JUDGMENT 1. With the consent of parties, matter is finally heard. 2. The present miscellaneous appeal has been filed under section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming enhancement of the award dated 13th, July 2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Claim Case No. 319/2013. It is alleged that on the fatal date, i.e., on 21st February 2013, when the deceased Darua Ram was sitting in front of his house, he was injured by a vehicle (Jeep Bolero) bearing reregistration No. HR 16/B-5555 which was being driven in rash and negligent manner with high speed by respondent No. 2. The deceased was immediately hospitalized as he sustained wounds and fracture over the body and during the course of treatment he expired on 3rd, March 2013. It is stated that the deceased was 75 year old person and was doing business in money laundering and used to pay income tax on the income of Rupees 4 lacs per annum. Application under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed alleging the deceased to be 75 years of age. Criminal case was registered against respondent No. 2 under section 304A of the IPC at Police Station City Kotwali, District Morena. It is submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the aspect of actual income of the deceased, which was Rupees 4 lacs, despite of the fact that several documents were filed before the Tribunal, i.e., Pan card, income tax details for the year 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. 3. On the contrary, the Tribunal has considered the aspect that the claimants could not furnish the details particulars, i.e., passbook or other account details to show that the deceased was actually carrying out the business of money laundering and was having income of Rupees Four lacs, therefore the Tribunal has only considered the income of the deceased to be Rs. 15,000/- annual and has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,65,000/- only. It is further argued that the income tax documents ought to have been considered by the Claims Tribunal. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Usha (Smt.) and Ors. v. Rajesh and Ors. reported in 2009 (2) MPHT 540 , Champabai and Ors. v. Bajpai Road Lines and Ors. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Usha (Smt.) and Ors. v. Rajesh and Ors. reported in 2009 (2) MPHT 540 , Champabai and Ors. v. Bajpai Road Lines and Ors. reported in 2005 ACJ 65 and Shivkumar M. v. Managing Director BMTC reported in (2017)5 SCC 79 and submitted that the income tax documents which are filed can be considered for assessment of the income of the deceased, therefore the present appeal has been filed for enhancement of Rupees Six lacs or appropriate compensation may be granted by this Court. 4. Per contra, counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 has denied the arguments of the counsel for the appellants and submitted that the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper. It is argued that the Claims Tribunal has considered the factum of filing of income tax return of the petitioner in para 20 onwards. It is argued that the petitioner has only filed income tax return; neither the computation sheet nor the bank details, i.e., passbook has been filed by the claimants to demonstrate the fact that deceased was carrying out the business of money laundering. It is contended that for the purposes of assessment, no computation sheet has been filed in support of the documents of income tax return. In the statement of Hari Babu (appellant No. 3 herein) has himself admitted that prior to year 2009, no income tax return was being filed by the deceased and no account details was furnished by him to demonstrate that money laundering business was being carried out by the deceased. Thus, Claims Tribunal, taking into consideration the age of the deceased, has made the correct calculation by assuming notional income and applied the multiplier of 5 and also amount towards expenses incurred in medical treatment was considered by the MACT. Thus, no illegality has been committed by the Claims Tribunal. He prays for dismissal of the appeal. 5. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. From the perusal of the record it is seen that there is no dispute with respect to death of the Darua Ram in the incident. Claimants have filed certain documents, i.e., Pan Card Ex. He prays for dismissal of the appeal. 5. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. From the perusal of the record it is seen that there is no dispute with respect to death of the Darua Ram in the incident. Claimants have filed certain documents, i.e., Pan Card Ex. P-28, income tax returns of the year 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 exhibited as P-29, P-30 and P-31 to demonstrate that the deceased was doing business of money laundering but admittedly no licence of money laundering business was produced by the claimants before the Claims Tribunal; neither bank details nor passbook was filed before the learned Claims Tribunal to show the transaction being made by deceased during his business of money laundering; only income tax returns have been filed to demonstrate the income, however, no computation sheet was being produced. The case laws which have been relied upon by the counsel for the appellants is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the aforesaid cases, along with the income tax return, the computation sheet showing the details of source of the income of the deceased was produced before the Court. In the aforesaid case it was also proved that the deceased was carrying out the business of electrical and electronics goods but in the present case no computation sheet has been filed, nor licence of doing business of money laundering has been produced to substantiate the income of the deceased. Therefore, the Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in not considering the income tax return as proof of income of the deceased. The Claims Tribunal has rightly made the calculation taking into consideration the notional income of the deceased, but has only granted a meagre amount under various heads, appears to be on lesser side, therefore the same deserves to be enhanced. 7. In this case, it was claimed that the deceased was earning Rs. 33,333/- per month but the Tribunal has recorded that there is no evidence available on record to show that the deceased was earning such amount, therefore, the Tribunal has assessed his notional income as Rs.1,250/- per month, which, in the opinion of this Court, does not call for any interference. The deceased was 87 years of age at the time of accident. The deceased was 87 years of age at the time of accident. In view of the judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others [ 2018(1) JLJ 200 = (2017)16 SCC 680 ], the appellants are entitled to the compensation as under : Income of the deceased is Rs. 1,250/- per month; Future Prospects Rs. 125/- per month (i.e., 10% of the income); Total Income Rs. 1,375/- (1,250+125); Deduction towards personal expenditure Rs.343/- per month (i.e., ¼ of the income 1,375); Total Income after deducting personal expenses Rs. 1,032/- per month (1,375-343); Multiplier of 5 shall be applied; Loss of future income will be Rs. 61,920/- (Rs. 1,032 x 12 x 5); Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/-; Loss of Estate, love and affection and pain & suffering, etc. Rs. 15,000/-; Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-: Total Compensation Payable Rs. 1,31,920/-. The expenses towards bills, granted by the learned MACT, is Rs. 1,48,622/-. The total compensation comes to Rs. 2,80,542/-. 8. In this case, the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,65,000/- in all, including the medical expenses of Rs. 1,48,622/-. Thus, the appellants are held entitled to receive the enhanced amount of Rs. 15,542/- in addition to the amount of compensation already awarded by the Claims Tribunal, making the total compensation of Rs. 2,80,542/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the realization, if not paid in 60 days. The said amount be paid within a period of sixty days from the date of the receipt of certified copy of this order. 9. Accordingly appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. 10. In the facts of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.