JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. S.P. Choudhury, learned counsel representing the appellants as well as Ms. M. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment dated 20.05.2016 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jorhat in MAC Case No.45/2013. 3. The factual matrix leading to filing of this appeal lies within a short campus. The claimant exhibited income tax returns of the deceased. In spite of that, the Tribunal did not rely upon those documents and notionally held the income of the deceased to be Rs.10,000/- per month. 4. In order to buttress his point, Mr. Choudhury has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court delivered in Smt. Anjali and Ors. Vs. Lokendra Rathod & Ors., reported in AIR 2023 SC 44 . Paragraph 9 of the judgment is quoted as under : “9. The Tribunal and the High Court both committed grave error while estimating the deceased’s income by disregarding the Income Tax Return of the Deceased. The appellants had filed the Income Tax Return (2009-2010) of the deceased, which reflects the deceased’s annual income to be Rs.1,18,261/-, approx. Rs.9,855/- per month. This Court in Malarvizhi & Ors. (Supra) has reaffirmed that the Income Tax Return is a statutory document on which reliance be placed, where available, for computation of annual income. In Malarvizhi (Supra), this Court has laid as under: “10. …We are in agreement with the High Court that the determination must proceed on the basis of the income tax return, where available. The income tax return is a statutory document on which reliance may be placed to determine the annual income of the deceased.” 5. Income Tax returns are statutory documents and they are to be relied upon when assessing the compensation in a motor vehicles claim case. The claimant exhibited these documents as Ext.5(a) to 5(c). From these documents, it appears that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.30,000/-. 6. Therefore, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal must be interfered with. The deceased was 40 years old at the time of death. He left behind his wife and two children. 7. The assessment will be like this – Rs.30,000 x 12= Rs.3,60,000/- + 30% of Rs.3,60,000/- i.e. Rs.1,08,000/- is = Rs.4,68,000/-. 8. 1/3 of Rs.4,68,000/- is deducted on personal expenses. Then, the amount comes to Rs.3,12,000/-. The deceased was 40 years old at the time of death. He left behind his wife and two children. 7. The assessment will be like this – Rs.30,000 x 12= Rs.3,60,000/- + 30% of Rs.3,60,000/- i.e. Rs.1,08,000/- is = Rs.4,68,000/-. 8. 1/3 of Rs.4,68,000/- is deducted on personal expenses. Then, the amount comes to Rs.3,12,000/-. 9. Rs.3,12,000/- x 15= Rs.46,80,000/-. 10. Therefore, loss of dependency will be Rs.46,80,000/-. According to National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , for loss of estate; loss of consortium and funeral expenses, Rs.70,000/- is awarded. 11. The claimants shall be entitled to receive a compensation of Rs.47,50,000/-. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the aforesaid amount to the claimants. 12. The appeal is allowed and disposed of.