JUDGMENT : ARUN BHANSALI, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 11.7.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Abu Road, District Sirohi ('the Tribunal'), whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.13,17,400/- as compensation. 2. The application was filed with the averments that deceased - Ranjeet Singh was traveling in Jeep, which collided with the offending Truck, resulting in grievous injuries to him, he was admitted in hospital but ultimately succumbed to injuries on 3.5.2008. 3. It was claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.1,50,000/- per year, was aged about 30 years and based on the said averments, compensation to the tune of Rs.41,72,000/- was claimed, the amount included the medical expenses incurred during the period 22nd April, 2008, when the accident occurred, till the time of death. 4. The application was opposed by the non-claimants and the Insurance Company. On behalf of the claimants Smt. Neelam Kanwar- wife of the deceased was examined as AW/1. 5. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that as the witness indicated date of birth of the deceased as 27th December, 1966, despite the fact that the age was claimed as 30 years, his age was taken between 41 to 45 years and a multiplier of 14 was applied. It was further held that though Income-Tax Return - Ex.59 was produced, however, the same was filed after the death and as in the statement it was not indicated that deceased was having any income other than the interest income, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that deceased was earning Rs.200/- per day and his income was taken at Rs.6,000/- per month. Looking to the number of dependents ?rd was deducted towards personal expenses, after providing 30% towards future prospects, the compensation was awarded. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the claimants had spent Rs.2,05,421/- as medical expenses, which was awarded along with Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of love & affection to the daughter and Rs.10,000/- each to the parents, Rs.4,000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses and Rs.4,000/- towards transportation charges and in all a sum of Rs.13,17,400/- was awarded along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application i.e. 4.8.2008. 6. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal committed error in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month only despite not believing the return of income along with computation filed as Ex.59 and Ex.60. It was further submitted that the age of deceased was 31 years at the time of his death, which was evident from the post mortem report also, however, merely because age of 42 years was indicated in the injury report, the same was taken as 42, which is incorrect. 7. Further submissions were made that the Tribunal has awarded a meager sum towards the death of a young person and, therefore, the award deserves to be enhanced adequately. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the award impugned. It was submitted that the Tribunal based on the material available on record, has awarded adequate sum, nothing has been placed on record to substantiate the income sought to be claimed in the application for compensation showing an annual income of Rs.1,50,000/- and, therefore, the award impugned does not call for any interference. It was further submitted that neither the PAN card nor the previous year's return was produced, which could have thrown light on the age as well as the income of the deceased. 9. It was also submitted that though the Tribunal has indicated future prospects at 30%, factually the same has been awarded at 50%, which deserves to be rectified. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 11. On behalf of the claimants wife of deceased - Neelam Kanwar appeared in the witness box, she disclosed her date of birth as 31.1.1981 and exhibited the return of income though filed after the death of her husband as Ex.59 and Ex.60. She has indicated the date of birth of her husband as 29th December, 1966. The Tribunal based on the said indication in the statement, which date based on the other attending circumstances in the case appears to be wrongly indicated/typed, came to the conclusion that deceased was aged more than 40 years. 12. A perusal of the computation of total income - Ex.60 indicates therein the PAN card number as well as the date of birth of the deceased as 29th December, 1976. 13. 12. A perusal of the computation of total income - Ex.60 indicates therein the PAN card number as well as the date of birth of the deceased as 29th December, 1976. 13. The claimant - wife of deceased has given out her age at 27 years and that of the mother and father have been indicated at 55 and 58 years respectively. The only child of the deceased is Ms. Kaviya, who was aged one year only and, therefore, in those circumstances ignoring the above aspects of the matter including the post mortem report, wherein the age indicated is about 32 years, the Tribunal committed error in taking the age of the deceased as between 41 to 45 years. 14. By taking the date of birth of the deceased as 29.12.1976, on the date of death, his age would be 31 years and in term of judgment of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 a multiplier of 16 instead of 14 is required to be adopted. Further in view of the fact that deceased was aged 31 years, the future prospects as granted by the Tribunal would be 50% and not 30% in terms of judgment in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). 15. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned, a bare look at the computation of income Ex.60 indicates that the deceased had National Saving Certificates in the year 2006-07 amounting to Rs.30,000/-, 2005-06 - Rs.30,000/-, 2004-05 - Rs.15,000/-, 2003-04 - Rs.10,000/- and 2002-03 - Rs.20,000/-, which amount clearly indicates the annual savings of the deceased. 16. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, which would result in annual income of Rs.72,000/-. Out of an annual income of Rs.72,000/-, a person apparently cannot save Rs.30,000/- as has been indicated in purchase of National Saving Certificates. 17. So far as the nature of income of the deceased is concerned, the respondents in their cross- examination did not put any query regarding the status of income being earned by the deceased i.e. whether the said income was still continuing or has ceased. 18. 17. So far as the nature of income of the deceased is concerned, the respondents in their cross- examination did not put any query regarding the status of income being earned by the deceased i.e. whether the said income was still continuing or has ceased. 18. It was the specific case of the claimants that they had lost the income on account of death of Ranjeet Singh and, therefore, for lack of any cross-examination in this regard, the finding of the Tribunal in this regard cannot be sustained. 19. Looking to the nature of the return as filed, in the circumstances of the case, the income of the deceased is taken at Rs.10,000/- per month. Taking the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month and applying multiplier of 16 and adding 50% towards future prospects, the amount towards loss of income would be Rs.10,000 + 5,000 = 15,000 - 5,000 (?rd) = 10,000 x 12 x 16 = 19,20,000/-. The rest of the amount i.e. Rs.3,09,421/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and medical expenses and other expenses does not call for any interference. 20. In view of the above, the appeal is party allowed. The award dated 11.7.2014 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to a further sum of Rs.9,12,000/- along with interest @ 6% from the date of application i.e. 4.8.2008. 21. The amount of enhanced award along with interest would be distributed among the claimants in the manner that 40% of the above sum shall be paid to wife of deceased-Smt. Neelam Kanwar and 40% amount shall be paid to daughter Ms. Kaviya and the parents would be paid 10% each of the enhanced amount along with interest. 22. The amount payable to Smt. Neelam Kanwar and parents Man Singh and Smt. Laxmi Ben be paid in their saving bank accounts, however, the amount payable to Ms. Kaviya be placed in fixed deposit till the period she becomes major. No order as to costs.