JUDGMENT : GITA GOPI, J. 1. Challenge in these appeals is to the common judgment and award dated 05.04.2022 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos. 53 and 54 of 2019, arising out of the same accident, by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Bhavnagar at Mahuva. Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 53 of 2019 was filed by the heirs of the deceased, whereas, Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 54 of 2019 was filed by the injured-claimant. 2. The facts of the case, as were urged before the learned Tribunal, are that on 02.05.2019, at about 6:00 p.m. deceased Sureshbhai Chaturbhai Jani (deceased) and Rameshbhai Jerambhai Baladhiya (injured pillion rider), were going on motorcycle bearing registration No. GJ-1-JP-6397 and proceeding from Village: Chhapri of Mahuva Taluka and when they reached on the road between Village: Sandhida and Hotel Sadguru, opponent No. 1, the driver of Eeco Car, bearing registration No. GJ-8-BN-840 came on the wrong side, in rash and negligent manner, in excessive speed, endangering human life and dashed with the motorcycle and because of the accident, Sureshbhai Chaturbhai Jani died during the treatment, while Rameshbhai Jerambhai Baladhiya sustained serious injuries. The Tribunal, while appreciating the evidence on record on the issue of negligence, has held the driver of Eeco car solely negligent for the accident. 3. First Appeal No. 2878 of 2022 has been filed on the ground that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in not appreciating the Income Tax Returns (ITRs) of the deceased. Learned advocate Mr. Bhalodi for the appellants submitted that the deceased was aged 54 years at the time of accident and was working as Priest and was a tax payer. Relevant ITRs of Assessment Year 2018-2019 and 2019- 2020, which were placed on record vide Exh.57. The learned Tribunal has recorded the income of Rs. 2,81,905/- for the Assessment Year 2018-2019. The accident had occurred on 02.05.2019. The ITR for the Assessment Year 2019-2020 was filed after the death of the deceased, which reflects annual income of the deceased of Rs. 2,96,186/-. 3.1 Mr. Bhalodi, the learned advocate for the appellants, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malarvizhi and Others vs. United India Insurance Co. The accident had occurred on 02.05.2019. The ITR for the Assessment Year 2019-2020 was filed after the death of the deceased, which reflects annual income of the deceased of Rs. 2,96,186/-. 3.1 Mr. Bhalodi, the learned advocate for the appellants, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malarvizhi and Others vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, 2020 ACJ 526 submitted that the Tribunal ought to have placed reliance on the ITRs to consider the income and future prospective rise in income ought to have been granted accordingly. Mr. Bhalodi further stated that the Tribunal could have relied on the income assessed for the Assessment Year 2018-2019 as per the ITR for granting just compensation. 3.2 While countering the arguments, learned advocate Mr. Tanmay Karia for the respondent-insurance company stated that the ITRs for the Assessment Year 2019-2020 was filed after the death of the deceased and therefore, no reliance could be placed on it as the veracity of the income would be questionable and therefore, stated that the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 7,000/-. 4. In Malarvizhi and Others (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “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. 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.” 4.1 In Smt. Anjali and Others vs. Lokendra Rathod and Others, 2023 (3) GLR 1617, the Hon’ble Apex Court has relied upon the decision in Malarvizhi and Others (supra), and has reiterated the observation affirming that ITR is a statutory document and hence, it should be relied upon. The Apex Court in Malarvizhi and Others (supra), in agreement with the High Court, has observed that determination of the income must proceed on the basis of the ITR where available as ITR is a statutory document on which reliance may be placed to determine the annual income of the deceased. Here, on record, the ITRs of both the Assessment Years viz. 2018-2019 and 2019-2020, were placed on record vide Exh.57. The learned Tribunal was required to rely on ITR assessment instead of imposing its own figures while observing that the claimants were not able to prove the definite and regular source of monthly income of the deceased. The assumption made by the learned Tribunal of the income was unwarranted since the statutory document was on record in the form of ITR and reliance was to be placed on it to determine the annual income of the deceased as assessed. Here, in this case, the learned Tribunal could have relied on the ITR of the Assessment Year 2018-2019 to consider the income of the deceased, to avert any scope of doubt, as subsequent ITR was not filed by the deceased. Here, in this case, the learned Tribunal could have relied on the ITR of the Assessment Year 2018-2019 to consider the income of the deceased, to avert any scope of doubt, as subsequent ITR was not filed by the deceased. As observed by the learned Tribunal, as per the ITR for the Assessment Year 2018-2019, the gross income of the deceased was Rs. 2,81,905/- and the actual net income, after the deduction, was Rs. 2,80,680/-. The claimants are entitled for the compensation on the basis of the ITR, assessed for the Assessment Year 2018-2019. 10% prospective rise in income is required to be added keeping in mind the age of the deceased as 54 years at the time of accident. From that, 1/4th amount is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and a multiplier of 11 is to be applied. Accordingly, the amount towards dependency loss would be Rs. 25,47,171/- (Rs. 2,80,680 + 10% = 3,08,748-77,187 (1/4th) x 11). 4.2 The widow would be entitled to an amount of Rs. 40,000/- under the head of loss of consortium, Rs. 15,000/- under the head of loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the computation of compensation would be as under: Head Award of Dependency loss Rs. 25,47,171/- Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/- Funeral Charges Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 26,17,171/- Tribunal’s Award Rs. 8,32,500/- Difference Rs. 17,84,671/- 4.3 So far as First Appeal No. 2880 of 2022 is concerned, the injured pillion rider was engaged in agriculture work. The accident had occurred on 02.05.2019. The learned Tribunal, considering his age as 35, has assessed his income as Rs. 5,000/- per month. Placing reliance on the Minimum Wage Schedule, considering him as unskilled labourer, the minimum wage per month, as per the material supplied, in accordance with the Notification of the Government, his income would be Rs. 8,118/-. 4.4 The disability for the body as a whole has been agreed by both the parties as 19%. Applying the multiplier of 15, the annual future loss of income would come to Rs. 2,77,636/- (Rs. 8,118 x 19% x 12 x 15). Under the head of Pain, Shock and Suffering, the learned Tribunal has granted Rs. 5,000/- but taking into consideration the physical disability and the time for treatment and medical expenses, this Court deems it fit to grant Rs. 2,77,636/- (Rs. 8,118 x 19% x 12 x 15). Under the head of Pain, Shock and Suffering, the learned Tribunal has granted Rs. 5,000/- but taking into consideration the physical disability and the time for treatment and medical expenses, this Court deems it fit to grant Rs. 20,000/- under the said head. In view of disability, the injured would not have been in a position to work for about three months and thus, under the head of actual loss of income, Rs. 24,354/- is to be assessed. The medical bills have been proved as Rs. 1,34,550/- and thus, in corroboration of evidence on record, Rs. 15,000/- is required to be granted under the head of Special Diet, Attendant Charges and Transportation Charges. Thus, the computation would be as under: Head Award of Future loss of income Rs. 2,77,636/- Pain, Shock and Suffering Rs. 20,000/- Actual loss of income Rs. 24,354/- Medical expenses Rs. 1,34,550/- Special Diet, Attendant Charges and Transportation Charges Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 4,71,540/- Tribunal’s Award Rs. 3,20,550/- Difference Rs. 1,50,990/- 5. In view of the above, both appeals succeed and are accordingly, allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal, is hereby modified to the aforesaid extent. The difference amount shall be deposited within a period of 06 (six) weeks. The respective appellants-claimants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on such enhanced amount of compensation, from the date of petition till realization. R&P be sent back forthwith.