JUDGMENT : RAVI NATH TILHARI, J : Heard Sri B.V. Krishna Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants/appellants through virtual mode as well as Smt. A. Jayanthi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. 2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (in short 'M.V. Act'), has been filed by the claimants/appellants, challenging the Award, dated 31.05.2012, passed in MVOP No.461 of 2009 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), West Godavari at Eluru (in short 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of the compensation amount. 3. The claimants/respondents filed MVOP No.461 of 2009 under Section 166 of the M.V. Act for compensation of Rs.44,99,999/- for the death of one T. Rambabu (hereinafter referred as 'deceased') in the motor accident, which took place on 21.12.2007 near Kondaparava Cross Road, at the outskirts of Vissannapeta on Nuzvid to Visannapeta Road, Krishna District, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry Bearing No.AP Q 5749 (HGV) (in short 'offending vehicle'), the accident took place. 4. Respondent No.1 is the driver, respondent No.2 is the owner and respondent No.3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. 5. The case of the appellants is that the deceased was aged about 32 years and he was earning Rs.6,00,000/- per year by doing Real Estate Commission business, leasehold cultivation, milk business and chit fund business in the name and style of Tankasala Chits and Finance. 6. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte. 7. The 3rd respondent-Oriental Insurance Company Limited filed written statement denying the material averments of the claim petition and submitting that the claimants be put to the strict proof of the averments of the claim petition. The amount of compensation was said to be excessive. It was denied that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. It was submitted that the deceased was himself responsible for the accident as he was rash and negligent in driving the Indica Car. The liability was denied subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, that if such policy was in existence by the date of the accident. 8. The Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration : 1. It was submitted that the deceased was himself responsible for the accident as he was rash and negligent in driving the Indica Car. The liability was denied subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, that if such policy was in existence by the date of the accident. 8. The Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration : 1. Whether the motor vehicle accident on 21.12.2007 at the outskirts of Kondaparava Village on Nuziveedu to Visannapeta Road arose on account of negligence of R1/driver of the Lorry Bearing No.AP Q 5749 resulting the death of deceased Tanakasala Rambabu ? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so, for what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 9. On behalf of the claimants, the claimant Nos.1 and 4 were examined as PWs.1 and 8 respectively and the other witnesses were examined as PWs.2 to 7 and PWs.9 to 12 and Exs.A1 to A16 were got marked. The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company examined its Branch Manager as RW1. A copy of the insurance policy of the offending vehicle was marked as Ex.B1. 10. The Tribunal recorded the finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., 1st respondent, resulting into the death of the deceased. 11. On the point of quantum of compensation, the Tribunal determined the income of the deceased as Rs.12,000/- per month i.e., Rs.1,44,000/- per annum. 1/4th was deducted for personal expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 16. The total dependency was taken as Rs.17,28,000/-. Adding thereto, a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of Consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.4,000/- for funeral expenses, the total compensation was awarded by the Tribunal to a sum of Rs.17,62,000/- with interest @ 7.5%. 12. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the appeal has been preferred only on the point of quantum. He submitted that the agricultural income as shown in Ex.A8 i.e., Rs,1,80,000/- (which is same as in Ex.X5) was not considered, whereas considering the same, the claimants were entitled for the supervisory charges. He also placed reliance on the documents marked as Exs.A11 to A16. He submitted that the future prospects were not granted by the Tribunal and the rate of interest @ 7.5% is on the lower side, which deserved to be enhanced. 13. He also placed reliance on the documents marked as Exs.A11 to A16. He submitted that the future prospects were not granted by the Tribunal and the rate of interest @ 7.5% is on the lower side, which deserved to be enhanced. 13. Learned Counsel for the appellants relied upon the following judgments : (i) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) (ii) Kirti and others v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2021 ACJ 1 (SC) (iii) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kunti Binod Pande and others, 2020 ACJ 2714 (Bombay High Court) (iv) Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and others, 2018 ACJ 2782 (SC) (v) K. Ramya and others v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, 2022 Live Law (SC) 816 14. Learned Counsel for the appellants did not dispute the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the points of age of the deceased, 1/4 deduction for personal expenses and the multiplier of 16'. 15. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent submitted that the agricultural income was shown for the first time in Ex.A8 (Ex.X5), which was filed after the death of the deceased. There was no evidence on record to show agricultural income, except the oral evidence of the wife of the deceased. In the absence of any other evidence, the Tribunal rightly did not consider the agricultural income and did not add it to the annual income for the supervisory charges. He further submitted that the Tribunal did not commit any illegality. The compensation awarded is just and fair compensation, which needs no enhancement. 16. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Mannat Johal and others, (2019) 15 SCC 260 . 17. Learned Counsel for the respondents, however, did not dispute on the point of not awarding future prospects and the rate of interest @ 7.5% per annum. 18. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. 19. The following points arise for our consideration and determination : 1. Whether the Tribunal has awarded just and fair compensation to the appellants, in the light of the submissions advanced by the learned Counsels or the compensation awarded is inadequate and deserves enhancement ? 2. 19. The following points arise for our consideration and determination : 1. Whether the Tribunal has awarded just and fair compensation to the appellants, in the light of the submissions advanced by the learned Counsels or the compensation awarded is inadequate and deserves enhancement ? 2. Whether the interest @ 7.5% as awarded by the Tribunal is correct or is to be enhanced ? Analysis : Point No.1 : (I) Agricultural Income/Supervisory Charges : 20. The Tribunal has considered the monthly income @ Rs.12,000/-. The annual income comes to Rs.1,44,000/-. The Tribunal did not take into account the agricultural income recording the reason that Ex.A8 (Ex.X5) was filed before the Income Tax Department on 08.02.2008 i.e., long after the death of the deceased, and under the circumstances, no importance could be attached to that document. The Tribunal also considered the evidence of PW12-Sarpanch, Enikepadu, who deposed about the owning of Acs.10-00 cents of land by the deceased and about his earnings. However, no material was placed before the Tribunal to prove that the deceased was having such an extent of land in his name. No material by way of the sale deeds or other documents of title was filed before the Tribunal on the said aspect. The Tribunal considered Exs.A11 to 16-Lease agreements, but observed that no weight could be attached to those documents, as no other records were filed to prove that the deceased was cultivating the land. Besides, those lease agreements did not contain the signature of the deceased. 21. We have perused Ex.A8 (Ex.X5)-Notarized Copy of Income Tax Returns for the assessment year 2007-2008 filed before the Tribunal, in which, for the first time, the agriculture income of the deceased was shown as Rs,1,80,000/-. As per Ex.X4, Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2006-2007, the annual income from business/profession is shown as Rs.1,18,500/- and the agricultural income is shown as Rs.21,000/-. No other documents have been filed to prove that the deceased was getting Rs.1,80,000/- from agriculture. Besides, Ex.A8 was filed before the Income Tax Department on 08.12.2008, i.e., long after the date of death of the deceased i.e., 21.12.2007. No other documents have been filed to prove that the deceased was getting Rs.1,80,000/- from agriculture. Besides, Ex.A8 was filed before the Income Tax Department on 08.12.2008, i.e., long after the date of death of the deceased i.e., 21.12.2007. In V. Subbulakshmi and others v. S. Lakshmi and another, (2008) 4 SCC 224 , where the accident took place on 07.05.1997 and the Income Tax Returns were filed on 23.06.1997, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the income tax returns (Ex.P14), therefore, had rightly not been relied upon. In Sutinder Pal Singh Arora and others v. Ashok Kumar Jain and others, 2004 ACJ 782 , the Madhya Pradesh High Court observed and held that the income tax returns filed after the death of the deceased could not be taken into consideration as the possibility of them being filed, by inflating the income, could not be ruled out. In United Insurance Company Limited v. Shrinivas R. Kantam and others, FA No.665 of 2019, dated 19.05.2020, the Bombay High Court held that the Income Tax Returns filed after the date of the death of the deceased for the purpose of deriving the loss of dependency, were liable to be excluded. 22. Besides, in the previous year, as per Ex.X4 (Assessment year 2006-2007) the income from agriculture was shown only as Rs.21,000/-, whereas in Ex.A8/Ex.X5 filed after the death, it has been highly increased to Rs.1,80,000/-, which is only the next assessment year. 23. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that Exs.A11 to A16-Unregistered lease agreements alongwith receipts show that the deceased had sufficient agricultural land, on lease. On perusal, it is evident that Exs.A11 to A16 were not signed by the deceased. As submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3, the lease period of those documents was upto 04.05.2008, 14.05.2008 and 24.09.2008, and consequently, the lease period had also come to end. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that except Exs.A11 to A16, there is no document to show other agricultural land. He submitted that the deceased did not own any agricultural land, except on lease. So, even if we take Exs.A11 to A16 as genuine documents, though not signed by the deceased, there would be no lease of the agriculture land in favour of the appellants to determine the supervisory charges based on Exs.A11 to A16. 24. He submitted that the deceased did not own any agricultural land, except on lease. So, even if we take Exs.A11 to A16 as genuine documents, though not signed by the deceased, there would be no lease of the agriculture land in favour of the appellants to determine the supervisory charges based on Exs.A11 to A16. 24. In V. Subbulakshmi's case (supra), with respect to the lease, the Hon'ble Apex Court found that it was unregistered document and consequently, alongwith other reasons recorded, it was observed that the Trial Court was right in not placing reliance on those unregistered lease documents. 25. Thus, considered on the aspect of the agricultural income, we do not find any illegality in the finding of the Tribunal. 26. The supervisory charges are normally given @ 10 to 15% on the agricultural income. The Hon'ble Apex Court in K. Ramya and others v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), observed as under : "21. Now, the sole issue which remains before this Court is whether the entire amount under 'Income from House Property and Agricultural Land' should be deducted or not. In this respect, we are guided by the observations of this Court in State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur, (2003) 7 SCC 484 , wherein it was noted that 8. x-x-x-x The land possessed by the deceased still remains with his legal heirs. There is however a possibility that the claimants may be required to engage persons to look after agriculture. Therefore, the normal rule about the deprivation of income is not strictly applicable to cases where agricultural income is the source. Attendant circumstances have to be considered. (Emphasis applied) 22. In our opinion, the abovementioned observations, though made in the context of agricultural land, would also be applicable to rent received from leased out properties as the loss of dependency arises mainly out of loss of management capacity or efficiency. As a rule of prudence, computation of any individual's managerial skills should lie between 10 to 15 per cent of the total rental income but the acceptable range can be increased in light of specific circumstances. The appropriate approach, therefore, is to determine the value of managerial skills alongwith any other factual considerations". 27. But, in the present case, in view of the finding recorded above on agricultural income; no agricultural land, there is no occasion to grant any supervisory charges. 28. The appropriate approach, therefore, is to determine the value of managerial skills alongwith any other factual considerations". 27. But, in the present case, in view of the finding recorded above on agricultural income; no agricultural land, there is no occasion to grant any supervisory charges. 28. Considering Ex.X4, on the point of annual income, we maintain the finding of the Tribunal on annual income as Rs.1,44,000/-, though the Tribunal determined the same considering the commitments of the deceased. (II) Future Prospects : 29. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects. On the point of future prospects, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), has held as under : "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." 30. In Kirti's case (supra), future prospects and under conventional heads, amount was considered as per Pranay Sethi's case (supra). 31. In view of the Pranay Sethi's case (supra) and Kirti's case (supra), the claimants/appellants are entitled for addition of the future prospects @ 40%, on income i.e., Rs.1,44,000/- as determined by the Tribunal. The deceased was self-employed and below age of 40 years. We grant the same. (III) Conventional Heads : 32. Under conventional heads, as per the judgment in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), Magma's case (supra) and Smt. Anjali and others v. Lokendra Rathod and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1683 and United India Insurance Co. The deceased was self-employed and below age of 40 years. We grant the same. (III) Conventional Heads : 32. Under conventional heads, as per the judgment in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), Magma's case (supra) and Smt. Anjali and others v. Lokendra Rathod and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1683 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others, (2021) 11 SCC 780 , the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.48,000/- to each of the claimants being Rs.2,40,000/- (Rs.48,000/- x 5) for loss of Consortium, Rs.18,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.18,000/- towards loss of Estate inclusive of increase @ 10% per annum on every three years i.e., @ 20% as on today. We accordingly grant the same. 33. In Kunti Binod's case (supra), the Bombay High Court has held that it is the statutory obligation of the Court/Tribunal to grant just compensation. There is no dispute. Law to above effect is well settled. 34. Thus considered, the claimants/appellants are held entitled in total to the following amount of compensation. Sl.No. Head Compensation Awarded 1. Net Annual Income Rs.12,000/- x 12 = Rs.1,44,000/- 2. Future Prospects Rs.57,600/- (i.e., 40% of the income) Total = Rs.2,01,600/- 3. Deduction towards personal expenditure (i.e., 1/4th) Rs.50,400/- 4. Total annual loss Rs.1,51,200/- 5. Multiplier of 16 at the age of 32 years 16 x Rs.1,51,200/- = Rs.24,19,200/- 6. Conventional Heads : (i) Loss of Consortium Rs.2,40,000/- (Rs.48,000/- x 5) (ii) Loss of Estate Rs.18,000/- (iii) Funeral expenses Rs.18,000/- 7. Total Compensation Rs.26,95,200/- Point No.2 : (IV) Interest : 35. The Tribunal granted interest @ 7.5% p.a. In Mannat Johal's case (supra), upon which the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3 placed reliance, the Tribunal granted interest @ 12%, which was reduced by the High Court to 7.5%. The Hon'ble Apex Court did not interfere. In Kumari Kiran v. Sajjan Singh and others, (2015) 1 SCC 539 , the Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the judgment of the Tribunal therein awarding interest @ 6% as also the judgment of the High Court awarding interest @ 7.5% and awarded interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of the claim petition. In Kumari Kiran v. Sajjan Singh and others, (2015) 1 SCC 539 , the Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the judgment of the Tribunal therein awarding interest @ 6% as also the judgment of the High Court awarding interest @ 7.5% and awarded interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of the claim petition. In Rahul Sharma and another v. National Insurance Company Limited and others, (2021) 6 SCC 188 , in Kirthi and another v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (supra), presently in Smt. Anjali and others v. Lokendra Rathod and others (supra), while referring to Malarvizhi and others v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, (2020) 4 SCC 228 , the Hon'ble Apex Court allowed interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of claim petition till realization. 36. On the aforesaid amount the claimants are allowed interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of the claim petition till realization. (V) Result : 37. In the Result, (i) the appeal is allowed in part, enhancing the compensation as Rs.26,95,200/- by modifying the award of the Tribunal, as per the calculation made in this judgment being the just compensation with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of claim petition till realization with costs throughout to the claimants/appellants; (ii) The respondents shall pay/deposit the amount as aforesaid, adjusting the amount already deposited if any, before the Tribunal within one (01) month from today, failing which, the same shall be recovered in accordance with law; (iii) On such deposit being made, on realization, the claimants/appellants shall be paid the same in the proportion, as per the award. 38. No order as to costs. 39. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.