs.P-15 to P-18 but also other documents like refund order issued by Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Ex.P-13 and de-registration of VAT relating to the firm - SLV Minerals, of which deceased was the proprietor. Tribunal having also noticed that as per the income tax returns for the years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 produced at Exs.P-15, P-16 & P-17 disclosing the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,50,205/-, Rs. 5,53,783/- and Rs. 5,83,710/- respectively, has taken the average of these three (3) years into consideration and has arrived at the annual income at Rs. 4,55,072/-. In view of the fact that deceased was married and having five dependents, 1/4th came to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and as such, Tribunal held that annual income of the deceased which has been deprived to the dependents would be Rs. 3,41,304/-. By adopting the multiplier of 13' and by taking into consideration age of the deceased which was 50 years, Tribunal has computed the compensation towards 'loss of dependency' at Rs. 44,36,952/- (Rs. 3,41,304/- x 13). 14. Though learned Advocate appearing for claimants-cross objectors would vehemently contend that annual income of the deceased after deduction ought to have been considered at Rs. 44,36,952/- (Rs. 3,41,304/- x 13). 14. Though learned Advocate appearing for claimants-cross objectors would vehemently contend that annual income of the deceased after deduction ought to have been considered at Rs. 4,55,072/- , we are not inclined to consider the same, inasmuch as, Tribunal has arrived at the income of the deceased by taking into consideration the average income preceding three years to the death of Sri Venkateshwara Reddy and on arriving at the annual income of the deceased at Rs. 4,55,072/-, 1/4th of the same has been deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased i.e., Rs. 1,13,768/- and held the annual income of the deceased at Rs. 3,41,304/- and has accordingly awarded a sum of Rs. 44,36,952/- (Rs. 3,41,304/- x 13) as compensation towards 'loss of dependency'. 15. A feeble argument has been raised by the learned Advocate appearing for claimants that Tribunal ought to have added 15% to the income of the deceased atleast towards 'loss of future prospects' and thereafter, it ought to have computed 'loss of dependency', by relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. vs PRANAY SETHI reported in 2017 SCC Online SC 1270. As could be seen from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PRANAY SETHI referred to supra, it is held to the following effect: "62. Having bestowed our anxious consideration, xxx oblivious to the marrows of ground reality. And, therefore, degree - test is imperative. Unless the degree - test is applied and left to the parties to adduce to evidence to establish, it would be unfair and inequitable. The degree-test has to have the inbuilt concept of percentage. Taking into consideration the cumulative factors, namely, passage of time, the changing society, escalation of the price, the change in price index, the human attitude to follow a particular pattern of life, etc., an addition of 40% of the established income of the deceased towards future prospects and where the deceased was below 40 years, an addition of 25% where the deceased was aged between 40 to 50 years would be reasonable. 63. The controversy xxx unacceptable concept. We are disposed to think, there should be an addition of 15% if the deceased is between the age of 50 to 60 years and there should be no addition thereafter. 63. The controversy xxx unacceptable concept. We are disposed to think, there should be an addition of 15% if the deceased is between the age of 50 to 60 years and there should be no addition thereafter. Similarly, in case of self- employed or person on fixed salary, the addition should be 10% between the age of 50 to 60 years. The aforesaid yardstick has been fixed so that there can be consistency in the approach by the tribunals and the Courts." 16. Thus, the emphasis has been laid by the Apex Court on the established income and the same has to be established by the parties adducing evidence. Keeping this in mind, when the facts on hand are perused, it would disclose that Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration the three (3) years average income of the deceased, preceding his death as the income. The claimants for reasons best known to them, had not produced before the Tribunal either balance sheet or P & L Account of the deceased which would be filed along with the income tax returns of the deceased. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that question of adding 15% in the instant case would not arise. Hence, finding recorded by the Tribunal does not call for our interference as it does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. 17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. vs PRANAY SETHI reported in 2017 SCC Online SC 1270 referred to supra, has held that claimants would be entitled to compensation of Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- under the conventional heads, namely, 'loss of estate', 'loss of consortium' and 'funeral expenses'. The award of the Tribunal not being in consonance with the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court under these heads, we are of the considered view the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, requires to be modified accordingly. 18. In the light of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the considered view that claimants would be entitled to the compensation under the following heads which has been recomputed. Sl. 18. In the light of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the considered view that claimants would be entitled to the compensation under the following heads which has been recomputed. Sl. No. Heads Amount (Rs.) 1 Loss of estate 15,000/- 2 Loss of consortium 40,000/- 3 Funeral expenses 15,000/- 4 Loss of dependency 44,36,952/- Total 45,06,952/- Hence, we proceed to pass the following: JUDGMENT (1) MFA No.2512/2015 is hereby allowed in part and MFA CROB 79/2015 is hereby dismissed. (2) Judgment and award passed by II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tumkur in MVC No.753/2013 dated 30.12.2014 is hereby modified and in substitution to the award passed by the Tribunal, a sum of Rs. 45,06,952/- is hereby awarded which shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till date of payment or deposit whichever is earlier. (3) Insurer is directed to deposit the compensation amount before jurisdictional Tribunal with interest within an outer limit of five weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (4) The apportionment and order for deposit as made by the Tribunal shall hold good for the modified award. (5) Registry is directed to transmit the amount in deposit along with original records to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith. (6) Registry is directed to draw the decree in terms of this judgment.