JUDGMENT : Aravind Kumar, J. 1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment and award passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Belgaum in M.V.C. No. 2199/2003 dated 19.11.2012 whereunder claim petition filed by the wife of deceased under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been allowed in part and a total compensation of Rs. 43,54,424/- with interest at 6% p.a. has been granted. 2. The compensation which has been awarded by tribunal under different heads are:- S. No. Heads Amount 1. Loss of dependency Rs. 43,12,425/- 2. Loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/- 3. Loss of estate Rs. 10,000/- 4. Loss of love and affection Rs. 15,000/- 5. Funeral and transportation expenses Rs. 7,000/- Total Rs. 43,54,424/- 3. Appellant in M.F.A. No. 21025/2013 was the claimant in M.V.C. No. 2199/2003 who filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 80 lakhs in respect of death of Sri Vinod Dattopant Kulkarni as a result of injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident that occurred on 27.01.2000 at 5.45 p.m. It was alleged in the claim petition that deceased Sri Vinod Dattopant Kulkarni was proceeding as a pedestrian and walking towards his office on 27.01.2000 at 5.45 p.m. and at that point of time, a goods tempo bearing registration No. MEH 5913 driven in a rash and negligent manner and with a great speed endangering human life had dashed against said Sri Vinod Dattopant Kulkarni resulting in severe injuries being sustained and immediately thereafter he was admitted to KLE Hospital, Belgaum and was treated from 27.01.2000 to 14.03.2000 and again from 20.03.2000 to 03.04.2000 and on account of treatment not being fruitful resulted in his death on 03.04.2000 due to the grievous injuries sustained in the above said accident. Hence, compensation of Rs. 80 lakhs with interest was sought for. 4. On service of notice of petition, insurer-second respondent therein (appellant in M.F.A. No. 20630/2013) appeared and filed its statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition except to the extent expressly admitted thereunder. Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings framed issues for its adjudication. Claimant got herself examined as PW-1 and also examined two doctors who had treated the deceased as PWs. 2 and 3 and in all got marked 15 documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15. Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings framed issues for its adjudication. Claimant got herself examined as PW-1 and also examined two doctors who had treated the deceased as PWs. 2 and 3 and in all got marked 15 documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15. On behalf of insurance company, Branch Manager was examined as RW-1 and through him three documents were got marked as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3. The entire case sheet of the KLE Hospital, Belgaum, was got marked as Ex.C.1 which had been summoned by the jurisdictional tribunal. On appreciation of evidence and after consideration of rival contentions raised at the bar, tribunal has allowed the claim petition in part and awarded a sum of Rs. 43,54,424/- with interest at 6% p.a. as already noticed hereinabove. 5. The insurer of the offending vehicle is assailing the award in question contending that quantum of compensation awarded is exorbitant, excessive and not commensurate with the injuries sustained by deceased and there is no nexus between injuries and his doctor. Whereas claimant has filed M.F.A. No. 21025/2013 contending that quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is abysmally on the lower side and it requires to be enhanced under all heads and tribunal has erred in not considering the evidence available on record in proper perspective. 6. We have heard the arguments of Sriyuths G.N. Raichur appearing for insurer and Harsh Desai, learned counsel appearing for claimant. 7. It is the contention of Mr. 6. We have heard the arguments of Sriyuths G.N. Raichur appearing for insurer and Harsh Desai, learned counsel appearing for claimant. 7. It is the contention of Mr. G.N. Raichur, learned counsel for the insurer that medical records available would demonstrate that deceased was suffering from several diseases and as such, there was no nexus between the cause of death and injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident; he would also submit that respondents 3 to 5 are not dependants of deceased and as such, question of deducting 1/3rd of the income of the deceased would not arise; he would submit that deceased was a Chartered Accountant and the firm which had been established by him has continued even after his demise and as such, there is no loss of income to the claimant; he would further submit that loss of income is not proved and the income of the deceased considered by the tribunal is excessive and as such, compensation awarded by the tribunal requires to be reduced and/or scaled down also by taking into consideration age of the deceased as 60 years 2 months as on the date of accident; he would further contend that the claimants have dragged on the proceedings before the tribunal for ten years and as such, insurer cannot be burdened with the interest component for no fault of theirs. 8. Per contra, Sri Harsh Desai, learned counsel appearing for claimant would submit that tribunal erred in considering the income of the deceased as Rs. 9,24,091/- and deduction of 1/3rd is just and proper; he would submit that average income for two years preceding the death ought to have been taken by the Tribunal by considering the fact that deceased was a income tax assessee and income tax returns filed by him, which were produced and marked as Exs.P9 and P11 ought to have been taken into consideration for awarding compensation towards "loss of dependency" he would also submit that respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are the daughter-in-law and grandsons of the claimant and on account of his son having predeceased the deceased Vinod Dattopant Kulkarni, they ought to be considered as dependents and their exclusion for the purposes of computation of loss of dependency as contended by the insurer ought not to be taken; he would also submit that multiplier of 7 adopted by the tribunal is erroneous and not inconsonance with the factual aspects namely when the deceased was aged less than 60 years as on the date of accident and as on the date of death he was 60 years 2 months and as such tribunal ought to have adopted the multiplier of 9 instead of 7 and he also prays for award of compensation towards loss of companionship and loss of income during laid up period i.e. two months. On these grounds, he seeks for allowing the appeal filed by the claimant by dismissing the appeal filed by the insurer. 9. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records, we are of the considered view that following points would arise for our consideration: (i) Whether compensation awarded by the tribunal is just, reasonable and inconsonance with the evidence tendered by the parties? (ii) What is just and reasonable compensation to which claimants are entitled for? (iii) What order? 10. Before dwelling upon point Nos. 1 and 2 raised hereinabove, it would be apt and appropriate to notice there is a serious dispute which has been raised with regard to death of Vinod Dattopant Kulkarni by the insurer contending that there is no nexus to the injuries sustained and to the accident. As such we have examined the material evidence available on record after securing the records from the tribunal. Claimants have examined PW-2, the Doctor, who was working at the undisputed point of time namely when the deceased was admitted to the Hospital immediately after the accident i.e. on 27.01.2000. Apart from narrating the injuries sustained by the claimant, he has also categorically stated that deceased Vinod Dattopant Kulkarni was treated as an inpatient from 27.01.2000 to 14.03.2000 and thereafter from 20.03.2000 to 03.04.2000. He further deposed that on 03.04.2000, while being treated, he expired. He has also clearly stated that deceased died due to infection caused at hip joint namely septicemia. He further deposed that on 03.04.2000, while being treated, he expired. He has also clearly stated that deceased died due to infection caused at hip joint namely septicemia. The wound certificate would also disclose that deceased had suffered the fracture of joint bone. In his own words, he has clearly stated to the following effect: xxx xxx xxx 11. By drawing our attention to a stray admission in the cross-examination of PW-2, Shri G.N. Raichur has made attempt to contend that death was not due to accidental injuries, which argument though at first blush looks attractive, it is not so and is requires to be considered for the purpose of outright rejection. The purported admission which has been elicited in the cross-examination of the Doctor, PW-2, reads as under: xxx xxx xxx 12. To the suggestion put to the said witness that the above referred ailments would occur to a patient, if he sustained injuries in a road traffic accident and it would result in his death has been denied by the Doctor. In fact to the suggestion made on account of other ailments, which the deceased was suffering namely due to diabetic and other diseases, as noticed hereinabove, he had expired has been denied. Such denial in the words of the Doctor, PW-2 reads as under: xxx xxx xxx 13. As could be seen from the evidence of PW-2, it is sought to be depicted by the insurer that deceased was already suffering from several ailments i.e., diabetes, kidney problem, reduction in calcium level and acidity in the body, as cause of death and it was not due to accidental injuries cannot be accepted for reasons more than one. Firstly in the cross-examination of the Doctor, PW-2, he has stated that when deceased was admitted on 20.03.2000 (second time), he had noticed these ailments in the deceased. As to whether these ailments had occurred after the accident or prior to the accident, no material is available. The insurer could have called for the documents or tendered evidence to substantiate its claim in that regard to prove that deceased died due to said ailments, which he was already suffering from and which was existing even prior to the accident. This exercise was not undertaken by the insurer. The insurer could have called for the documents or tendered evidence to substantiate its claim in that regard to prove that deceased died due to said ailments, which he was already suffering from and which was existing even prior to the accident. This exercise was not undertaken by the insurer. Secondly, assuming that these diseases were already existing at the time of accident, these injuries have contributed to acceleration and thereby it resulted in the death, which necessarily is due to the accidental injuries. Even otherwise, when all steps as expected of a reasonable and prudent person to prevent aggravating of such disease or accelerating such diseases have been taken, it cannot be gain said by the insurer that cause of death was due to such ailments only and not due to accidental injuries. In fact, a person is said to have caused death of a person, who suffers from bodily injuries, such person, who causes bodily injuries, is deemed to have caused death although such person would have resorted to proper remedies with skillful treatments, which might have prevented the death. Even in such circumstances also the person, who is said to have expired is due to bodily injuries sustained by him. As such, the preliminary objection raised by Shri G.N. Raichur stands rejected. 14. One another factor, which requires to be noticed is: deceased had taken out a Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy from the very same Insurance Company, which is now before us in the present appeals and the policy which was issued for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- and in column 3-b, which describes the brief details of surveyors/doctors, investigate/ investigators/department report and assessment, it has been entered: "Fractures due to road accident. Suffering from diabetes, heart decease." 15. The observations made by the Insurance Department Officials would clearly go to show that it has been endorsed by the person who conducted investigation on behalf of insurer to the effect "cause of death is accident." In fact, claim made on the basis of said policy by the wife i.e. the claimant, insurer has settled said claim by accepting the fact that death was due to accidental injuries and the very same insurer had paid the cheque and thereby it is estopped from contending contrary to what has been admitted. RE. POINT NO. 1: 16. RE. POINT NO. 1: 16. Insofar as award of compensation towards loss of dependency is concerned, tribunal has relied upon Exs.P8 and P9. Ex.P8 is the income tax returns filed for the assessment year 1999-2000. Ex.P8(11) relates to acknowledgement for having filed the income tax returns for the assessment year 1998-1999. The computation of net income for the respective years have been produced and marked as Exs.P9 and P9(11) and tribunal has considered only Ex.P8(11) and arrived at a conclusion that residual total income of the deceased as Rs. 9,24,091/-. The finding recorded by the tribunal in that regards reads: On the other hand, Ex.P.8(11) i.e. Return form No. 2 for assessment year 1998-1999 which pertains to a year prior to the accident and death of the injured deceased. Ex.P.9(11) discloses the total income of deceased at Rs. 12,60,891/- for the assessment year 1998-1999. Out of that Rs. 3,35,000/- towards income tax and Rs. 1,800/- towards professional tax are to be deducted. The residual income comes to Rs. 9,24,091/-. 17. The records on hand would clearly disclose that deceased was a practicing Chartered Accountant; he had established his own Firm and had acquired rich clientele over the years of his practice. In fact, return of income Ex.P8 & P11 when perused in its entirety it would clearly indicate that apart from the professional income, the deceased was getting rental income from the properties, which he had purchased over the years and was having fixed deposits, had made investments in Banks, UTI, LIC and company shares etc. This would only indicate that deceased was earning substantially from out of his practice as a Chartered Accountant. Though claimants have contended that deceased was earning Rs. 1,00,000/- per month, in the light of the income tax returns filed, the income deducted by him as per the return of income filed before Income Tax Authorities will have to be taken. In the instant case, tribunal has considered the income pertaining to the assessment year 1998-1999 only by considering the income at Rs. 9,04,091/- (Rs. 12,60,891 - Rs. 3,35,000/-) and deducting a sum of Rs. 3,35,000/- towards income tax, which would not be proper computation or calculation inasmuch as there being fluctuation in the income, the average of the two assessment years ought to have been taken. For the assessment year 1998-1999, the taxable income of the deceased was Rs. 9,04,091/- (Rs. 12,60,891 - Rs. 3,35,000/-) and deducting a sum of Rs. 3,35,000/- towards income tax, which would not be proper computation or calculation inasmuch as there being fluctuation in the income, the average of the two assessment years ought to have been taken. For the assessment year 1998-1999, the taxable income of the deceased was Rs. 12,60,891/- and tax payable thereon is Rs. 3,47,117/-. For the assessment year 1999-2000, the taxable income was Rs. 18,28,443/- and tax payable thereon is Rs. 5,03,582/-. That apart, deceased was paying professional tax, as admitted by PW-1 @ Rs. 1,800/- p.a. Thus, for two years the professional tax would be Rs. 3,600/-. In other words, the taxable income for two years being Rs. 30,89,334/- (total of both years) and tax paid thereon including professional tax is Rs. 8,54,299/-. Average of these two would be Rs. 15,44,667/- and Rs. 4,27,149/- respectively. Hence, the average income of Rs. 15,44,667/- the average tax for two years i.e. Rs. 4,27,149/- is to be deducted and when so deducted average annual income or loss of income to the dependents would be Rs. 11,17,518/- (Rs. 15,44,667/- - Rs. 4,27,149/-). Since deceased had left his wife who is the sole dependant, 50% has to be deducted towards the living expenses and when so deducted from out of Rs. 11,17,518/- the net loss of income to the dependent would be Rs. 5,58,759/-. 18. Though learned counsel appearing for the claimant has vehemently contended that daughter-in-law of the deceased and claimant and her son are also to be treated as dependant, we are not inclined to accept said proposition, since the wife of claimant's son who had pre-deceased, claimant and her husband deceased Vinod Dattopant Kulkarni were not living with them. Hence, we are unable to accept the finding recorded by the trial Court for deducting 1/3rd income of the deceased, in as much as evidence on record would clearly establish that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (daughter-in-law and grand son of claimant and deceased) were not living or residing with the claimant. In other words, they were not dependant on the deceased as such, considering them as dependants and thereby deducting 1/3rd from out of the income of the deceased would not arise and the claimant-wife alone being dependant, 50% is to be deducted and accordingly, it has been deducted as discussed herein above. 19. In other words, they were not dependant on the deceased as such, considering them as dependants and thereby deducting 1/3rd from out of the income of the deceased would not arise and the claimant-wife alone being dependant, 50% is to be deducted and accordingly, it has been deducted as discussed herein above. 19. Though deceased was aged 60 years 2 months on the date of his death, the fact remains that he was Chartered Accountant running a well established firm. Over year of practice as already observed he was having large clientede and was having a fixed income. In fact, unlike profession of an Advocate where were the relationship of a client with his Advocate would come to an end on dispute ending, it is not so in case of Chartered Accountant and they would normally remain as clients permanently. In other words, seldom do the clients change their Chartered Accountants. This would indicate that there would be perennial income to a Chartered Accountant from such clients. In that view of the matter, it has to be necessary to held that in the instant case deceased had fixed income and as such, as per dictum Pranay Sethi's case 10% towards loss of future prospects has to be added to the income of the deceased. We have already arrived at a conclusion that loss of income to the dependant per annum is Rs. 5,58,759/- and 10% of it has to be added to said income to arrive at actual loss of income and when so added i.e. Rs. 55,875/- the net loss of income to the dependant would be Rs. 6,14,634/- (5,58,759+55,875/-). 20. Having regard to the rival contention raised with regard to multiplier, namely Sri. Raichur, learned counsel having contended that Tribunal has rightly held that multiplier to be adopted at 7' and on the other hand, learned counsel Sri. Harsha Desai having contended that multiplier to be adopted at 9' we find from the records that as on the date of accident the deceased had not completed 60 years. Raichur, learned counsel having contended that Tribunal has rightly held that multiplier to be adopted at 7' and on the other hand, learned counsel Sri. Harsha Desai having contended that multiplier to be adopted at 9' we find from the records that as on the date of accident the deceased had not completed 60 years. However, the cause of action for filing claim petition is filed not only due to the accident but also on account of death occurring undisputedly in the instant case was on 03.04.2000 and on the said date the deceased was 60 years 2 months, question would be as to whether age of the deceased is to be adopted as 60 years or 61 years under identical circumstances, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shashikala and Others vs. Gangalakshmamma and Another, (2015) 9 SCC 150 , has held as under: "16. Insofar as appropriate multiplier, the date of birth of the deceased as per driving licence was 16.6.1961. On the date of accident i.e. 14-12-2006, the deceased was aged 45 years 5 months and 28 days and the Tribunal has taken the age as 46 years. Since the deceased has completed only 45 years, the High Court has rightly taken the age of the deceased as 45 years and adopted multiplier of 14 which is the appropriate multiplier and the same is maintained. Total loss of dependency is calculated at Rs. 16,82,310 (Rs. 1,20,165 x 14)." 21. As noticed herein above in the Shashikala's case the deceased was 45 years, 5 months and 28 days as on the date of accident and the deceased had only completed 45 years. Hon'ble Apex Court had taken the age as 45 years and had adopted the multiplier of 14' as against the claim for adopting multiplier of 13'. In the instant case, we are faced with the same situation or same factual matrix exists namely deceased was aged even as on the date of death 60 years two months and infact on the date of accident he was not even 60 years. Thus, multiplier which has to be adopted as per Sarala Verma vs. Delhi Transportation Corporation Ltd. (2009) ACJ 1298 for the age group of 56 to 60 is 9' and for the age group of 61 to 65 years, is 7'. Thus, multiplier which has to be adopted as per Sarala Verma vs. Delhi Transportation Corporation Ltd. (2009) ACJ 1298 for the age group of 56 to 60 is 9' and for the age group of 61 to 65 years, is 7'. In Shashikala's case referred to above, the age of the deceased being 45 years, 2 months, multiplier of 14 was adopted. In the instant case, deceased had not stepped into 61st year and as such multiplier as envisaged for the age group of 61-65 would not be applicable. Hence, we are persuaded to accept the contention of Sri. Harsha Desai to adopt the multiplier of 9' applicable to the age group of 56-60 years. Accordingly, we adopt the multiplier of 9'. 22. In that light, above discussion the compensation to be awarded to the claimants towards loss of dependency would be: Rs. 6,14,634 x 9 = Rs. 55,31,706/- 23. Though claimant has contended that they have spent a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- towards medical expenses, no bills were produced before the tribunal. In fact PW-1 has clearly admitted that at the time of making his claim in respect of Janata Policy - Ex.P14 all the bills have been produced and money was received. This admission can be found in the cross-examination of PW-1 dated 19.06.2010. As such, we are not inclined to accept the claim for award of compensation towards medical expenses. However, the undisputed fact as well as records on hand would disclose that deceased was admitted to KLE hospital twice i.e. initially from 27.01.2000 till 14.03.2000 and again from 20.03.2000 till his death on 03.04.2000. During this period not only claimant would have spent amount towards food, transportation conveyance, but, same would also have been spent on claimant herself. Further, there is no cogent, positive evidence available on record with regard to actual expenses incurred. Hence, we are taking into consideration these aspects and also the fact that at KLE hospital, nourishment would be provided to the patient. Hence, it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards food, nourishment and conveyance and accordingly it is awarded. 24. Insofar as compensation towards conveyance heads are concerned, issue is no more res integra in the case of National Insurance Company limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) AIR SC 5157 as well as in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. 50,000/- towards food, nourishment and conveyance and accordingly it is awarded. 24. Insofar as compensation towards conveyance heads are concerned, issue is no more res integra in the case of National Insurance Company limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) AIR SC 5157 as well as in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram and Others, (2018) ACJ 2782, we are of the considered view that the claimant would be entitled to compensation under the following heads:- (i) Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- (ii) Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/- (iii) Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- 25. During this period of two months claimant i.e. from the date of accident till his death deceased was hospitalized, was inmobile, not able to attend to his office and thereby there would be loss of income during this period. As such, taking into consideration the annual income of the deceased @ Rs. 6,14,634/- the monthly income is calculated @ Rs. 51,219.50 and loss of income for the period of two months is awarded i.e. a sum of Rs. 1,02,439/-. 26. In the light of above discussions we are of the considered view that claimant is entitled to be following compensation:- S. No. Heads Amount 1. Loss of dependency Rs. 56,01,706/- 2. Towards food nourishment, conveyance Rs. 50,000/- 3. Loss of income during laid-up period for two months Rs. 1,02,439/- 4. Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- 5. Loss of consortium/ companionship Rs. 40,000/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- TOTAL Rs. 58,24,145/- 27. This Court has consistently held that claimant would be entitled to interest @ 8% p.a. on the award amount though we are inclined to award 8% interest, we find from records that matter has been pending before the tribunal for about 10 years. It is no doubt true delay is not attributable to claimant alone. However, fact remains as could be seen from the order sheet, for more than two years PW-1 did not tender herself for cross-examination. On hearing date before the Tribunal PW-1 has not appeared for cross-examination and also for further cross-examination. 28. Further, it is noticed that for recording of further evidence of PW-1 which was at the instance of claimant matter has been adjourned from time to time i.e. for long numbers of months/years. On hearing date before the Tribunal PW-1 has not appeared for cross-examination and also for further cross-examination. 28. Further, it is noticed that for recording of further evidence of PW-1 which was at the instance of claimant matter has been adjourned from time to time i.e. for long numbers of months/years. As such, to strike balance between two, we propose to award interest @ 7% p.a. as against the 6% p.a. which is awarded by the Tribunal and as such, we award 7% interest on the compensation awarded. Hence, the following: ORDER: (i) Appeals are allowed in part. (ii) Judgment and award dated 19.11.2012, passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Belgaum in MVC No. 2199/2003 is hereby modified and it is ordered that claimant would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 58,24,145/- which shall carry interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of petition till date of payment or deposit whichever is earlier. (iii) The award of compensation in favour of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 is hereby set aside. (iv) Out of compensation amount awarded in favour of claimant, 50% shall be kept in a fixed deposit for a period of three years and she would be entitled to withdraw periodical interest and balance of 50% is ordered to be released in favour of claimant by the registry of this Court with accrued interest on proper identification and cheque shall be issued forthwith. (v) Excess amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be refunded to the appellant-Insurer i.e. appellant in MFA No. 20630/2013.