JUDGMENT : 1. The appeal arises out of a judgment and award dated 03.04.2017 rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.4, Kanpur Nagar in Claim Petition No.75 of 2013 (Nilofar v. Sarika Arora and others) partly allowing the claim of the claimant. This appeal has been filed by the claimant/appellant for enhancement of the amount awarded by the tribunal in the impugned judgment. 2. The brief case of the claimant before the learned tribunal was that the deceased died in an accident on 14.08.2012 which was caused entirely by rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending truck bearing registration No.U.P.-T/1360. On the fateful day, the deceased was riding a motorcycle when the truck collided with him. At the time of his death, the deceased was 28 years old. The claimant-appellant was dependent on the deceased. I. Compensation awarded by the learned tribunal: 3. The learned tribunal in the impugned judgment dated 03.04.2017 awarded compensation which is depicted in a tabulated form hereunder : S. No. Heads Amount (in rupees) 1. Monthly Income (A) 3000/- 2. Annual Income (A x 12 = B) 3000 x 12 = 36,000/- 3. Future prospects (C) 50% of 36,000 =18,000 4. Annual Income + Future Prospects (B + C = D) 36,000 + 18,000/-=54,000/- 5. Total income after deduction (E) 1/3 of 54,000/- =18,000/- 6. Annual Loss of Dependency (D-E = F) 54,000-18,000/- =36,000/- 7. Multiplier (G) 18 8. Total loss of dependency (F x G = H ) 36000 x 18 =6,48,000/- 9. Compensation (H) 6,48,000/- 10. Conventional Heads: (I) (a) Loss of love and affection (b) Loss of consortium (c) Loss of Estate (d) Funeral 15,000/- 11. Total compensation (H+ I = J) 6,63,000/- 12. Interest 7.00% 4. Shri Bijai Prakash Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and Ms.Aarushi Khare, learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company agree that only the following questions fall for consideration in this appeal:- A. Whether the learned tribunal had correctly determined the income of the deceased in the record? B. Whether learned tribunal correctly computed the compensation under these various heads :- (i) conventional heads, (ii) future prospects, (iii) multiplier, and (iv) interest while computing the compensation? 4.(A) Income of the deceased: 5. The claimant asserted in the claim petition that the deceased was engaged in the sale of garments. B. Whether learned tribunal correctly computed the compensation under these various heads :- (i) conventional heads, (ii) future prospects, (iii) multiplier, and (iv) interest while computing the compensation? 4.(A) Income of the deceased: 5. The claimant asserted in the claim petition that the deceased was engaged in the sale of garments. The income of the deceased from his business was Rs.15,000/- per month. The claimant-appellant introduced both the oral and documentary evidences to establish the income of the deceased. The learned tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3000/- per month. Learned tribunal while declining to accept the income as asserted by the claimant held as under : "32. With profound respect for Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, I am of the opinion that both the above case laws do not help the claimant in as much as the papers pertaining to income tax return have not been specifically pleaded and the evidence is beyond the pleadings. 33. There is also no supporting evidence regarding his business. If he the deceased was engaged in the business, there should have been evidence regarding sale and purchase of the garments. There is no registration in the sales tax. There is no Books of accounts, bills vouchers, balance sheet, etc. In the absence of any supporting evidence, the source of income of the deceased could not be proved by the claimant. 34. Even in the case of absence of source of income, it cannot be said that an young major man would not have been earning any thing. The deceased must have been earning reasonable amount for the livelihood of himself and his family. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has rule in Laxmi Devi and others v. Mohd. Tabbar, 2008 (2) T.A.C. 304 (SC) that in absence of the source of income, the income may be assessed at the rate of Rs.100 per day. Keeping in view of this settled law, the income of the deceased is assessed Rs.3000/- per month and multiplied to 12, the annual income becomes Rs.36000/-." 6. P.W.1-Nilofar (wife of the deceased) admitted in her testimony that she was not aware of various details of the business of the deceased like name of the firm, registration certificate, statutory licences and as to whether the deceased was the proprietor or engaged in a partnership with others. P.W.1-Nilofar (wife of the deceased) admitted in her testimony that she was not aware of various details of the business of the deceased like name of the firm, registration certificate, statutory licences and as to whether the deceased was the proprietor or engaged in a partnership with others. She also admitted under cross examination that she is not in a position to give any book of accounts or any document relating to the business. 7. The claimant had also introduced the income tax return of the deceased which was filed a few months prior to his death as evidence before the learned tribunal. P.W.1 deposed that she came to know about the income tax return only when she received a notice from the income tax authority after the death of her husband. 8. The perusal of the testimony of the P.W.1 Smt. Nilopher, wife of the deceased is truthful. In many families ladies often do not have information about the details of the business or documentations relating to the same. It is unsurprising that the claimant failed to produce documentary evidence relating to the business and the same cannot be held against the claimant. However, it is noteworthy that the P.W. 1 was never confronted with the question as to whether the deceased was in fact running a garment business or not. The assertion in the claim petition that the deceased ran a garments shop was never challenged and is liable to be believed. 9. The question regarding his income is slightly more vexed. However, reasonable start point is the income tax return which was introduced as evidence and marked as paper no.77(c). The return was filed a couple of months prior to the death of the deceased. The income tax return reflects the gross total income of the deceased. The statement of account which records the day to day expenses incurred while running the business have not been produced. Garments trade involves some regular expenditures to keep the business going. The amounts so incurred are liable to be deducted from the gross return which has been depicted in the income tax return. The income tax return is reliable document. However true income can be ascertained after making deductions towards transportation, storage, staff salary and the like. 10. Upon considering these issues, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.10,000/- per month by this Court. 11. The income tax return is reliable document. However true income can be ascertained after making deductions towards transportation, storage, staff salary and the like. 10. Upon considering these issues, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.10,000/- per month by this Court. 11. In the peculiar facts of this case, the failure of the claimant-appellant to take specific pleadings regarding the income tax returns was credibly explained by P.W.1-Nilofar in her deposition before the court. Admittedly the claimant had produced the income tax returns whose authenticity remains undisputed. Income tax returns are a credible basis for determining income. In the claim petition, a specific clause regarding the income tax return was left empty. In the column regarding the income tax, the words "not applicable" have been transcribed. In the wake of the preceding discussion, the deficiencies discussed above cannot lead to any inference adverse against the claimant. Learned tribunal erred in law and fact on this issue. 4.(B) (i) Calculation of Conventional Heads: 12. The amount determined under conventional heads in the impugned award is at variance with National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (16) SCC 680 . The conventional heads were fixed in Pranay Sethi (supra) by holding as under : "54. ......The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- And Rs.15,000/- respectively." 13. The figure under conventional heads determined in Pranay Sethi (supra) shall be applicable to the facts of this case. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- And Rs.15,000/- respectively." 13. The figure under conventional heads determined in Pranay Sethi (supra) shall be applicable to the facts of this case. The award is modified accordingly. 4.(B)(ii) Future Prospects: 14. The future prospects are liable to be calculated in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998, (hereinafter referred to as the “UP Rules, 1998). Rule 220A-3(i) of the Rules is relevant and is reproduced hereunder : "(3) The future prospects of a deceased, shall be added in the actual salary or minimum wages of the deceased as under-- (iii) Below 40 years of age : 50% of the salary." 15. The UP Rules, 1998 came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Urmila Shukla and others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 822. In Urmila Shukla (supra) upon consideration of various judgements including Pranay Sethi (supra) held : "10. The discussion on the point in Pranay Sethi was from the standpoint of arriving at "just compensation" in terms of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 11. If an indicia is made available in the form of a statutory instrument which affords a favourable treatment, the decision in Pranay Sethi cannot be taken to have limited the operation of such statutory provision specially when the validity of the Rules was not put under any challenge. The prescription of 15% in cases where the deceased was in the age bracket of 50-60 years as stated in Pranay Sethi cannot be taken as maxima. In the absence of any governing principle available in the statutory regime, it was only in the form of an indication. If a statutory instrument has devised a formula which affords better or greater benefit, such statutory instrument must be allowed to operate unless the statutory instrument is otherwise found to be invalid." (emphasis supplied) 16. The Rules of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 were not under consideration before the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) or Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Company and another, 2009 (6) SCC 121 . Future prospects in Pranay Sethi (supra) were determined without noticing the U.P. Rules,1998. The Rules of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 were not under consideration before the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) or Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Company and another, 2009 (6) SCC 121 . Future prospects in Pranay Sethi (supra) were determined without noticing the U.P. Rules,1998. This fact was adverted to in Urmila Shukla (supra) : "8. It is submitted by Mr. Rao that the judgment in Pranay Sethi does not show that the attention of the Court was invited to the specific rules such as Rule 3(iii) which contemplates addition of 20% of the salary as against 15% which was stated as a measure in Pranay Sethi. In his submission, since the statutory instrument has been put in place which affords more advantageous treatment, the decision in Pranay Sethi ought not to be considered to limit the application of such statutory Rule." 17. The U.P. Rules,1998 are statutory in nature and their operation is not stymied by Pranay Sethi (supra). The U.P. Rules, 1998 have the force of law and shall apply with full force in appropriate cases. The U.P. Rules, 1998 are more beneficial for the claimants than the provisions made in Pranay Sethi (supra) for them. The holdings in Pranay Sethi (supra) can not dilute the advantages conferred by U.P. Rules, 1998 upon the eligible beneficiaries. 18. This Court finds that the claimant-appellant is entitled to 50% enhancement in wages towards future prospects, consistent with the UP Rules, 1998. The necessary changes in the award shall be accordingly made. 19. In this wake, this Court finds for the appellant-claimant on the issue of grant of future prospects. 4(B)(iii) Multiplier: 20. The age of the deceased was 28 years at the time of death. Multiplier of 17 has been correctly applied by the learned Tribunal and is in line with Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma (supra). 4(B)(iv) Interest 21. Interest of 7% and the manner of payment does not call for interference. However, the claimant-appellant shall not be entitled to interest on the enhanced income determined in this judgement. II. Determination of Compensation to which claimant-appellant is entitled: 22. In the wake of preceding discussion, the amount of compensation awarded to the claimant-appellant is tabulated below : i. Date of Accident 14.08.2012 ii. Date of death 14.08.2012 iii. Name of the deceased Shahban Ahmad iv. II. Determination of Compensation to which claimant-appellant is entitled: 22. In the wake of preceding discussion, the amount of compensation awarded to the claimant-appellant is tabulated below : i. Date of Accident 14.08.2012 ii. Date of death 14.08.2012 iii. Name of the deceased Shahban Ahmad iv. Age of the deceased 28 years v. Occupation of the deceased Garment Shop vi. Income of the deceased Rs.10,000/- vii. Name, Age and Relationship of claimants with the deceased S. No. Name Age Relation 1. Smt. Nilofar 26 Wife viii. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Amount (in Rupees) 1. Monthly Income (A) 10,000/- 2. Annual Income (B) (A x 12 = B) 10,000/- x 12 =1,20,000/- 3. Future Prospects (C) 40% of 1,20,000/-= 48,000/- 4. Annual Income + Future Prospects (B + C = D) 1,20,000+48,000/-=1,68,000/- 5. Deduction towards Personal Expenses (E) 1/3 of 1,68,000/- =56000/- 6. Annual Loss of Dependency (D-E=F) 1,68,000-56000 =1,12,000/- 7. Multiplier (G) 17 8. Total Loss of Dependency (F x G = H) 1,12,000/- x 17 =19,04,000/- 9. Compensation (H) 19,04,000/- 10. Conventional Heads: (I) (a) Loss of love and affection (b) Loss of consortium (c) Loss of Estate (d) Funeral 70,000/- 11. Total compensation (H+ I = J) 19,74,000/- 12. Interest 7.00% III. Conclusion and Directions: 23. The amount of compensation to which the claimant-appellant has thus been found entitled shall be deposited by the corporation within three months before the learned tribunal. Thereafter the learned tribunal shall release the amount to the claimant-appellant without delay. The amount already disbursed to the claimant (if any) shall be duly adjusted. 24. The amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant-claimant while instituting the appeal shall be forthwith remitted to the learned tribunal. 25. The instant appeal is partly allowed as indicated above.