JUDGMENT : (Nupur Bhati, J.) : 1. The S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal no. 2388/2019, seeking quashing and setting aside qua appellant/insurance company, has been preferred by the Appellant/Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(hereinafter as ‘the Act’) against the judgment and award dated 26.06.2019(hereinafter as ‘impugned award’) passed by MACT-I, Jodhpur in Claim Case No. 24/2015. And S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2667/2019, seeking enhancement of the awarded compensation, has been preferred by the respondents/claimants under Section 173 of the Act against the impugned award. As both the appeals arise from the common order, the same are being decided by this common order and facts of S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal no. 2388/2019 are being taken illustratively. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 11.07.2014 Dileep Kumar Soni (hereinafter as ‘the deceased’) was traveling to Balesar in the vehicle bearing registration no. RJ19 UA 7936(hereinafter as ‘the offending vehicle’), and at around 11:00 PM, the vehicle while being driven rashly and negligently by Respondent no. 7/driver turned turtle and as a result the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died during the course of treatment. The FIR no. 101/2014(Ex.5) was lodged at P.S. Balesar, Jodhpur and after investigation, the chargesheet was filed against the respondent no. 7/driver. The Claim petition - Claim Case No. 24/2015 was filed by the respondent no. 1 to 6(hereinafter as ‘the claimants’) before MACT-I, Jodhpur(hereinafter as 'the learned tribunal’) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,89,85,000/-on account of the death of the deceased. 3. The learned tribunal framed 5 issues. The claimants examined three witness(AW1 to AW3) and exhibited documentary evidences. The appellant/insurance company as well as respondent no. 7 and 8 did not produce any evidence before the learned tribunal. 4. On the basis of pleading of the parties and material available on record, the learned tribunal partly allowed the claim petition vide impugned award and awarded Rs.40,70,080/- as compensation to the claimants and held appellant/insurance company and respondent no. 7 and 8 jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded compensation. 5. Aggrieved by the same the appellant/insurance company have preferred S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal no. 2388/2019 and the claimants have preferred S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal no. 2667/2019 before this court. 6. 7 and 8 jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded compensation. 5. Aggrieved by the same the appellant/insurance company have preferred S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal no. 2388/2019 and the claimants have preferred S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal no. 2667/2019 before this court. 6. As there is no dispute as to the facts of the case the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant/insurance company has restricted his arguments to the quantum of the compensation as awarded by the learned tribunal. He submits that the learned tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased on the basis of the Income Tax Return for Assessment Year-2013-14(Ex.-21) as the claimants did not produce any evidence in support of Ex.-21. He further submits that the learned tribunal has erred in awarding future prospects as the deceased was not in a permanent job. 7. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants that the learned tribunal has erred in not awarding consortium to Respondent no. 2 to 5(Minor children of the deceased) and Respondent no. 6(Mother of the deceased). He further, submits that the learned tribunal has erred in applying multiplier of 16 instead of 18. 8. Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. The contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/insurance company with respect to assessment of the income of the deceased on the basis of Ex.-21(ITR for AY-2013-14) does not have any force as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anjali v. Lokendra Rathod, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1683(at para 9 and 10) has held that Income Tax Return, being a statutory document can be relied upon for computation of annual income of the deceased/claimant. Thus, the learned tribunal has rightly placed reliance upon Ex.-21 for computation of the annual income of deceased. Further, the contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/insurance company with respect to future prospects also does not have any force as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 (at para 57) has held that the future prospects can be awarded even in cases where the deceased was not in a permanent job. Therefore, the appeal preferred by the appellant/insurance company - S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal no. 2388/2019 deserves to be dismissed. 10. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 (at para 57) has held that the future prospects can be awarded even in cases where the deceased was not in a permanent job. Therefore, the appeal preferred by the appellant/insurance company - S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal no. 2388/2019 deserves to be dismissed. 10. As far as the contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants are concerned, this court finds that the learned tribunal has indeed not awarded any amount under the head of consortium to Respondent no. 2 to 5(Minor children of the deceased) and Respondent no. 6(Mother of the deceased). Thus, in the light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi(Supra) and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780 (para 34), the Respondent no. 2 to 5(Minor children of the deceased) and Respondent no. 6(Mother of the deceased) are entitled to get the compensation under the head of consortium. However, the contention of the claimants that the tribunal has erred in applying multiplier of 16 instead of 18 does not have any force as the learned tribunal after perusing the material available on record has determined the age of the deceased as 32 years at the time of the accident by placing reliance on Ex.-21(i.e., ITR for AY-2013-14) and Ex. 22(i.e., ITR Computation form which was signed by the deceased himself). Thus, in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 the learned tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 16 applicable to the age group of 31-35 years. 11. Further, this court finds that the learned tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,000/- each under the heads of funeral expenses and loss of estate. And the same deserve to be modified in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi(Supra). 12. Thus, in view of the discussion in the above paragraphs, the allowable compensation to the claimants is as under: S. No. Particulars Amount as awarded by the learned tribunal Amount as modified/ enhanced by this court 1. And the same deserve to be modified in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi(Supra). 12. Thus, in view of the discussion in the above paragraphs, the allowable compensation to the claimants is as under: S. No. Particulars Amount as awarded by the learned tribunal Amount as modified/ enhanced by this court 1. (add)Compensation towards loss of dependency while adding 40% towards Future Prospects and after ¼ deduction on account of personal expenses: 2,50,005(annual income after applying future prospects and deducting ¼ on account of personal expenses) x 16= 40,00,080/- Rs.40,00,080/- Rs.40,00,080/- (Same as awarded by the learned tribunal) 2. (add)Loss of Consortium 48,000 x 6= 2,88,000/- Rs. 40,000/- Rs.2,88,000/- 3. (add)Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.18,000/- 4. (add)Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000 /- Rs.18,000/- Gross Total Rs.40,70,080/- Rs.43,24,080/- Enhanced amount (after deducting the amount already awarded by the learned tribunal) Rs.2,54,000/- 13. Therefore, in view of the discussion in the above paragraphs, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal no. 2388/2019 is dismissed and the S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal no. 2667/2019 stands partly allowed. The claimants are thus held entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.2,54,000/-along with interest @ 9% p.a.(same as awarded by the learned tribunal) with effect from the date of filing of the claim petition. The impugned award passed by the learned tribunal stands modified accordingly. The appellant/insurance company is directed to pay the said amount along with the interest from the date of filing of claim petition to the claimants. The amount of compensation if any paid or disbursed shall be adjusted.