JUDGMENT : Ashok Bhushan, J. Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh dated 3rd December, 2014 by which judgment FAO filed by the claimants questioning the quantum of the award by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has been dismissed. 3. The appellants are legal heirs of one Satbir who while driving his Alto Car was hit by a trolla bearing No.HR47A/2472 on 5th July, 2011 and had died on the spot. Claim petition was filed by the appellants under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 praying for grant of compensation to the amount of Rs. 1 crore along with interest at the rate of 12% in favour of appellants. 4. Before the Tribunal evidence was led that deceased was working as a Branch Post Master in Post Office Nangli Godha Tehsil and District Rewari and had received salary of Rs. 1,03,607/- from Post Office in the previous year. Evidence was also led that the deceased was also an LIC Agent having been granted licence EX.P.2 to carry on Insurance business. Incomes received from the Insurance business pertaining to the year 2007-08 to 2010-2011 were also brought on record. Head Clerk of LIC, Rewari also came to prove the income received by the deceased from the Insurance business. The Tribunal found that salary income received from the Post Office has to be treated as only Rs. 75,726/- since rest of the amount in the year was towards arrears. The Tribunal although noted that income received from Insurance business for the year 2010-11 was Rs. 4,60,082/- after deducting the income tax of Rs. 51,120/- paid by the deceased, the Tribunal by giving reasoning of its own calculated loss from the income from commission agent only to Rs. 56,528/- Thus, adding both the income total of Rs. 1,32,248/- was arrived and after deducting 1/3rd as personal expenses, by taking the multiplier of 14 the Tribunal arrived at total Rs. 12,34,660/- and by adding Rs. 10,000/- loss of consortium, Rs. 10.000/- lost of estate, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 12,64,660/-. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 27th November, 2012, FAO No.1403 of 2013 was filed by the appellants. 12,34,660/- and by adding Rs. 10,000/- loss of consortium, Rs. 10.000/- lost of estate, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 12,64,660/-. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 27th November, 2012, FAO No.1403 of 2013 was filed by the appellants. Apart from challenging the amount of income arrived at by the Tribunal received from the Post Office, the appellants also challenged the calculation of loss from Insurance business as arrived at by the Tribunal. 6. The appellants also contended that while arriving at annual income of Rs. 75,726/- from Post Office the Tribunal erred in not adding income towards future prospects. Further, the amount of Rs. 56,528/- only as calculated by the Tribunal from commission from LIC business was attacked. It shall be useful to reproduce the grounds 4 and 5 taken before the High Court by the appellants which are to the following effect: "4. That the Ld. Tribunal has erred in considering income of deceased as Rs. 56,528/- per year only from commission being LIC agent. It is submitted here that deceased was also an agent of LIC with branch office at Rewari and as per form 16A, Ex.P.3 income of deceased from April, 2007 to March, 2008 was Rs. 3,43,078/- per annum, Ex.P.4 form 16A for the year 2008-09 income was Rs. 3,53,161/-. Ex.P.5 form 16A shows his income for the year 2009-10 to be Rs. 4,50,596/- and Ex.P.6 form 16A for the year 2010-11 shows income Rs. 5,11,202/- These documents placed on file show that his income per year was on increasing side and after deducting income tax to the tune of Rs. 51,120/-, the actual income from LIC comes to Rs. 4,60,082/-, which was not considered by the Ld. Tribunal and hence the same be considered and the award be modified. 5. That the Ld. Tribunal has failed to consider that if income from two heads is added altogether then total annual income of the deceased Satbir Singh comes to Rs. 5,94,769/-. BY applying 1/3rd cut towards personal living expenses, as per Saria Verma's case the actual loss to the appellants comes to Rs. 3,96,513/- 5 per year. When this income is further multiplier by 15 ( a multiplier as per schedule of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988), the total amount of compensation to be awarded to the appellants comes to Rs. 59,47,695/-, in of consortium. However, the Ld. 3,96,513/- 5 per year. When this income is further multiplier by 15 ( a multiplier as per schedule of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988), the total amount of compensation to be awarded to the appellants comes to Rs. 59,47,695/-, in of consortium. However, the Ld. Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 14 only." 7. The High Court decided the FAO vide its judgment and order dated 3rd December, 2014. The High Court noticed the income from Insurance business for the years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 between Rs. 3.5 lakh to Rs. 5 lakh. It came to the conclusion that the income so derived is paid as per terms of engagement to legal heirs, hence, there shall be no loss of income on that score. The grounds which were raised by the appellants in the grounds of appeal pertaining to income received from Insurance business were not adverted to by the High Court and the claim from Insurance business was rejected by making the following observation: "However, keeping in view that the income so derived as per own stand of their witnesses ought to be paid even to legal heirs as per the policy of this engagement and thus cannot be taken as to loss of income on that score." 8. It is relevant to note that the High Court while noticing the income as shown in income tax return for the year 2007-08 to 2010-2011 had come to the conclusion that the deceased was getting earnings between Rs. 3.5 lakh to Rs. 5 lakh per annum which is clear from the following observation made in the judgment: "From 16A of the income tax proved by way of Exs.P3 to P6 reflects so from March, 2007 to March 2008. Similarly document Ex.P4 for the year 2008-09 Ex.P5 for the year 2009-10. Ex.P6 for the year 2010-11 shows that the deceased was getting earnings between Rs. 3.5 lacs to Rs. 5 lacs per annum." 9. The High Court did not interfere with the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Similarly document Ex.P4 for the year 2008-09 Ex.P5 for the year 2009-10. Ex.P6 for the year 2010-11 shows that the deceased was getting earnings between Rs. 3.5 lacs to Rs. 5 lacs per annum." 9. The High Court did not interfere with the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Even though with regard to the compensation on conventional heads, the High Court opined that the Tribunal has awarded only meager compensation, the observation has been made to the following effect: "It needs to be accepted that the learned Tribunal has lost sight of the conventional heads under which claimants needs to be compensated and has given only meager compensation on that score." 10. One of the issues which needs to be considered in the present appeal is as to whether the Tribunal was right in computing the loss from Insurance business to the extent of only Rs. 56,528/- whereas detailed evidence pertaining to the income received from Insurance business was led before the Tribunal and was proved by an Official of the LIC. The total income from Insurance business as proved from Ex.P2 to P.6 of deceased and as noticed by the Tribunal in the judgment is to the following effect: "2007-08 = Rs. 3,43,078/- 2008-09 = Rs. 3,53,161/- 2009-10 = Rs. 5,11,202/- 2010-11 = Rs. 5,11,202/-" 11. The High Court itself recorded a finding that income from Insurance business of the appellants was between Rs. 3.5 lakh to Rs. 5 lakh. The Tribunal and the High Court noted that the income received from the policies already done by the deceased shall be received by the legal heirs. There cannot be any dispute as per the terms of the agreement of the engagement of LIC agent that certain amount of commission earned by him goes to his legal heirs. But the mere fact that certain amount of commission is to be received by the legal heirs after the death of the agent cannot be treated to be the basis to hold that no loss shall be suffered by the legal heirs due to the death of the agent. The income of the deceased agent was noted to be increasing year by year from Rs. 3.5 lakh to Rs. 5 lakh. The income of the deceased agent was noted to be increasing year by year from Rs. 3.5 lakh to Rs. 5 lakh. Due to the death of the deceased it cannot be denied that recurring income from Insurance business which business agent was expected to continue shall be loss of earning and when in the year immediately before the death income received by the deceased was Rs. 5,11,202/- on which he paid income tax of Rs. 51,120/-, the Tribunal gave strange reasoning by computing loss of Insurance business only as Rs. 56,528/-. We do not subscribe the reasoning given by the Tribunal computing loss from Insurance business as Rs. 56,528/- per annum which is apparently incorrect in view of the figures of the income as noted above. 12. Further, specific grounds raised before the High Court in grounds of appeal as noted above were not adverted to by the High Court and the High Court erred in observing that since the legal heirs were to receive commission due to the death of agent, there will be no loss which was wholly an erroneous view. 13. In normal course we would have remanded the matter to the Tribunal or High Court to recalculate the loss of earnings from Insurance business and further to consider the ground of future prospects on the salary received by the deceased from the Post Office but it is just and proper that instead of prolonging the proceeding a quietus be given to the claim at this stage itself. 14. Taking into over all consideration of the claim by the appellants, we are of the view that the amount of Rs. 12,64,660/- as granted by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court be increased to a lump sum amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- ( twenty five lakh) along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of the claim. The amount of compensation, i.e. Rs. 25 lakh with interest shall be disbursed in the manner as directed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by its judgment dated 27th November, 2012. 15. The appeal is allowed accordingly.