Judgment The National Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter “the insurer”) is in appeal against the judgment and award dated 30th April, 2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kathua (hereinafter “the Tribunal”) in file No.22/CP titled Rohnika Sharma v. Manzoor Ahmed and another, whereby respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have been held entitled to compensation of Rs. 16,29,000/- on account of death of Sh. Gopal Sharma in a motor vehicle accident. 2. The insurer is aggrieved of the quantum of compensation awarded and seeks modification of the award primarily on the ground that the Tribunal, erroneously and without there being any evidence on record, took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/-. 3. Mr. C.S. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that apart from the oral evidence, nothing was brought on record by the claimants to prove that the monthly income of the deceased at the time of accident was Rs. 15,000/-. It is urged that had the income of the deceased been Rs. 15,000/- then he would have been income tax payee and, therefore, the claimants should have atleast placed on record his last income tax return. 4. Per contra, Mr. Jagpaal Singh, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, submits that the Tribunal has committed no illegality in taking the income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- per month, as the deceased was proved to be running a chemist shop on the national highway. He, therefore, submits that the claimants had sufficiently proved that the income of the deceased was between Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 25,000. It is, however, urged that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 12 whereas the applicable multiplier in the instant case is 14. He also disputes different sums paid under conventional heads. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that the award does call for modification, so as to make the compensation payable to the claimants look just and fair. It is true that apart from the oral evidence, the claimants have not placed on record any document viz. accounts of business or Income Tax Return to indicate that the income of the deceased was Rs. 20,000 to 25,000 per month, as claimed. I am also in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that had the income of the deceased been Rs. accounts of business or Income Tax Return to indicate that the income of the deceased was Rs. 20,000 to 25,000 per month, as claimed. I am also in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that had the income of the deceased been Rs. 15,000/- or more, he would have been in the income tax net and in such eventuality the production of income tax return was the best possible evidence to prove the income. However, I find no merit in the contention of Mr. C.S. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, that in the absence of documentary proof of income, the Tribunal should have taken the income of the deceased treating him to be a labourer entitled to minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act. From the evidence, it is amply proved that the deceased was running a chemist shop. The claimants have also placed on record the license issued by the competent authority authorizing the deceased to sell the drugs on retail basis. 6. However, in the absence of Income Tax Return of the deceased or some other cogent evidence, it is in the fitness of the things to take the income of the deceased as Rs. 10,000/- per month. This would not make the annual income of the deceased taxable under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. Age of the deceased, as is established before the Tribunal, was 41 years at the time of accident, therefore, there would be an addition of 25% to the actual income. The Tribunal has also went wrong by deducting one-half of the income of the deceased on account of personal and living expenses. 7. Admittedly, the deceased has left behind the claimants i.e. wife and minor daughter. True it is, that it has come on record that the claimant-Rohnika Sharma, wife of the deceased, was working as teacher and getting Rs. 7,000/- per month as salary but that does not mean that she was not at all dependent upon the income of her husband and that her husband was not contributing anything towards her. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to accept the view taken by the Tribunal and, accordingly, treat both the claimants as dependent upon the deceased. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to accept the view taken by the Tribunal and, accordingly, treat both the claimants as dependent upon the deceased. Therefore, the deduction on account of personal and living expenses that would be applicable in the instant case would be one-third and not one-half, as applied by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also committed an error by applying the multiplier of 12, in that, as per Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , multiplier for the age group of 41 to 45 is 14. Therefore, the multiplier applicable in the instant case is 14 and not 12, as applied by the Tribunal. 8. Accordingly, taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/-, adding 25% towards loss of future prospects and deducting 1/3rd from the actual income of the deceased on account of personal and living expenses, the monthly loss of income would come to [(10000+2500)-4167] Rs. 8333/-. Thus, the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 99,996/- (8333x12). Applying the multiplier of 14, the total loss of dependency would come to (99996 x 14) Rs. 13,99,944/-. 9. The Tribunal has not granted compensation under the conventional heads in consonance with the law. After the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the claimants would be entitled to Rs. 15000/- on account of funeral expenses, Rs. 15000/- on account of loss of estate and Rs. 40,000/- on account of loss of spousal consortium to respondent No.1 and Rs. 40,000/- on account of loss of parental consortium to respondent No.2. However, there shall be no compensation under the head loss of love and affection to the minor child as the same is covered by loss of parental consortium. 10. For the foregoing reasons and the discussion made above, the claimants shall be entitled to the following compensation:- Loss of dependency Rs. 13,99,944.00 Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000.00 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000.00 Loss of spousal consortium to Respondent No.1 Rs. 40,000.00 Loss of parental consortium to Respondent No.2 Rs. 40,000.00 Total Rs. 15,09,944.00 However, the interest awarded by the Tribunal and other terms and conditions imposed by the Tribunal shall remain unaltered. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. 11. The appeal stands disposed of.