JUDGMENT : Abdullah Gulamahmed Uraizee, J. 1. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("M.V. Act" for short) is preferred for enhancement of the compensation which is awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) Anand in M.A.C.P. No. 904 of 2006 (Old M.A.C.P. No. 1718 of 1992) whereby and where under a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with 7.5% interest with proportionate costs is awarded to the claimants for the death of Irfanbhai Alibhai Aarab in a vehicular accident. 2. On 24.05.1992, Irfanbhai Alibhai Aarab was going to Sevalia from Vadodara on his tractor bearing registration number MHC 6169 between the 12:00 noon and 12:30 p.m. A truck bearing registration No. GTY 6490 came at a very high and excessive speed and dashed with the tractor from behind. As a result of the accident the tractor was dragged for about 30 foot and turn turtle and fell into a road side ditch and was broken into three pieces. Irfanbhai Alibhai was crushed under the wheel and suffered serious injuries on his head and other parts of the body and died on the spot. The appellants being the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased filed a claim petition being M.A.C.P. No. 1718 of 1992 to claim compensation of Rs. 13,00,000/- against the respondents. The claim petition later on came to be renumbered as M.A.C.P. No. 904 of 2006. The claims tribunal by the impugned judgment and award partly allowed the claim petition and directed all the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with 7.5% interest and proportionate costs jointly and severally to the appellants. The appellants being unhappy with the quantum of the compensation, have preferred present appeal for enhancement. 3. I have heard Mr. M.T.M. Hakim, learned advocate for the appellants, Mr. Palak H. Thakkar, learned advocate for the respondent No. 3 - Insurance Company and Mr. Murli Devnani, learned advocate for Mr. Krunal D. Pandya, learned advocate for the respondent No. 1. 4. Mr. Hakim, learned advocate for the appellant has vehemently urged that the tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on a lower side though there is documentary evidence on record, that the deceased was dealing in scrap. Murli Devnani, learned advocate for Mr. Krunal D. Pandya, learned advocate for the respondent No. 1. 4. Mr. Hakim, learned advocate for the appellant has vehemently urged that the tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on a lower side though there is documentary evidence on record, that the deceased was dealing in scrap. It is his further contention that considering the age and year of the accident and the income bracket for the relevant year, annual income of the deceased ought to have been assessed at Rs. 28,000/- per month as per the prevalent income tax rate. In support of his submission he has relied on the decision of this court United India Insurance Co. Versus Bharti Kanaiyalal Chauhan & Ors., 2007 (2) G.L.R. 1464 . He further submits that the deceased was aged about 40 years at the time of accident and therefore, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court Cases Smt. Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the tribunal ought to have adopted multiplier of 13 instead of 12 to decide the dependency of the appellants. He is also seeking enhancement of compensation under conventional head and submits that the tribunal should have awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- instead of Rs. 15,000/-. So far as the deduction towards personal expenses is concerned, it is his submission that there are as many as eleven dependants and therefore, as per the ratio of the Sarla Varma (supra) one fifth should be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased as there are eleven dependants. Relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the Case of Santosh Devi Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. And Ors., 2012 (6) SCC 421 ; Rajesh and others Versus Rajbir Singh & Ors., 2013 (9) SCC 54 ; Munna Lal Jain and Another Versus Vipin Kumar Sharma and Others, 2015 (6) SCC 347 ; Syed Sadiq etc. Versus Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., 2014 (2) SCC 735 ; Kalpanaraj Versus Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, 2015 (2) SCC 764 ; New India Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Manishaben Sanjaybhai Tribhovandas Modi & Ors., (2015) AIJEL_HC 234152; Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jayantibhai Hemchandbhai Panchal, (2016) AIJEL_HC 236456. 5. Versus Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., 2014 (2) SCC 735 ; Kalpanaraj Versus Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, 2015 (2) SCC 764 ; New India Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Manishaben Sanjaybhai Tribhovandas Modi & Ors., (2015) AIJEL_HC 234152; Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jayantibhai Hemchandbhai Panchal, (2016) AIJEL_HC 236456. 5. He has relied upon decision of this court in the case of Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jayantibhai Hemchandbhai Panchal, (2016) AIJEL_HC 236456, He further submits that as the deceased was in the group of 45 to 50, 30% prospective rise may be added in the income of the deceased to determine the dependency of the appellants. He further submits that up to 31.12.1999 interest @12% and thereafter @9% may be awarded. In view of the decision of this Court in case of Shaileshkumar Shantilal Gandhi & Another versus Sunil Babulal Dixit and Others, (2013) 3 G.L.R. 1. He therefore urges that the appeal may allow and the compensation awarded by the tribunal, enhanced accordingly. 6. Mr. Palak Thakkar, learned advocate for the respondent No. 3- Insurance company supported the impugned judgment and award and submits that the tribunal has not committed any error in assessing the notional income of the deceased as there is no evidence about the income of the deceased. It is his further submission that the issue of awarding prospective rise in case of self employed person is referred to larger bench Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. versus Pushpa and others, (2015) 9 SCC 166 . It is his further submission that the Division Bench of this Court in the CAV Judgment dated 20.03.2015 in First Appeal No. 2366 of 2014 in the case of New India Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Manishaben Sanjaybhai Tribhovandas Modi and others has held that in case of self employed person prospective rise in income can be considered, only if there is an evidence to show that there was a periodical rise in income regularly. He, therefore, urges that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and does not warrant any interference in this appeal. 7. The appellant noted herein above had filed the claim petition to recover compensation of Rs. 13,00,000/- from the respondents on the premise that the deceased was dealing in scrap and was earning Rs. 7000/- to Rs. 8000/- per month from his business. 7. The appellant noted herein above had filed the claim petition to recover compensation of Rs. 13,00,000/- from the respondents on the premise that the deceased was dealing in scrap and was earning Rs. 7000/- to Rs. 8000/- per month from his business. In support of their say, reliance was placed on some communication between the SPIE-CAPAG/NKK/TOYO CONSORTIUM, Baroda and the Regional Transport Officer, R.T.O., Baroda as also sale agreement between the deceased and the said SPIE-CAPAG/NKK/TOYO CONSORTIUM, Baroda established on record that the deceased was involved in scrap business and had purchased old vehicle from the said company. This documentary evidence was of the year 1990. The tribunal did not find this documentary evidence satisfactorily to hold in favour of the applicant that the deceased was dealing in scrap. The tribunal has also noted other aspect such as non payment of income tax and the non registration of the firm in name of J.P. Kabadi Market which according to the appellant was owned by the deceased. The tribunal considering their economic conditions prevailing in 1992 assessed the income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum and adopted the formula prescribed in the decision of the Ritaben @ Vanitaben wd/o. Dipakbhai Haribhai and Another Versus Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service and Another, 1999(1) G.L.R. 388 , to determine the dependency of the appellants. 8. Thus, it is clear that the tribunal assessed notional income of the deceased only because the appellants could not produce any other contemporaneous income such as income tax return, registration of the firm with the Vadodara Municipal Corporation and the books of account to buttress their say that the deceased was earning between Rs. 7000/- to Rs. 8000/- per month. The documentary evidence produced vide Exh. 29 in the form of communication between the SPIE-CAPAG/NKK/TOYO CONSORTIUM, Baroda and the RTO and sale agreement, albeit of the year 1990, produced by the appellant does indicate that the deceased was involved in the business of scrap. It is, therefore, clear that the tribunal was not justified in discarding this evidence solely on the basis that this evidence is not backed up by other contemporaneous evidence such as income tax, books of account etc. to assess the income of the deceased Rs. 15,000/- but it will earlier when the deceased was maintaining family consisting of 11 members. 9. This court in the case of United India Insurance Co. to assess the income of the deceased Rs. 15,000/- but it will earlier when the deceased was maintaining family consisting of 11 members. 9. This court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Bharti Kanaiyalal Chauhan (Supra) in paragraphs No. 15 and 21 observed as under: "15. In the first place, the said reported judgment does not indicate the income tax exemption limit for the relevant period. Secondly, we may not be taken to have expressed the view that the income to be assessed in such case must of necessity be less than the exemption limit. When several tax saving schemes are permitted by the provisions of the Income-tax Act under which a person can plan to avoid paying any income-tax by availing of such exemptions and deductions. Sometimes, therefore, such income may be even between 150% or 200% of the basic exemption limit but the Tribunals or Courts assessing and computing the compensation in such cases cannot altogether ignore the relevant exemption limit while adjudicating the claim petitions otherwise it will amount to the Courts and Tribunals putting their seal of approval on the fiscal illegalities of the deceased. A Court of law cannot close its eyes to such illegalities and consider them as of no consequence. The Income-tax Act is as much enacted by the Parliament as the Motor Vehicles Act is. Even when the forum of Claims Tribunal is established under the Motor Vehicles Act, it cannot refuse to consider the provisions of the other statutes framed by Parliament or other competent Legislatures. The concept of Rule of law does not envisage that Tribunals or Courts established under one Act can with impunity condone the gross violations of other laws. Even though, the highest Court of the land is vested with very wide and unlimited powers conferred by Art. 142 of the Constitution for doing complete justice, it has how been held that the Apex Court also would not give any direction which would have the effect of violating a statutory provision. Seen in this light, we express our inability to concur with the observations made by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhupender Kaur, 2004 ACJ 1130 . Seen in this light, we express our inability to concur with the observations made by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhupender Kaur, 2004 ACJ 1130 . Even otherwise, we are of the view that the observations made by the Allahabad High Court were really obiter because (as Paragraph 10 thereof would indicate) the witness who had stated that the deceased did not pay any income-tax, was a person who was examined only as a witness of the accident and he had not and could not have any personal knowledge about the extent of income of the deceased from various sources as against the knowledge of the wife of the deceased." "21. We, therefore, assess the annual income of the deceased at Rs. 80,000/- and proceed on the basis that with appropriate tax planning and with the benefits of depreciation, the deceased was in such a position that even though the exemption limit was Rs. 40,000/- and his net income was Rs. 80,000/- per annum, the deceased was not required to file the tax return." 10. In view of the aforesaid preposition of law laid down by this Court, I am of the view that the tribunal was not justified in over looking Exh. 29 documentary evidence to disbelieve the say of the appellants that the deceased was earning his livelihood by dealing in scrap only because income tax return were not produced. 11. It is now well settled that in case of self employed deceased victim prospective income is to be determine in view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Santosh Devi (Supra), Reshma Kumari (Supra), Rajesh (Supra), Syed Sadiq (Supra), Kampanaraj (Supra), New India Insurance Company Ltd. (Supra), Munna Lal Jain (Supra), Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. (Supra) 12. It is, therefore, now required to be considered as to what should be just and reasonable monthly income of the deceased. Mr. Hakim, learned advocate for the appellants relying upon the decision of this court and the decision of the Supreme Count in cases of Santosh Devi (Supra), Reshma Kumari (Supra), Rajesh (Supra), Syed Sadiq (Supra), Kampanaraj (Supra), New India Insurance Company Ltd. (Supra), Munna Lal Jain (Supra), Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. (Supra) as per the prevalent income Tax rate at the relevant time the notional income may be assessed Rs. 28,000/-. 28,000/-. I am unable to accept this submission. It is true that the appellants have produced documentary evidence vide Exh. 29 to indicate that the deceased was dealing in scrap but at the same time it is equally true that the relevant evidence as regards the income of the deceased is not produced except that the deceased was dealing in scrap. I am, therefore, of the opinion that considering the year of accident and considering the fact that the deceased was dealing in scrap and maintaining the family of eleven members, ends of justice would meet if the monthly income of the deceased assessed at Rs. 2000/- per month which would come to Rs. 24,000/- per annum. 13. The tribunal has considered the prospective income of the deceased as per formula of the decision of this Court in the case of Ritaben (Supra) without referring to the citation after which much water has flown in view decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court in the cases of Santosh Devi (Supra), Reshma Kumari (Supra), Rajesh (Supra), Syed Sadiq (Supra), Kampanaraj (Supra), New India Insurance Company Ltd. (Supra), Munna Lal Jain (Supra), Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. (Supra). It appears from the evidence available on record that the deceased was in the age group of 45 to 50 years and therefore, as per the ratio propounded by the aforesaid decisions 30% rise has to be added to the monthly income assessed by this court to determine the prospective income of the deceased for the purpose of dependency of the claimants. Therefore, 30% of Rs. 2000/- would come to Rs. 600/- and accordingly the prospective income of the deceased would be Rs. 2000/- + Rs. 600/- = Rs. 2600/- for the purpose of dependency of the appellants. 14. The tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the Supreme Court, in case of Sarla Verma, has held as under, as regards the personal expenses of the deceased. "30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. "30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependant family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceeds six." 15. Mr. Hakim, learned advocate for the appellants submits that the tribunal has awarded a very conservative amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards the conventional amount. He submits that the tribunal ought to have awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- under this. In view of various decisions and considering the year of the accident the submission of Mr. Hakim to award Rs. 1,00,000/- cannot accepted and Rs. 50,000/- would be just and reasonable compensation under this head. 16. There is no dispute that there are as many as eleven dependants and therefore, in view of the aforesaid ratio of the Supreme Court 1/5th is required to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased instead of 1/3rd as deducted by the tribunal and therefore, after deducting 1/5th income of the deceased towards personal expenses, the annual dependency of the claimant would come to (2600-520 = 2080 per month x 12) Rs. 24960/- per annum. 17. The deceased was in the age group of 45 to 50 years, therefore, as per the ratio of laid down by the Sarla Verma (Supra) case, multiplier of 13 should be adopted instead of 12 as adopted by the tribunal for the determining the dependency of the deceased and therefore, the dependency benefit would be Rs. 24960x13 = Rs. 3,24,480/-. 18. So far as the interest is concerned tribunal has awarded 7.5% interest on the awarded compensation. Mr. Hakim, learned advocate for the appellants has relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Shailesh Kumar Santilal Gandi (Supra) and has urged this court to split the rate of interest in two parts and according to him 12% should be awarded up to 31/12/1999 and thereafter, 9% till realization. Mr. Hakim, learned advocate for the appellants has relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Shailesh Kumar Santilal Gandi (Supra) and has urged this court to split the rate of interest in two parts and according to him 12% should be awarded up to 31/12/1999 and thereafter, 9% till realization. The rate of interest is within the discretionary power of the tribunal but at the same time such discretion should be exercised keeping in view the interest which an investment fetches at the relevant time. Considering the overall facts of the case, I am of the view that 9% interest throughout would serve the end of justice. 19. In view of the above the compensation awarded by the tribunal required to be enhanced as under:- Head Amount awarded by Tribunal Amount awarded by this judgment Difference Future economic loss Rs. 1,80,000/- Rs.3,24,480/- Rs. 1,44,480/- Conventional Amount Rs.15,000/- Rs.50,000/- Rs. 35,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/- - Total Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.3,79,480/- Rs. 1,79,480/- 20. In view of the foregoing reasons the appellants are held entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 1,79,480/- in addition to Rs. 2,00,000/- awarded by the tribunal and the total compensation i.e. Rs. 2,00,000 + Rs. 1,79,480/- shall carry 9% interest instead of 7.5% awarded by the tribunal from the date of petition. 21. For the foregoing reasons the appeal succeeds in part. The impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) Anand in M.A.C.P. No. 904 of 2006 (Old M.A.C.P. No. 1718 of 1992) is hereby modified and the appellants are held to be entitled to additional compensation of Rs. 1,79,480/- with 9% interest from the date of petition till realization. 22. The respondent No. 3 - Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,79,480/- and difference of interest on that compensation of Rs. 3,79,480/- in the tribunal within a two months from the date of receipt of Certified Copy of this judgment. 23. The tribunal shall disburse the amount of enhanced compensation in favour of the appellants in terms of the impugned judgment and award after the amount is deposited by the insurance company. 24. The parties are left to bear their own costs. R & P is ordered to be remitted to the trial Court to the forthwith.