JUDGMENT : 1. The present appeal emanates from the judgement and award dated 05.12.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Surat (for short “the Tribunal”) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.175 of 2008. 2. The only issue, which is raised by the appellant-claimant in the present appeal, is with regard to the determination of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.5,000/- per month i.e. yearly at Rs.60,000/-. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Darji has submitted that though the documentary evidence in the form of Income Tax Return (for short “the ITR”) is available showing the enhanced income of the deceased, the Tribunal has assessed the said amount of monthly income at Rs.5,000/- and Rs.60,000/- p.a. He has pointed out the ITR for the Assessment Year 2007-08 on mark 28/7, wherein the income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.47,514/- and for the Financial Year 2008-09 i.e. from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009, the income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.97,235/-. It is submitted that the fateful accident, which consumed the life of the deceased, has taken place on 06.04.2008 and in the ITR of the same financial year ending on 31.03.2009, the income of the deceased is shown as Rs.97,235/- hence, once the statutory document is available on record, the income of the deceased was required to be fixed at par with the ITR. 3.1 In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr. Darji has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Malarvizhi and Ors. vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr., (2020) 4 S.C.C. 228 and judgement dated 06.12.2022 in the case of Smt. Anjali and Ors. vs. Lokendra Rathod and Ors. rendered by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.009014 of 2022 vide order dated 06.12.2022. It is also submitted that in fact, the Tribunal has also fallen in error in determining the income of the deceased at Rs.60,000/- by considering average, which is impermissible as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shashikala and Ors. vs. Gangalakshmamma and Anr., (2015) 9 S.C.C. 150 . He has further placed reliance on the judgement dated 16.06.2020 in the case of Smt. Sangita Arya and Ors. vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2612 of 2020 vide order dated 16.06.2020. vs. Gangalakshmamma and Anr., (2015) 9 S.C.C. 150 . He has further placed reliance on the judgement dated 16.06.2020 in the case of Smt. Sangita Arya and Ors. vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2612 of 2020 vide order dated 16.06.2020. Thus, it is submitted that accordingly, further compensation, which has been awarded under various heads, is also required to be enhanced. 4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Dholakiya has submitted that the impugned judgement and award passed by the Tribunal does not require interference. He has submitted that looking to the service of the deceased, the Tribunal has precisely assessed his income, who was a diamond broker, at Rs.60,000/- p.a. and hence, the impugned judgement and award may not be interfered with. 5. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and also perused the documents as pointed out by them. CONCLUSION 6. In the present case, the documentary evidence reveals that the deceased met with the fatal accident on 06.04.2008, which consumed his life. Before the Tribunal, it is established that the deceased was a diamond broker and accordingly, the income tax return at mark 28/7 and 28/8 were produced by the claimants for the Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively. For the Assessment Year 2007-08, the income of the deceased, as per the ITR, was Rs.47,514/-, whereas for the Assessment Year 2008-09, yearly income of the deceased was shown as Rs.97,235/-. The deceased had passed away after 6 days of ending of the Financial Year on 31.03.2008. Though, the documentary evidences, which are statutory in nature, are produced before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has assessed and fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.60,000/- p.a. by taking average income of both the assessment years. 7. At this stage, it would be apposite to incorporate the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Malharvizhi and Ors.(supra) which reads as under : “6. In appeal, the High Court concluded that on an analysis of the income tax returns filed by the deceased for the financial years 1995-1996 to 2000-2001, the income declared for the financial year 1997-1998 was the highest and must be taken as the annual income of the deceased. Hence, Rs.2,09,211 was determined to be the annual income of the deceased. Rs.40,000 per annum was added towards future prospects. Hence, Rs.2,09,211 was determined to be the annual income of the deceased. Rs.40,000 per annum was added towards future prospects. The total income was thus arrived at Rs.2,50,000 per annum. No deduction was made towards personal expenses. Applying a multiplier of 13, the loss of dependency was calculated to be Rs.32,50,000. To this, funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of love and affection were added in the amount of Rs.1,05,000. A total compensation of Rs.33,55,000 was awarded. 10. The Tribunal proceeded to determine the agricultural income arising from 36.76 acres of land on the basis of two judgments of the High Court. The Tribunal arrived at two different figures by applying the decisions and proceeded to determine the agricultural income on an average of the two amounts. The Tribunal superimposed a possible value of income from agricultural land despite a clear indication in the income tax returns of the income from agricultural land. The method adopted by the Tribunal is not sustainable in law. On the other hand, the High Court has proceeded on the basis of the income reflected in the income tax returns for the assessment year 1997-1998. The relevant portion of the return reads : “Income from House property Rs.1,920 Business profit (other than 14.b) Rs.1,21,071 Net Agricultural income Rs.88,140” The tax return indicates an annual income of Rs.2,11,131 in the relevant assessment year. Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that other documents were marked which reflected the income of the deceased. 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. To the benefit of the appellants, the High Court has proceeded on the basis of the income tax return for the assessment year 1997-1998 and not 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 which reflected a reduction in the annual income of the deceased. 8. In the case of Malharvizhi and Ors. (supra), the Apex Court has confirmed the decision of the High Court, where the High Court concluded and held that the income of the deceased is required to be fixed as per his highest ITR. 9. In the case of Smt. Anjali and Ors. (supra) the Apex Court has observed thus : “9. In the case of Malharvizhi and Ors. (supra), the Apex Court has confirmed the decision of the High Court, where the High Court concluded and held that the income of the deceased is required to be fixed as per his highest ITR. 9. In the case of Smt. Anjali and Ors. (supra) the Apex Court has observed thus : “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.” Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the deceased’s annual income be fixed at Rs.1,18,261/-, approx. Rs.9,855/- per month keeping in mind the deceased’s Income Tax Return for the year 2009-2010.” 10. The Apex Court, while referring the judgement in the case of Malharvizhi and Ors. (supra), fixed the income of the deceased only on the basis of the single annual ITR. 11. In the case of Smt. Sangita Arya and Ors. (supra), the Apex Court, while considering the ITR, which was 2 months prior to the death of the deceased, has held thus : “Second, the High Court determined the income of the deceased by taking the average of the ITRs filed for the years 2002-03 at Rs.54,000 p.a., 2003-04 at Rs.52,405 p.a., and 2004-05 at Rs.51,500 p.a. The learned Single Judge disregarded the ITR for the year 2006-07, wherein the income of the deceased was shown as Rs.98,500 p.a. on the ground that it was allegedly filed almost one year after the death of the deceased. This finding also is factually incorrect. A photocopy of the original ITR for the year 2006-07 was filed before this Court, bearing the rubber stamp of the Income Tax Department. This finding also is factually incorrect. A photocopy of the original ITR for the year 2006-07 was filed before this Court, bearing the rubber stamp of the Income Tax Department. It shows that the date of filing the ITR was 20.04.2007, which is prior to the death of the deceased which occurred on 18.06.2007. Hence, the High Court was not justified in disregarding the ITR for the year 2006-07 while assessing the income of the deceased. The Appellants have also placed on record a copy of the ITR for the year 2005-06, which bears the rubber stamp of the Income Tax Department, and reveals the income of the deceased at Rs.98,100 p.a. during the previous assessment year. As a consequence, the impugned judgment dated 22.07.2016 passed by the High Court is hereby set aside. 8. On a perusal of the documentary evidence on record i.e. the ITRs for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, filed prior to the death of the deceased, which reflect the income of approximately Rs.1,00,000 p.a. (as assessed by the MACT in its Award dated 22.12.2009), we make this the basis for computing the compensation payable to the Claimants.” 12. The Apex Court has held that High Court was not justified in disregarding the ITR for the year 2006-07, while assessing income of the deceased, after placing on record the ITR as the documentary evidence, which bears Rubber Stamp of the Income Tax Department and reveals the income of the deceased as per the documentary evidence of in the nature of ITR. 13. In the case of Shashikala and Ors. (supra), the Apex Court has held thus : “10. The deceased was aged 45 years and was doing transport business. Though the claimants have filed income tax returns for two assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, as per the income tax returns for the year 2006-07, the income of the assessee was Rs.2,02,911/-. Tribunal did not take the income of the deceased for the assessment year 2006-07 on the ground that only xerox copy was filed and the claimants have failed to examine income-tax authorities to prove the same. Instead of taking the income of the deceased as per the assessment year 2006-07, the High Court has chosen to calculate the average of the income for two assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07. Instead of taking the income of the deceased as per the assessment year 2006-07, the High Court has chosen to calculate the average of the income for two assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07. Considering the age of the deceased and the nature of business he was doing, in my considered view, the High Court was not justified in so taking the average of income of the two assessment years. The deceased was aged 45 years and doing business. Admittedly, he was also owning agricultural lands. Even though agricultural income was not shown in the income tax return, it emerges from the evidence that the deceased was also doing agricultural work.” 14. Thus, in the present case, fixation of income of the deceased runs contrary to the law enunciated by the Apex Court in the aforementioned cases and hence, the Tribunal has fallen in error in determining the income of the deceased at Rs.60,000/- p.a. though the ITR at mark 28/8 for the last assessment year, prior to the death of the deceased shows at Rs.97,235/-. Accordingly, the income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.97,235/- and compensation is also modified. 15. Accordingly, this Court has enhanced the compensation amount to the below mentioned extent under the different heads : Particulars Amount awarded after enhancement (In Rs.) Loss of Future Income 12,25,161.00 Loss of Consortium (40,000*2) (Mother and Father) 80,000.00 Loss of Estate 15,000.00 Funeral Expense 15,000.00 Total 13,35,161.00 Amount awarded by the Tribunal 7,62,000.00 Difference amount 5,73,161.00 16. Interest @6% on the enhanced amount-difference amount shall be paid from the date of claim application. Differential amount shall be deposited before the Tribunal within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and on such deposit, enhanced amount shall be disbursed to the claimants. 17. The present appeal is partly allowed. 18. Record and proceedings to be sent back.