JUDGMENT : (Mauna M. Bhatt, J.) 1. This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act” for short) is filed by the Insurance Company as appellant, challenging the judgment and award dated 22.03.2013, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Rajkot in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.161 of 2003, wherein the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.39,65,245/- with 8% interest p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition till realization with proportionate cost. 2. The brief facts arising from this appeal are as under : 2.1 On 22.07.2002, Pradipbhai Jerambhai Patel, after parking his motor car, was crossing the road at which time, one Jeep Car No.GJ–03–DD–2767, came in rash and negligent manner and hit Pradipbhai Jerambhai Patel, resulting into an accident. In the said accident, Pradipbhai Jerambhai Patel (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the same. The legal heirs of the deceased, filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- with interest and cost. It was the case of the original claimants that the accident occurred on account of sole negligence of driver of Jeep Car No.GJ–03–DD– 2767. It was further their case that the deceased was doing business at Rajkot and was partner in firm M/s. Vasant Diesel Spares (India) having annual income of Rs.3,00,000/-. 2.2 Upon claim petition being filed, notices were issued. The respondent – Insurance Company appeared and filed its written statement. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties and upon consideration of evidence on record, decided the issue of negligence in favour of original claimants by holding, the driver of Jeep Car No. GJ–03–DD–2767, sole negligent for occurrence of the accident. In relation to compensation, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.39,65,245/- under different heads as under: Dependency Loss Rs.39,40,245/- Loss of Estate Rs. 10,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 5,000/- Loss of Consortium Rs. 10,000/- Total Amount of Compensation Rs.39,65,245/- 2.3 Aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded, present Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company as appellant seeking reduction in the quantum of compensation. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. M.J. Shelat for the appellant – Insurance Company and learned advocate Mr. Hiren M. Modi for respondent Nos.1.1 to 1.5. Before the Tribunal, opponent Nos.1 and 2 (driver and owner of Jeep Car No.GJ–03–DD–2767) chose not to appear. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. M.J. Shelat for the appellant – Insurance Company and learned advocate Mr. Hiren M. Modi for respondent Nos.1.1 to 1.5. Before the Tribunal, opponent Nos.1 and 2 (driver and owner of Jeep Car No.GJ–03–DD–2767) chose not to appear. As liability has not been denied, presence of other respondents is not necessary and dispensed with. Record and Proceedings have been secured from the Tribunal and placed before this Court for perusal. 4. Appearing for the Insurance Company, learned advocate Mr. M. J. Shelat submitted that the Tribunal is in serious error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.2,62,683/- p.a. Relying upon the income tax returns of the deceased for the Assessment Years 2000–01, 2001–02 and 2002–03 at Exh.49 to 51, he submitted that if the average income of the deceased for these three assessment years, as declared in the income tax returns is taken into consideration, then after deducting tax, the net average income would be Rs.2,27,048/- p.a. Therefore, the Tribunal is in error in assessing the income at Rs.2,62,683/- p.a. He, thus, submitted to consider the income of the deceased at Rs.2,27,048/- p.a. He further submitted that as deceased was self–employed and survived by five dependents, therefore, 1/4 amount is to be deducted towards personal expenses. Considering the age of the deceased at 42 years, multiplier of 14 would be applicable instead of 15. He thus, submitted to allow his appeal to the aforesaid extent and reduce the compensation accordingly. 5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Hiren M. Modi for the original claimants submitted that before the Tribunal, the advocate appearing for the Insurance Company had quoted the figure of Rs.2,55,882/- towards net dependency loss, and therefore, the amount submitted by the appellant – Insurance Company of Rs.2,27,048/- cannot be accepted, as the higher amount was quoted by learned advocate for the Insurance Company before the Tribunal. In relation to compensation awarded towards other conventional heads, he submitted that the widow of the deceased would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- as consortium in view of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram reported in 2018 (18) SCC 130 and United India Insurance Company Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076 . Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram reported in 2018 (18) SCC 130 and United India Insurance Company Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076 . For compensation under the head loss of estate and funeral expenses, relying upon the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 1211 and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , he submitted that the same may be awarded accordingly. 5.1 Learned advocate Mr. Modi, thus, submitted that the income per annum assessed by the Tribunal being just and proper, no interference is called for. 6. Having heard learned advocate for the respective parties and upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record, it is noticed that the income tax returns, filed by the deceased for A.Y. 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03 are on record at Exh.49 to 51. The income disclosed and the amount of tax paid are also forming part of the returns filed by the deceased. The details of the returns at Exh.49 to 51 are as under: Assessment Year Gross Total Income Tax Paid Net Income After Tax 2000–2001 Rs. 2,66,951/- Rs. 41,344/- Rs. 2,25,607/- 2001–2002 Rs. 2,94,481/- Rs. 53,637/- Rs. 2,40,844/- 2002–2003 Rs. 2,48,217/- Rs. 33,523/- Rs. 2,14,694/- 6.1 If the average of the net income of the deceased is taken into consideration then, in our opinion, the income of the deceased comes to be assessed at Rs.2,27,048/- p.a. Further the contention of learned advocate for the original claimants that the amount of Rs.2,55,882/- has been fairly quoted by learned advocate appearing for the Insurance Company before the Tribunal, does not merit acceptance because, the said amount has not been accepted by the Tribunal. On the contrary, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the gross income (without deducting tax) to assess the yearly income of the deceased. Therefore, in our opinion, the Tribunal is in error in assessing the yearly income of the deceased. Thus, the annual income of the deceased would need to be assessed at Rs.2,27,048/- p.a. 6.2 Additionally, as the deceased was 42 years of age, he would be entitled to 25% rise towards future prospective income. Therefore, in our opinion, the Tribunal is in error in assessing the yearly income of the deceased. Thus, the annual income of the deceased would need to be assessed at Rs.2,27,048/- p.a. 6.2 Additionally, as the deceased was 42 years of age, he would be entitled to 25% rise towards future prospective income. Also, 1/4 amount is required to be deducted towards personal expenses and considering his age 42, multiplier of 14 would be applicable, not the multiplier of 15 as applied by the Tribunal. Thus, the original claimants would be entitled to dependency loss as under : “Rs.2,27,048/- per annum (income) + 56,762/- future prospective income = Rs.2,83,810 – 70,952/- (1/4 towards personal expenses) = Rs.2,12,858/- X 14 Multiplier (as the age of the deceased was 42 years) = Rs.29,80,012/-.” 6.3 In view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur (supra), the dependent claimant – widow of the deceased would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards consortium. In view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra), Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses would be appropriate. 7. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled for the total compensation as under: Particulars Amount (Rs.) Dependency Loss 29,80,012/- Loss of Consortium 40,000/- Loss of Estate 15,000/- Funeral Expenses 15,000/- Total 30,50,012/- Thus, the claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.30,50,012/-. 8. For the reasons aforestated, following order is passed. ORDER : (i) Appeal of the appellant – Insurance Company is partly allowed. (ii) As the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.39,65,245/-, the balance amount of Rs.9,15,233/- (Rs. 39,65,245 – Rs.30,50,012) is to be refunded to the appellant – Insurance Company with interest accrued thereon with proportionate costs. The Tribunal shall refund the amount to the appellant – Insurance Company within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The rest of the amount is to be disbursed to the original claimant after due verification. (iii) The rest of the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal remains unaltered. (iv) Registry is directed to transmit back the Record and Proceedings of the case to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. However, there shall be no order as to costs.