JUDGMENT : NISHA M. THAKORE, J. 1. All these matters are connected with each other in a way that First Appeal No. 3906 of 2019 and First Appeal No. 3907 of 2019, relate to the same accident. This Court vide order dated 04.09.2019 while admitting the First Appeal No. 3906 of 2019, had directed to hear both these appeals together with Cross-Objections filed by the original claimants in respective appeals which were also directed to be heard with main First Appeal. 2. Learned advocate Mr. Chirayu Mehta had appeared for the Appellant Insurance company. Learned advocate Mr. N.V. Gandhi had entered appearance in First Appeal No. 3906 of 2019, for heirs and legal representatives of the deceased owner joined as respondent no. 1-original claimant of MACP No. 940 of 2011 of the vehicle. Learned advocate Mr. Bharat B. Shah has entered his appearance on behalf of respondent no. 1 in First Appeal No. 3907 of 2019 i.e. original claimant of MACP No. 634 of 2015 (old MACP Case No. 52 of 2011). Learned advocate Mr. Tanmay Karia has appeared on behalf of respondent no. 2 Insurance company of the offending vehicle Tanker. The cross objections have been filed by respective claimants seeking enhancement of award amount. All these matters were heard together and were reserved for orders. The matters are thus disposed of by this common order. FIRST APPEAL No. 3906 of 2019: 3. The present appeal is filed at the instance of the Insurance Co., original opponent No. 3, challenging the judgment and order dated 24.04.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Ahmedabad Rural at Mirzapur, in MACP No. 940 of 2011. By the said judgment and award, the learned Judge has been pleased to allow the claim petition preferred by the heirs of the deceased Dipeshbhai Dilipbhai Sompura, who succumbed to the fatal injuries in the motor accident. Learned Judge held the opponents jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs. 31,55,533/- to the original claimants with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of incident till actual realization. CROSS-OBJECTION NO. 229 OF 2022: 4. The original claimant - the widow of the deceased has preferred Cross-Objection seeking enhancement of award amount for a sum of Rs. 34,88,467/- as against the award amount of Rs. 31,55,533/- with interest @ 9% from the date of claim petition till its actual realization. CROSS-OBJECTION NO. 229 OF 2022: 4. The original claimant - the widow of the deceased has preferred Cross-Objection seeking enhancement of award amount for a sum of Rs. 34,88,467/- as against the award amount of Rs. 31,55,533/- with interest @ 9% from the date of claim petition till its actual realization. The original claimant has also disputed 20% contributory negligence of the driver of the vehicle owned by heirs in order to determine just and proper compensation. FIRST APPEAL NO. 3907 OF 2019: 5. The present appeal is filed at the instance of Insurance Company i.e. original opponent No. 2 challenging the judgment and award dated 01.05.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) Ahmedabad Rural at Mirzapur, in MACP No. 634 of 2015. By the said judgment and award, the learned Judge has been pleased to partly allowed the petition of the injured claimant driver holding the opponents liable to pay an amount of Rs. 4,08,600/- to the original claimant with interest @ 9% from the date of the claim petition till its actual realization. CROSS-OBJECTION NO. 13 OF 2022: 6. In respect of the aforesaid award, the injured claimant has submitted Cross-Objection seeking enhancement of additional award amount of Rs. 5 Lakhs. 7. FACTS OF THE CASE: In nutshell, the occurrence of the accident as submitted by the injured claimant before the Tribunal is reproduced hereunder: 7.1 On 14.02.2011, the injured claimant of MACP No. 634 of 2015, who was driver of the motor car bearing registration No. GJ-1-HN-6141, which was owned by the deceased Dipesh Dilipbhai Sompura, had started from Ahmedabad to Jaisalmer. The injured claimant was engaged by the deceased as driver to drive said car. Since the deceased had to attend the work of contract and after completing their work, they were returning from Jaisalmer to reach Ahmedabad, while they reached at Bachdav village, on National Highway No. 8, at that time, the driver of the tanker bearing registration No. HB-39-8563 drive his vehicle in the middle of the road with full speed in rash and negligent matter, suddenly applied breaks without any signal causing obstacle in traffic. As a result thereto, the maruti car driven by the original claimant following the said vehicle collided on the rear portion of the tanker which resulted into the accident. As a result thereto, the maruti car driven by the original claimant following the said vehicle collided on the rear portion of the tanker which resulted into the accident. 7.2 The original injured claimant survived the accident however, suffered grievous injuries including fracture of right hand resulting in permanent disability and had therefore, approached the Tribunal for seeking compensation. The claimant had submitted the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act along with pauper application and the application for interim compensation under Section 140 of the Act. The claim petition was preferred for an amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs. The original claim petition was filed against the owner of the offending vehicle, who has been joined as opponent No. 1 and Insurance Co. as opponent no. 2 with whom the tanker was insured. The summons issued by the Tribunal was duly served upon the respective opponents. The owner of the vehicle had appeared before the Tribunal in respect of service of summons. The opponent No. 2-Insurance Co. had tendered their written submissions at Exhibit 18, wherein the Insurance Co. had strongly denied the averments made in the claim petition. The opponent Insurance company had challenged the negligence of the driver of the tanker by raising issue of the manner of occurrence of accident, copy of the policy alleged to have issued by the opponent No. 2 Insurance Co., issue regarding the injured driver of the offending vehicle holding valid and effective driving license of the offending vehicle, permit at the time of accident, issue of non-joinder of necessary and proper parties i.e. owner/Insurance Co. of other vehicle involved was also raised. Thus, the opponent No. 2-Insurance Co. had also raised the issue on the aspect of contributory negligence of the original claimant himself. The challenge was made to the quantum of compensation prayed for under the different heads by the original claimant. The dispute was raised with regard to prolong treatment as contended by the original claimant in the claim petition in absence of proof witnessing the prolong treatment. The challenge was also made to the permanent disability of more than 50% as contended by the original claimant. In absence of any documentary proof to be produced, the Insurance Co. had not admitted the income of Rs. The challenge was also made to the permanent disability of more than 50% as contended by the original claimant. In absence of any documentary proof to be produced, the Insurance Co. had not admitted the income of Rs. 10,000/- per month as contended by the original claimant and had called upon the original claimant for strict proof of such income earned. Noticing the dispute, more particularly, with regard to non-joinder of necessary and proper parties, an application at Exhibit 19 was tendered seeking joining of parties and the heirs of deceased owner of other vehicle involved as well as insurance Co. of the said vehicles. Such application preferred before the Tribunal was allowed by order dated 02.02.2013 whereby the wife of the deceased owner of other vehicle was joined as opponent No. 4 and the Insurance Co. i.e. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance of other vehicle was joined as opponent No. 5. The heirs of the deceased owner, though served, had not tendered any reply to the claim petition whereas newly added opponent No. 5 Insurance Co. had submitted their written statement at Exhibit 22. At the outset, the objection was raised with regard to maintainability of the claim petition at the instance of tortfeasor. It was submitted that the applicant himself being a tortfeasor, in fact liability can be fixed upon the Insurance Co. of the vehicle which was otherwise driven by the applicant. A specific denial was raised with regard to the existence of any employer-employee relationship. Apart from the aforesaid issue, the contention of contributory negligence was also raised, denial with regard to quantum of compensation was also challenged subject to production of cogent documentary evidence and the prayer was made to dismiss the petition. 8. Considering the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal has proceeded to frame the issues at Exhibit 32, which reads as under: “1. Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased had died because of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle involved in the accident? 2. Whether the petitioners prove that they are entitled to get the compensation claimed by them of any part thereof from the respondent or any of them? 3. What order and award? The tribunal decided the aforesaid issues as under: 1. In the affirmative. 2. In the affirmative, as per final order. 3. As per final order.” 9. FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL ON NEGLIGENCY IN MACP NO. 3. What order and award? The tribunal decided the aforesaid issues as under: 1. In the affirmative. 2. In the affirmative, as per final order. 3. As per final order.” 9. FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL ON NEGLIGENCY IN MACP NO. 940 OF 2011 AND MACP NO. 634 OF 2015: 9.1 We have carefully examined the findings and reasons assigned by the tribunal. The tribunal has taken into consideration the original complaint FIR at Exhibit 36 produced by the claimant. The examination in chief of the original claimant at Exhibit 38. The tribunal has taken note of the fact that the driver of the tanker is not examined and has therefore drawn adverse inference. The evidence of the claimant about the driver of the tanker driving at excessive speed and having applied sudden brakes is corroborated by the fact that after detailed investigation of the FIR, charge-sheet has been filed against the driver of the tanker. The insurance company has heavily relied upon the Panchnama of the place of accident which is produced on record by the original claimant at Exhibit 37 to contend that the driver of the motor car had equally contributed to the occurrence of accident. The tribunal on overall appreciation of the evidence of the claimant noticed that the tanker was on road and had applied sudden brakes which resulted into the accident and the same has not been contested. On the issue of overtaking by the driver of the motor car is concerned, the tribunal has considered Rule 7 of Road Regulations Rules, 1989. Further, the evidence of Panchnama indicate that in fact the driver of the motor car had tried to avoid the accident as it has transpired that because of sudden brakes applied by the tanker, the driver of the motor car had after having hit with rear back portion of the tanker, had diverted towards the approach road and had hit with the tree. In light of the aforesaid observations, the tribunal has concluded holding the driver of the tanker and the driver of the motor car liable to the extent of 80:20 negligence. 9.2 The appellant Insurance Company by these appeals has challenged the impugned judgment and award mainly on the ground of negligency and consequential liability. According to learned counsel, the driver of motor car equally contributed to the accident. 9.2 The appellant Insurance Company by these appeals has challenged the impugned judgment and award mainly on the ground of negligency and consequential liability. According to learned counsel, the driver of motor car equally contributed to the accident. The learned advocate has placed reliance upon complaint filed by Ismailbhai, the written statement filed by appellant Insurance Company, the affidavit-in-reply filed by the original claimant namely Salar Ismail Fakirmohammad, the cross-examination of said claimant and the findings of the Tribunal on issue of negligence. The accident in question occurred on 16.02.2011, it is the case of the claimant that on the date of the accident, the owner of the vehicle namely Dipesh Dilipbhai Sompura with his driver namely Ismailbhai were returning from Jaisalmer after completing their contract work in Maruti Car bearing registration no. GJ-01-HN-6141 to Ahmedabad at around 04:00 p.m. One tanker bearing registration no. HB-39-8563 was driving his vehicle on the middle of the road with full speed and in rash and negligent manner suddenly applied break and hence, the car was dashed with the tanker from behind. In MACP No. 940 of 2011, the panchnama was produced at Exh.37. However, in the paper book of MACP No. 634 of 2015, the copy of panchnama was not available. The learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bijoykumar Dugar vs. Bidya Dutaa, 2006 (3) SCC 242 , more particularly, Para 12. As per Exh.36 the police complaint, it is clear that the driver of the car as stated that tanker bearing registration no. HB-39-8563 going ahead of the car bearing registration no. GJ-01-HN-6141 and the driver of the tanker had suddenly stopped their vehicle by applying the break and hence the car which was coming behind from the tanker had dashed with the tanker from behind. As per Rule 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulation, 1989 “distance from vehicle in front” or “the driver of a motor vehicle moving behind another vehicle shall keep at a sufficient distance from that other vehicle to avoid collision if, the vehicle in front should suddenly slowed down or stopped. The learned counsel in support of his submissions has relied upon the judgment in the case of Nishansinh and Others vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2018 (6) SCC 765 . The learned counsel in support of his submissions has relied upon the judgment in the case of Nishansinh and Others vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2018 (6) SCC 765 . Except for aforesaid submissions made, on issue of negligency, no arguments have been canvassed or raised on quantum of compensation. 9.3 The learned advocates for respective respondents have objected to aforesaid submissions and has submitted that the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal, are based on evaluation of the evidence on record, which according to them has been appreciated in right perspective. 9.4 We have carefully gone through the record and proceedings. We had the benefit of looking into the panchnama of the scene of the accident (Exh.37 placed in MACP No. 940 of 2011. We have also closely read the evidence of the injured claimant. On overall appreciation of the evidence brought on record and the manner in which accident is reported in the form of FIR which has culminated into charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle tanker, in absence of any error pointed out by learned advocate for insurance, we do not find any good reason to interfere with the findings and reasons assigned by the tribunal holding the driver of the tanker and the driver of the motor car jointly liable to the accident ; to the extent of 80:20 negligence. 10. FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL ON QUANTUM IN MACP NO. 940 OF 2011: 10.1 On the aspect of quantum, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the evidence of the wife of the deceased-original claimant no. 1. The age of the deceased was 40 years. The school leaving certificate of the deceased produced on record mark 31/1, wherein the date of birth of the deceased recorded is 04.01.1971. Thus, on the date of the accident, which had occurred on 16.02.2011, the deceased was aged around 40 years. The copy of the insurance policy of opponent no. 3-Insurance Company has also been brought on record at Exh.58, the contents of which suggests that the policy was in force from 08.07.2010 to 07.07.2011. Thus, on the date of the accident, which is 16.02.2011, the policy was in force, and therefore, the negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle was to be indemnified by the opponent no. 3-Insurance Company. Thus, on the date of the accident, which is 16.02.2011, the policy was in force, and therefore, the negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle was to be indemnified by the opponent no. 3-Insurance Company. 10.2 The Tribunal has noted that indisputably the deceased was an architect by profession and was also independently dealing with the business of temple sculpture. The claimants have urged before the Tribunal to consider the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 60,000/- and has also placed reliance upon income tax returns produced for the assessment year 2008-2009 (mark 33/1), assessment year 2009-2010 (Exh.42) assessment year 2010-2011 (mark 33/9) and for assessment year 2011-2012 (Exh.43). Upon appreciation of the aforesaid documents, the Tribunal has noticed that ITR of assessment year 2008-2009 was filed on 30.07.2008 for income of Rs. 1,32,190/- the ITR for assessment year 2009-2010 was filed on 24.07.2009 for income of Rs. 1,97,970/- and the ITR for year 2010-2011 was filed on 16.07.2019 for Rs. 2,45,530/- whereas the ITR for the assessment year 2011-2012 was submitted on 08.10.011, which was almost 7 months after the date of the accident, which was on 16.02.2011. The Tribunal noticed that the amount of income was comparatively shown higher than previous assessment years, which was for Rs. 7,45,810/-. 10.3 On overall appreciation of the aforesaid documents, the Tribunal found that ITR was filed for assessment year 2010-2011 to be bona fide ITR and genuine, and had, therefore, relied upon the previous year ITR and has treated the actual income of Rs. 2,45,530/- and has accordingly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 23,500/- per month. The Tribunal has also applied 50% of the aforesaid amount to determine the prospective income of the deceased taking into consideration the age of the deceased. Accordingly, the Tribunal has determined monthly prospective income of the deceased as Rs. 30,750/-. Considering the number of dependents in the family of the deceased, which mainly included the widow, two minor daughters and aged parents, has applied deduction of 1/4th to the aforesaid prospective income towards expenses which may have been incurred by the deceased for his personal living expenses. Accordingly, the Tribunal has considered loss of dependency as Rs. 23,062 x 12 and has adopted a multiplier of 14, noticing the age of the deceased. Thus, the amount of loss of dependency is computed as Rs. 38,74,416/-. Accordingly, the Tribunal has considered loss of dependency as Rs. 23,062 x 12 and has adopted a multiplier of 14, noticing the age of the deceased. Thus, the amount of loss of dependency is computed as Rs. 38,74,416/-. 10.4 The Tribunal for some reason has restricted the awarding of the amount under the head of loss of consortium for Rs. 40,000/- towards the loss of love and affection of the husband by the original claimant no. 1. The Tribunal has further awarded amount under the non-conventional heads i.e. Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards the funeral expense. Accordingly, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 39,44,416/- and considering 20% of negligency of the driver of the motor car, an amount of Rs. 7,88,833/- has been deducted. Thus, claim petition being under Section 166 of the Act M.A.C.P. No. 940 of 2011 was partly allowed and the claimants are held entitled for total compensation of Rs. 31,55,533/- with proportionate cost and interest of 9% from the date of filing of petition till its actual realization. 11. ANALYSIS: 11.1 The specific parameters on which the assessment of just and proper compensation payable to the dependents of the deceased is met in the case of motor accident have been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various decisions. Legal position has crystallized, pursuant to the landmark decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the case of Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the Court as regards adoption of multiplier has held as under: “42. Legal position has crystallized, pursuant to the landmark decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the case of Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the Court as regards adoption of multiplier has held as under: “42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas Charlie Trilok Chandra (2005) 10 SCC 720 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1657 : (1996) 4 SCC 362 ) which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.” 11.2 The judgment in Sarla Verma was affirmed in Reshma Kumari and Others vs. Madan Mohan and Another, (2013) 9 SCC 65 . Both the judgments were affirmed by the Constitution Bench of this Court reported as National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . This Court in Pranay Sethi held as under: “44. At this stage, we must immediately say that insofar as the aforesaid multiplicand/multiplier is concerned, it has to be accepted on the basis of income established by the legal representatives of the deceased. Future prospects are to be added to the sum on the percentage basis and “income” means actual income less the tax paid. The multiplier has already been fixed in [Sarla Verma (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] which has been approved in Kumari Reshma Kumari Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 191 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 826 with which we concur. xxx xxx xxx 59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. xxx xxx xxx 59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The Addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%.Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.” In Pranay Sethi (supra), the Court thus held that the age of the deceased is the basis for applying a suitable multiplier and that the compensation is to be determined keeping in view the future prospects. The future prospects were held to 25% in respect of a deceased between the age of 40 to 50 years. 11.3 This brings us to the appreciation of the evidence on record in light of the submissions made by the learned advocates representing the respective parties. At the outset, we take note of the fact that no substantive arguments have been canvassed by the appellant-Insurance Company disputing the quantum of the compensation rather the appeal is mainly on the ground of challenge to the negligency of the driver of Motor Car. 11.4 We had inquired from learned advocate Mr. Chirayu Mehta appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company, who has fairly submitted that the appeal is restricted to challenge the findings of the Tribunal on the aspect of negligency. However, he has assisted the Hon’ble Court while responding to the submissions canvassd by Mr. N.V. Gandhi appearing for the respondents-original claimants, who have in fact filed cross-objections seeking enhancement of the award amount as against the order of Tribunal, partly allowing the claim petition to the extent of Rs. 31,55,533/-. 12. However, he has assisted the Hon’ble Court while responding to the submissions canvassd by Mr. N.V. Gandhi appearing for the respondents-original claimants, who have in fact filed cross-objections seeking enhancement of the award amount as against the order of Tribunal, partly allowing the claim petition to the extent of Rs. 31,55,533/-. 12. LOSS OF DEPENDENCY: The Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has laid down the principles governing the aforesaid factor. In Pranay Sethi (supra), the Constitution Bench evaluated all the judicial precedents on the issue of future prospects including Sarla Verma (supra), and devised a fixed standard for granting future prospects. It was held: “57. Having bestowed our anxious consideration, we are disposed to think when we accept the principle of standardization, there is really no rationale not to apply the said principle to the self-employed or a person who is on a fixed salary. To follow the doctrine of actual income at the time of death and not to add any amount with regard to future prospects to the income for the purpose of determination of multiplicand would be unjust. The determination of income while computing compensation has to include future prospects so that the method will come within the ambit and sweep of just compensation as postulated Under Section 168 of the Act. In case of a deceased who had held a permanent job with inbuilt grant of annual increment, there is an acceptable certainty. But to state that the legal representatives of a deceased who was on a fixed salary would not be entitled to the benefit of future prospects for the purpose of computation of compensation would be inapposite. It is because the criterion of distinction between the two in that event would be certainty on the one hand and staticness on the other. One may perceive that the comparative measure is certainty on the one hand and uncertainty on the other but such a perception is fallacious. It is because the price rise does affect a self-employed person; and that apart there is always an incessant effort to enhance one's income for sustenance. One may perceive that the comparative measure is certainty on the one hand and uncertainty on the other but such a perception is fallacious. It is because the price rise does affect a self-employed person; and that apart there is always an incessant effort to enhance one's income for sustenance. The purchasing capacity of a salaried person on permanent job when increases because of grant of increments and pay revision or for some other change in service conditions, there is always a competing attitude in the private sector to enhance the salary to get better efficiency from the employees. Similarly, a person who is self-employed is bound to garner his resources and raise his charges/fees so that he can live with same facilities. To have the perception that he is likely to remain static and his income to remain stagnant is contrary to the fundamental concept of human attitude which always intends to live with dynamism and move and change with the time. Though it may seem appropriate that there cannot be certainty in addition of future prospects to the existing income unlike in the case of a person having a permanent job, yet the said perception does not really deserve acceptance. We are inclined to think that there can be some degree of difference as regards the percentage that is meant for or applied to in respect of the legal representatives who claim on behalf of the deceased who had a permanent job than a person who is self-employed or on a fixed salary. But not to apply the principle of standardization on the foundation of perceived lack of certainty would tantamount to remaining oblivious to the marrows of ground reality. And, therefore, degree-test is imperative. Unless the degree-test is applied and left to the parties to adduce evidence to establish, it would be unfair and inequitable. The degree-test has to have the inbuilt concept of percentage. Taking into consideration the cumulative factors, namely, passage of time, the changing society, escalation of price, the change in price index, the human attitude to follow a particular pattern of life, etc., an addition of 40% of the established income of the deceased towards future prospects and where the deceased was below 40 years an addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years would be reasonable. 59. The controversy does not end here. 59. The controversy does not end here. The question still remains whether there should be no addition where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Sarla Verma thinks it appropriate not to add any amount and the same has been approved in Reshma Kumari. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that salary does not remain the same. When a person is in a permanent job, there is always an enhancement due to one reason or the other. To lay down as a thumb Rule that there will be no addition after 50 years will be an unacceptable concept. We are disposed to think, there should be an addition of 15% if the deceased is between the age of 50 to 60 years and there should be no addition thereafter. Similarly, in case of self-employed or person on fixed salary, the addition should be 10% between the age of 50 to 60 years. The aforesaid yardstick has been fixed so that there can be consistency in the approach by the tribunals and the courts. 59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions: .............. 59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component........” (Emphasis supplied) 12.1 Before examining the loss of dependency in the facts of the case, it would be appropriate to consider the submissions made by learned advocate for the original claimant, who has urged before us to re-determine the income of the deceased by taking into consideration previous ITRs of three years, which have been produced on record, however, has been ignored by the Tribunal. It was submitted before us that the Tribunal ought to have considered the gross income of the aforesaid previous three years’ ITR returns, it was contended before the Tribunal that the gross income of the four assessment years ITRs produced on record comes to around Rs. 10,74,000/- therefore, the average annual income of the deceased was required to be considered as Rs. 3,58,000/- and applying 50% of the aforesaid amount to determine the prospective income and by adopting multiplier of 15, the loss of dependency was required to be determined as Rs. 64,44,000/-. 12.2 Learned advocate Mr. Chirayu Mehta appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company has invited our attention to the reasons assigned by the Tribunal on the aforesaid aspect and has contended that the learned Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration the previous assessment year income. According to the learned advocate, very reasons have been assigned by the Tribunal for accepting the aforesaid assessment year for the purpose of determination of income of the deceased. 12.3 We have considered the submissions made by learned advocates for the respective parties. Indisputably, the original claimants have brought on record the ITRs of three assessment years, which is right from 2008-2009 to 2010-2011. As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malarvizhi and Others vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, (2020) 4 SCC 228 , the income tax returns being statutory documents are accepted as valid evidence in the eyes of law for the purpose of determination of income in motor vehicle accident cases. As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malarvizhi and Others vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, (2020) 4 SCC 228 , the income tax returns being statutory documents are accepted as valid evidence in the eyes of law for the purpose of determination of income in motor vehicle accident cases. In order to appreciate the submissions made by learned advocate for the original claimants, we could notice that IT returns for assessment year 2008-2009 for assessment year 2010-2011 are not admitted as evidence and are marked as 33/7 and 33/9. Though being marked, the Tribunal has accepted the IT returns of assessment year 2010-2011, which is filed on 16.07.2010, which is previous assessment year prior to the occurrence of the accident and has treated to be bona fide IT returns and genuine to be relied upon for the purpose of determination of income of the deceased. 12.4 We have taken into consideration the cross-examination of the wife of the deceased. A challenge is made to the case put forward by the original complainant of the deceased earning monthly income of Rs. 60,000/-. However, IT returns, though submitted on record for the respective assessment years, have not been controverted or challenged by the Insurance Company in her cross-examination. In our opinion, IT returns are statutory documents, though not marked as Exhibited documents, the same could have been looked into by the Tribunal for the purpose of assessment of just and proper compensation. The Tribunal ought to have determined the average annual income of the deceased by taking into consideration previous three years’ income tax return. 12.5 In our opinion considering the income of Rs. 1,32,190/- (assessment year 2008-2009), Rs. 1,97,970/- (assessment year 2009-2010) and Rs. 2,45,530/- (assessment year 2010-2011) for the purpose of determination of the correct figure of the income for the purpose of loss of dependency, would come to Rs. 1,98,971/- which would be less than the income taken into consideration by the Tribunal for assessment year 2010-2011, which is Rs. 2,45,530/- i.e. Rs. 20,500/- per month. 1,97,970/- (assessment year 2009-2010) and Rs. 2,45,530/- (assessment year 2010-2011) for the purpose of determination of the correct figure of the income for the purpose of loss of dependency, would come to Rs. 1,98,971/- which would be less than the income taken into consideration by the Tribunal for assessment year 2010-2011, which is Rs. 2,45,530/- i.e. Rs. 20,500/- per month. 12.6 Submission of learned advocate for the claimants to consider the income of subsequent assessment year of 2011-2012 (Exh.43), in our opinion, no fault can be found with the approach of the Tribunal in discarding such document more particularly when subject IT returns were submitted almost after 7 months of the date of accident and in fact, it reflected the income at higher side compare to the income reflected in the previous assessment years. 12.7 Hence, we are in complete agreement with the reasons assigned by the Tribunal in determining the income of the deceased as Rs. 20,500/- per month for the purpose of determining loss of dependency. According to us, the Tribunal has rightly applied 50% for the purpose of determination of prospective income of the deceased and has accordingly, treated the amount of Rs. 30,750/- per month as the prospective income of the deceased. So far as the deduction is concerned, indisputably the number of dependents in the family of the deceased included the widow, two minor daughters of the deceased and aged parents, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), more particularly as observed in Para 30, 31 and 32., we are of the view that tribunal has rightly applied deduction of 1/4th. 12.8 Thus, the aforesaid amount has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. After deducting the same, the actual can be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculation of loss of dependency. In our opinion, the Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration 1/4th of the deduction of the amount so determined. Thus, applying 1/4th deduction of Rs. 30,750 comes to Rs. 7,688/- and accordingly the actual income of the deceased is determined as Rs. 23,062/-. This brings us to the multiplier of 14 as applied by the Tribunal for the purpose of determination of compensation under the head of loss of dependency. Thus, applying 1/4th deduction of Rs. 30,750 comes to Rs. 7,688/- and accordingly the actual income of the deceased is determined as Rs. 23,062/-. This brings us to the multiplier of 14 as applied by the Tribunal for the purpose of determination of compensation under the head of loss of dependency. The age of the deceased has been determined as 40 years, the appropriate multiplier has to be applied according to the table in paragraph no. 42 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). The aforesaid table for application of multiplier based on the age bracket of the deceased which has been approved by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) as well as in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur alia Satwinder Kaur and Others, 2020 SCC Online 410. 12.9 Considering the age of the deceased and the submissions made by learned advocate for the claimants, the multiplier table provided under schedule in claim cases arising out under Section 166 of the Act for the bracket of age gap of 36 to 40, the multiplier suggested is 16 and for age group of 41 to 45 and the multiplier suggested is 15. Noticing the age of the deceased, his marital status, education and employment, we are inclined to accept the submission of learned advocate for the respondents-claimants to adopt a multiplier of 15 in the facts of the case. Accordingly, the amount of compensation to be considered under the head of loss of dependency is assessed as Rs. 23,062 x 12 x 15 = Rs. 41,51,160/- 13. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM: The principle regarding awarding compensation under the conventional heads particularly with regard to award on consortium, has been elaborately considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Others, (2021) 11 SCC 780 , after considering Pranay Sethi (Supra), has awarded spousal consortium at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) and towards loss of parental consortium to each child at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only). The compensation under these heads also needs to be increased. Thus, the spousal consortium is awarded at Rs. 40,000/- (Forty-four thousand only) and towards the parental consortium at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) and towards loss of parental consortium to each child at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only). The compensation under these heads also needs to be increased. Thus, the spousal consortium is awarded at Rs. 40,000/- (Forty-four thousand only) and towards the parental consortium at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- each is awarded to the two minor children and Rs. 40,000/- each to the parents under the head of filarial compensation. Thus, total amount under the head of loss of consortium is awarded as Rs. 2,00,000. Apt would be to mention here that this was a case where the children who are minor daughters have lost company of their father. In such circumstances, the children were held to separate amount of Rs. 40,000/- each. In our opinion, noticing the fact that the deceased was survived by two minor girls and aged parents, the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the aforesaid parameters. Hence, we are inclined to accept the submission made by the learned advocate for the respondent, the amount of compensation under head of loss of consortium is re-determined as Rs. 40,000/- x 5 = Rs. 2 Lakhs. 14. So far as the amount of compensation awarded under the loss of estate towards funeral expenses as Rs. 15,000/- each, no enhancement is required in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Thus, amount of compensation is modified as under: Loss of Dependency Rs. 41,51,160/- Loss of Consortium Rs. 2,00,000/- Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Loss of Funeral Expense Rs. 15,000/- Grand Total Rs. 43,81,160/- Enhance amount of compensation: Rs. 43,81,160 - Rs. 31,55,533 = Rs. 12,35,627/- 15. FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN MACP NO. 634 OF 2015: COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION: 15.1 Before the tribunal the original claimant has prayed for compensation of Rs. 20 lakhs. The claimant has produced a disability certificate at Exhibit 50 wherein it is opined that he has sustained 50% permanent disability. The witness Dr. Shanti Lal G. Patel is examined by the claimant at Exhibit 42 who has supported the case of the claimant. On overall appreciation of the aforesaid evidence, the tribunal has assessed 30% permanent disability for the purpose of computation of compensation. The tribunal upon appreciation of the medical evidence on record has considered the age of the claimant as 52 years. On overall appreciation of the aforesaid evidence, the tribunal has assessed 30% permanent disability for the purpose of computation of compensation. The tribunal upon appreciation of the medical evidence on record has considered the age of the claimant as 52 years. The tribunal has also considered that the claimant was working as driver and was earning income of Rs. 10,000 per month, the evidence of the witness advocate R.B. Shah at Exhibit 40 has also been taken into consideration. The documentary evidence led by the said witness which mainly includes the letter addressed to the claimant suggesting monthly salary of Rs. 6,000 per month has been brought on record at mark 39/1 to 39/4. Considering the age of the claimant, the tribunal has adopted a multiplier of 11. The tribunal has accordingly computed the compensation towards future loss of income as Rs. 2,37,600. The actual loss of income of the claimant for a period of four months is assessed as Rs. 24,000. The medical bills produced by the original claimant at Exhibit 42, 43 and 53 are taken into consideration and the tribunal has accordingly awarded compensation towards medical expenses as Rs. 1,07,000. The tribunal has awarded further compensation towards pain, shock and suffering at Rs. 25,000. The amount of Rs. 15,000 has been awarded towards special diet, attendant charges and transportation expenses. Accordingly, the tribunal has awarded a total amount of compensation of Rs. 4,08,600 along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and proportionate cost. While considering the aspect of liability, though the tribunal has considered the original claimant to have contributed to the accident and held 20% liable, upon appreciation of the insurance policy brought on record by the respondent no. 4 insurance company, have noticed that an additional premium was paid by the owner of the motorcar towards the insurance coverage of the paid driver. Thus, the tribunal has held the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant. Hence, this appeal at the instance of the Insurance company on the issue of negligence and X-objections on behalf of original claimants seeking enhancement. 16. SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ORIGINAL CLAIMANT – APPLICANT IN THE CROSS OBJECTIONS: 16.1 Ld. advocate Mr. Hence, this appeal at the instance of the Insurance company on the issue of negligence and X-objections on behalf of original claimants seeking enhancement. 16. SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ORIGINAL CLAIMANT – APPLICANT IN THE CROSS OBJECTIONS: 16.1 Ld. advocate Mr. B.B. Shah appearing for original claimant as mainly raised grievance with regard to the computation of the amount of compensation under the head of future loss of income. It is submitted that the tribunal committed serious error in not treating the disability of the claimant as 50%. The reliance was placed on the medical certificate issued by Dr. Shanti Lal Patel to contend that cogent material has been brought on record to suggest 50% permanent disability sustained by the original claimant; it was further submitted that the future loss of income was required to be enhanced accordingly. According to the learned advocate, the future loss of income was required to be re-determined as Rs. 6,000 x 50% x 12 months x 11 years = Rs. 3,96,000. Alternatively, it was submitted that in fact the medical case papers go to suggest that the claimant had sustained crush injuries with multiple fractures and he was unable to drive the vehicle therefore though the doctor had opined 50% permanent disability however it was a case of hundred percent functional disability. It was submitted that the claimant had sustained crush injuries on his right hand, right side rib cage along with other injuries. He had become incapable of driving any vehicle as he had suffered 100% functional disability, he was unable to work as a driver of any type of vehicle. Reliance was placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jakir Hussain vs. Sabir and Others, (2015) 7 SCC 252 and of this court in the case of Abdulmiya Jafarali Saiyed vs. Sukhvindersing Harbansing, 2022 (1) GLR 34 . He had therefore urged this court to consider the amount of Rs. 7,92,000 as the future loss of income. According to the learned advocate, looking to the serious injuries of fracture sustained on the right hand, it took almost 6 months to recover and therefore had prayed for additional compensation of Rs. 12,000 under the head of actual loss of income apart from Rs. 24,000. Learned Advocate had fairly conceded that the tribunal had rightly considered the expenses towards the medicines as Rs. 1,07,000. 12,000 under the head of actual loss of income apart from Rs. 24,000. Learned Advocate had fairly conceded that the tribunal had rightly considered the expenses towards the medicines as Rs. 1,07,000. As regards the amount of compensation awarded towards pain, shock and suffering of Rs. 25,000 is concerned, it was submitted that looking at the injuries sustained, the tribunal ought to have considered Rs. 50,000. Learned advocate had also prayed for enhancement of compensation towards special diet, attendant charges and transportation expenses are concerned. It was submitted that the tribunal ought to have appreciated the fact that the original claimant used to reside at Viramgam and had to attend hospital at Ahmedabad. The learned advocate had prayed for additional compensation of Rs. 15,000 towards the special diet, attendant charges and transportation expenses. Apart from the aforesaid heads, the learned advocate has also prayed for an additional amount of compensation of Rs. 20,000 towards the loss of enjoyment of life. Learned advocate for the original claimant had placed on record the written submissions in the schedule appended with the written submissions enhancement of amount of compensation accordingly is sought for sum of Rs. 10,20,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum viz., additional amount of compensation as Rs. 6,11,400/-. It would be required to note that another argument canvassed is that enhancement is sought for considering 15% actual salary additionally in light of the relevant observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . The enhancement is restricted to Rs. 3,00,000. 17. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS: 17.1 On the other hand, learned advocates appearing for the respective insurance company have objected to the aforesaid submissions for enhancement sought for by the original claimant. Learned advocates have jointly invited our attention to the findings and reasons recorded by the tribunal while partly allowing the claim petition of the original claimant. It was submitted that the award of compensation is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in light of the evidence brought on record. It was submitted that in absence of any cogent evidence place for consideration with regard to the disability as pressed for, the tribunal has rightly considered 30% permanent disability for the purpose of computation of compensation. It was submitted that in absence of any cogent evidence place for consideration with regard to the disability as pressed for, the tribunal has rightly considered 30% permanent disability for the purpose of computation of compensation. It was therefore prayed to not to entertain the cross objections. 18. ANALYSIS: 18.1 We have carefully considered the findings and reasons assigned by the tribunal in light of the oral as well as written submissions made by learned advocates on record appearing for the respective parties. On the aspect of compensation awarded by the tribunal indisputably there is no challenge being made by the respective insurance company. In such circumstances the determination of income of injured claimant as Rs. 6,000 per month has remained unchallenged on record. This brings us to the issue of computation of future loss of income of injured claimant. Admittedly the claimant was the driver of the motor car involved in the accident. The claimant has placed on record the evidence of witness advocate Mr. R.B. Shah to contend that the claimant had received a monthly salary of Rs. 6,000 per month. Our Attention was invited to the notification dated 13.06.2017 issued by the State of Gujarat under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act whereby the work of a driver is classified as skilled work. Said notification has been placed on record with list at Exhibit 60. With such evidence on record, the tribunal has rightly assessed the income of claimant as Rs. 6,000/- per month. Though, learned advocate Mr. Mehta for appellant- Insurance Company has attempted to refer the schedule of wages to dispute the amount of Rs. 6,000/- as the income of the deceased, in absence of any ground raised in the appeal and having restricted his submissions on negligency issue only, we are incline to affirm the findings of Tribunal of determining salary of Rs. 6,000/- as income of complainant. Further, with respect to the permanent disablement suffered by the claimant is concerned as rightly submitted by learn it advocate for the claimant the Doctor Who has examined the claimant has noted the injuries sustained by the claimant due to the accident. 6,000/- as income of complainant. Further, with respect to the permanent disablement suffered by the claimant is concerned as rightly submitted by learn it advocate for the claimant the Doctor Who has examined the claimant has noted the injuries sustained by the claimant due to the accident. On perusal of such certificate the doctor has stated that the claimant had multiple fractures of ribs, fracture of pubic Rami on left side, fracture of right humerus with radial and Paul C. It is further stated that he was operated on 19.02.2011 and thereafter on 26.02.2011. It is further mentioned that when the claimant was examined by him on 20.10.2011, he had stiffness of right hand, wrist and was unable to make fist of the right side. It is further stated that he is not able to work with right hand and not able to drive vehicles. Accordingly, the doctor has considered impairment of the right upper extremity as 50%. Dr Shanti Lal G. Patel has been examined as witness by the claimant. His evidence has come on record at Exhibit 42. The medical case papers including the discharge sheet has been placed on record at Exhibit 51 wherein the list of events that is the dates of treatment has been specified. The bare perusal of the aforesaid document indicates that the claimant had sustained multiple fractures of ribs, fracture both of superior and inferior Rami left side, fracture right humerus with radial. The claimant was operated on 19.02.2011 and nailing was done again on 26.02.2011 since there was no recovery in the radius and, nail was removed and it was found with compressed injury. This had led to fixation of continuous plates. Even when the claimant was discharged, the doctor opined that though the wound had healed, there was no recovery of Radius N and Temp N. 18.2 With such evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the tribunal committed gross error in restricting the permanent disability to the extent of 30% for the purpose of calculation of amount towards the loss of future earning capacity. No doubt, the doctor has assessed the permanent disability of the claimant as 50% of the upper extremity. No doubt, the doctor has assessed the permanent disability of the claimant as 50% of the upper extremity. However, it is important to consider it’s effect on the earning capacity of the claimant who was working as driver and driving the motor vehicle was the only means of his livelihood as well as the members of his family. We could notice that though the claimant has urged to consider it as a case of 100% functional disablement however, the license issued by RTO in the name of claimant is placed on record mark 64/1. We are inclined to accept the plea raised by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation under the head of future loss of earnings by treating it as a 100% functional disability case. In the case of Rajkumar vs. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court specifically while referring to the illustration of driver who had sustained permanent disablement of hand had considered the loss of future earning capacity of virtually 100%. When it comes to loss of earnings, due to permanent disability, the same can be treated as 100% loss caused when the claimant would be unable to work as a driver again. The original claimant has brought on record evidence to indicate the serious injuries received which have not healed even after two operations. The doctor's evidence supports the case of the claimant of having suffered crushed injuries and multiple fractures which has led to functional impairment of his right hand. The said impairment has definitely affected his work as a driver. Thus, considering the above factors we hold it as a case of 100% physical functional disability. The claimant is entitled for future loss of income of Rs. 6,000 x 12 x 11 = Rs. 7,92,000. The amount awarded by the tribunal under the head of actual loss of income for a period of four months is required to be deducted out of the total amount awarded by the tribunal. Therefore, after deduction of Rs. 24,000 (actual loss of income for 4 months), the amount of compensation as awarded by the tribunal comes to Rs. 7,68,000/- (7,92,000 - 24,000). 18.3 The original claimant treatment has prolonged for almost 4 months. Therefore, after deduction of Rs. 24,000 (actual loss of income for 4 months), the amount of compensation as awarded by the tribunal comes to Rs. 7,68,000/- (7,92,000 - 24,000). 18.3 The original claimant treatment has prolonged for almost 4 months. Considering the medical case papers and the prescriptions produced, we deem it fit to enhance the amount of compensation under the head of special diet, attendants charges and transportation expenses as Rs. 50,000 as against Rs. 15,000 awarded by the tribunal. 18.4 Considering the nature of injuries sustained, the original claimant is also entitled to an enhanced amount of compensation under the head of pain shock and suffering Rs. 50,000 as against Rs. 25,000. Thus, the original award passed by the tribunal in MACP No. 634 of 2015 is modified as under: Future loss of income Rs. 7,68,000/- Pain, shock and suffering Rs. 50,000/- Special diet, attendant charges and transportation Rs. 50,000/- Total award Rs. 8,68,000/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs. 8,68,000- Rs. 4,08,600 = Rs. 4,59,400/-. 19. CONCLUSION: 19.1 For the foregoing reasons, the First Appeal No. 3906 of 2019 filed by the appellant-Insurance Company fails and is hereby directed to be rejected. The cross-objection No. 229 of 2022 filed by the original claimants of M.A.C.P. No. 940 of 2011 is hereby allowed. The original claimants are entitled to an enhanced amount of compensation Rs. 41,51,160/-. The opponent no. 2-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of award with proportionate cost and interest at the rate of 7.5% within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Upon deposit of the enhanced amount of compensation, the Tribunal is directed to release and disburse the enhanced amount as well as the amount lying in FDRs and the same may be paid to the claimants as per their shares determined by the Tribunal, upon proper verification. The Tribunal is at liberty to deduct the amount towards the court fees, if any, before disbursing such amount of compensation. 19.2 So far as the First Appeal No. 3907 of 2019 filed by the appellant-Insurance Company is concerned, for the reasons assigned, the appeal is not entertained and is hereby dismissed. The cross-objection no. 13 of 2022, filed by the injured claimant is partly allowed. The original claimant is entitled to an enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 19.2 So far as the First Appeal No. 3907 of 2019 filed by the appellant-Insurance Company is concerned, for the reasons assigned, the appeal is not entertained and is hereby dismissed. The cross-objection no. 13 of 2022, filed by the injured claimant is partly allowed. The original claimant is entitled to an enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 4,59,400 with proportionate cost and interest at the rate of 7.5 % from the date of filing of the petition till its actual realization. The opponent no. 1-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation with proportionate cost and interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Upon deposit of such amount, the Tribunal is at liberty to release and to pay the award in favour of the original claimant after due verification. Needless to clarify that the Tribunal would be at liberty to deduct the court fees, if found deficit before releasing the amount of compensation in favour of the original claimants. 20. Records and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Court/Tribunal forthwith.