JUDGMENT : Shalini Phansalkarjoshi, J. This appeal is preferred by the original claimants challenging the inadequate amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati in Claim Petition No.255/2000 vide its judgment and award dated 08.02.2006. 2. Brief facts of the appeal can be stated as follows : The appellant No.1 is widow and appellant Nos.2 and 3 are the sons of deceased Pradipkumar. At the time of accident, deceased was aged about 40 years and doing agricultural as well as business of running a grocery shop in the name and style of "Keshaolal Bhimji Kirana Shop," at Wadhona Ramnath, Tahsil-Nandgaon Khandeshwar, District - Amravati. He was earning the income of Rs. 7,500/- per month and paying yearly income tax of Rs. 4,510/-. The appellants were totally dependent on his income. 3. As per the case of appellants, on account of his death on 06.06.2000 in the vehicular accident, they have lost their only source of income. The accident that took away his life was in between his vehicle Marshal Sumo bearing No. MH27/H445 and the Tata Oil Tanker bearing No. MH297601. The accident took place at Chor Mahuly, State Highway No.6 at 2.45 p.m.. The said Truck was driven by the respondent No.2, it was owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.3. The police has registered an offence against the Truck driver bearing Crime No.64/2000 for various offences punishable under Sections 279, 338, 304A of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The appellants had, therefore, claimed the compensation from the respondents jointly and severally contending inter alia that if deceased had remained for further period of 30 years, he would have earned the income of Rs. 90,000/- per year and therefore, having regard to the financial loss which they have suffered on account of his death and also the loss of love, affection and consortium, the total amount of compensation claimed by the appellants in the petition filed before the Tribunal was Rs. 36,15,000/-. However, they restricted their claim to Rs. 15,00,000/- since they were unable to pay the required Court fees. 5. This petition came to be resisted by the respondent No.3 alone as respondent Nos.1 and 2 failed to contest the same, despite due service of notice, raising various contentions including the one that the amount claimed by the appellants towards compensation is exorbitant and excessive. 15,00,000/- since they were unable to pay the required Court fees. 5. This petition came to be resisted by the respondent No.3 alone as respondent Nos.1 and 2 failed to contest the same, despite due service of notice, raising various contentions including the one that the amount claimed by the appellants towards compensation is exorbitant and excessive. It was denied that deceased would have remained alive for further 30 years and he would have earned the income of Rs. 90,000/- per year. It was submitted that the appellants be put to strict proof of the income of the deceased and his future prospects. 6. On these respective pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues for its consideration vide Exh.15. In support of her case, the appellant No.1 examined herself; whereas respondent No.3 examined its employee Chandrakant Ingle. 7. On appreciation of this evidence, learned Tribunal was pleased to hold that the cause of accident was rash and negligent driving of the Tanker and hence, respondent Nos.1 to 3 were held jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the appellants. This findings of the learned Tribunal is not challenged by any of the respondents, either by preferring cross objection or filing any counter appeal. Hence, it has attained finality. Even otherwise also it is based on the evidence on record, which is found to be appreciated properly by the Tribunal. 8. Hence, the only point which arises for my determination in this appeal is whether the compensation amount as awarded by the Tribunal is just, fair and adequate or it calls for enhancement, as claimed by the appellants. 9. The evidence of appellant No.1 goes to prove that her husband was running a grocery shop in the name and style as "Keshaolal Bhimji Kirana Shop" at Wadhona Ramnath and he was earning the income of Rs. 7,500/- per month. He has paid income tax of Rs. 4,510/- on the income of Rs. 77,550/- in the income tax return submitted on 31.08.1999. She has produced the original income tax return at Exh.30. In my considered opinion, this income tax return, therefore, can be safely relied upon to hold that the monthly income of the deceased as per the income tax return comes to Rs. 6,500/-. 10. 4,510/- on the income of Rs. 77,550/- in the income tax return submitted on 31.08.1999. She has produced the original income tax return at Exh.30. In my considered opinion, this income tax return, therefore, can be safely relied upon to hold that the monthly income of the deceased as per the income tax return comes to Rs. 6,500/-. 10. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, considering the age of the deceased which was only 40 years at the time of accident and having regards to the fact that he was already having established business of grocery shop, he would have definitely earned some more income on account of earning of good will and reputation in the said business. I find much substance in this submission because the Court can take judicial notice of the fact that as much the business becomes old, it earns more income on account of establishment of its reputation and good will. Therefore, 15% income of the deceased can be added towards the future prospects. 11. Considering the age of the deceased, the proper multiplier would be 15%. The Tribunal has awarded some meager amount towards the loss of love, affection and consortium which amount, now in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh and Others v. Rajbir Singh and Others, reported in 2014 (1) Mh.L.J. 79, needs to be enhanced. 12. The total amount of compensation to which the appellants thus become entitled, can be reassessed as follows : Sr. No. Heads Calculation (i) Income from business Rs. 6,500/- per month (ii) 15% of (i) above to be added as future prospects Rs. 6,500 + Rs. 975 = Rs. 7,475 (iii) ⅓rd of the same to be deducted as personal expenses of the deceased Rs. 7475 Rs. 2491 = Rs. 4,984 (iv) Compensation after multiplier of 15 is applied Rs. 4,984 x 12 x 15 = Rs. 8,97,120 (v) Loss of consortium Rs. 1,00,000/- (vi) Loss of care and guidance for two minor children Rs. 1,00,000/- (vii) Funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/- Total Compensation Awarded Rs. 11,22,120/- 13. Thus, the appeal needs to be allowed and accordingly, it is allowed. The appellants are held entitled to get compensation amount of Rs. 11,22,120/- inclusive of no fault liability, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation. 14. 1,00,000/- (vii) Funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/- Total Compensation Awarded Rs. 11,22,120/- 13. Thus, the appeal needs to be allowed and accordingly, it is allowed. The appellants are held entitled to get compensation amount of Rs. 11,22,120/- inclusive of no fault liability, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation. 14. As the respondent No.3 has already deposited amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal in the Court. That amount be adjusted towards the total amount of compensation as awarded by this Court.