JUDGMENT : (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT) 1. The present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act (herein after referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’) challenging judgment and award dated 13.03.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Aux.) and 7th Additional District Judge, Ahmedabad [Rural] in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1463 of 2015. 2. The parties will be referred as their original position before the Tribunal. 3. Short facts of the case appear to be as under; 3.1 That on 25.04.2015 at about 11:15 PM when the deceased and her husband left hotel Avalon after attaining the marriage function and while walking on the roadside opposite to Mohini Farm, Opponent no.2 came by driving her car bearing registration No.GJ-1-KS-0502 at an excessive speed and dashed with deceased. As a result of the accident, wife of claimant no.1 i.e., Kanwaljitkumar Ranjitsing Chavla, had sustained serious injuries and succumbed to it.. 3.2 FIR, in relation to the said accident in question, came to be registered at Vastrapur Police Station being I-C.R.No.75 of 2015. Charge-sheet came to be filed against opponent no.2 - driver of car. 3.3 As the death of the deceased was due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the car involved in the accident, so the claimants have filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,00,000/- from driver, owner and insurance company of bus. 3.4 Opponent Nos.1 and 2 i.e., driver and owner of the motor car appeared through their lawyer and filed joint written statement at Exh.16. Whereas, opponent no.3 - insurance company (Appellant herein) has appeared through their advocate and filed its written statement at Exh.19. 3.5 After appreciating evidence on record, the Tribunal has found driver of the car solely negligent for causing accident as FIR and chargesheet came to be filed against opponent no.2, who did not remain present for her oral evidence to rebut the allegation of her sole negligence for causing accident. 3.6 Thereafter, the Tribunal has decided the quantum of compensation and taking into account the documentary evidence led by claimants and in all awarded Rs.50,38,592/- to the original claimants to be paid by opponents jointly and severally. 4. 3.6 Thereafter, the Tribunal has decided the quantum of compensation and taking into account the documentary evidence led by claimants and in all awarded Rs.50,38,592/- to the original claimants to be paid by opponents jointly and severally. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, opponent no.3 – insurance company has preferred the present first appeal disputing of Rs.13,00,000/- out of total awarded amount granted to the original claimants. SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT – INSURANCE COMPANY 4. Learned advocate, Ms.Kirti S. Patak, appearing for the appellant - insurance company has vehemently submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly considered the income of deceased only on the basis of Income tax returns, which are submitted on record, which is not the correct approach on the part of the Tribunal to assess the income of deceased. She would further submit that claimants have failed to substantiate incomes, which are mentioned in respective ITRs of deceased and in absence of any proof of drawing such income from so called business of running Cyber cafe in the name of Net World Cyber cafe in the vicinity of Ahmedabad by deceased. 4.1 According to the submission of learned advocate for the appellant – Insurance Company, mere production of ITRs without any account particulars of business of deceased is highly doubtful that she was actually running Cyber Cafe business and it is unsafe to rely upon ITRs of deceased for computation of income. 4.2 Learned advocate for the appellant – Insurance Company would further submit that ITR for the assessment year 2015-16 was filed on 22-09-2015, whereas date of accident was 25.04.2015 then such ITR came to be filed after the date of accident and therefore, the Tribunal could not have considered the income shown in such ITRs. 4.3 Learned advocate for the appellant – Insurance Company would further submit that claimant nos.3 and 4 happens to be father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased respectively then they could not have been considered as dependent upon deceased as claimant no.1-husband happens to be their son would take care of their needs thereby Tribunal has committed an error in deducting 1/4 personal expense of deceased instead of 1/3. 4.4 According to submission of Learned advocate for the appellant – Insurance Company, approach of Tribunal to consider the income of deceased is erroneous based on conjecture and surmises, whereby, granted more than just compensation. 4.4 According to submission of Learned advocate for the appellant – Insurance Company, approach of Tribunal to consider the income of deceased is erroneous based on conjecture and surmises, whereby, granted more than just compensation. 4.5 So according to learned advocate for the appellant – Insurance Company, the appeal requires consideration. No other submissions are being made. 5. Heard learned advocate for the appellant – Insurance Company at length. 5.1 As learned advocate for the insurance company has not disputed the income shown in respective ITRs for the year 2013-14 and 2014-15 and 2015-16 by Tribunal reproduced at page number 8 in its impugned judgment then considering legal submissions made by learned advocate for insurance company, this Court would not like to call for records and proceedings as Tribunal has considered an average income of the aforesaid ITRs of deceased which are not in dispute. POINT OF DETERMINATION. (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has committed any error while granting more than just compensation to the claimants? APPRECIATION OF SUBMISSIONS 6. At the outset, we would like to observe that Claimants have submitted the copy of income tax returns of last 3 years of deceased, which are duly exhibited at Exhibit 43 to 45. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 39 years at the time of accident. The claimants have also submitted a copy of shop establishment certificate in the name of deceased - wife at Exhibit 35 and a copy of registered sale deed produced on record vide Exhibit 39. The Tribunal has taken all these documentary evidence into account by holding that the deceased was used to run Cyber Cafe in the name of Net World Cyber Cafe and used to file income tax returns. So, after as other sources of her income is concerned, the same is not accepted having being not reflected in her ITRs. 7. It is by now well settled legal position of law that income tax return is considered to be a statutory document and cannot be ignored by Tribunal while accessing income of deceased/ injured claimant, as the case may be. 8. 7. It is by now well settled legal position of law that income tax return is considered to be a statutory document and cannot be ignored by Tribunal while accessing income of deceased/ injured claimant, as the case may be. 8. It is profitable to rely upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malarvizhi and other vs. United India Insurance Company limited, reported in 2020 (4) SCC 228 , wherein it has been held thus:- “10. ………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…………” 9. Thus, in view of the aforesaid pronouncement of law of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which is subsequently followed in its various decisions till date, so we are of the view that the Tribunal has not committed any error by placing reliance upon last 3 years ITRs of deceased being a statutory document for assessing income of deceased. 10. It is true that accident took place on 25.04.2015 and date of filing of income tax return for the assessment year 2015-16 on 22.09.2015, which is subsequent to the date of accident but at the same time, one cannot lose sight of fact that prior to date of accident, the deceased was used to file income tax returns as having received business income. Moreover, filing of Income tax return for the assessment year 2015-16 would arise after 01.04.2015 i.e. on completion of financial year 2014-15 and ordinarily, ITRs to be filed by July to September, as the case may be of, in the present case, July, 2015. The deceased met with an accident then she could not have filed it or be in a position to file herself ITR for the aforesaid period. In this peculiar facts and circumstances, when legal heirs of deceased i.e., husband has filed ITR for the year 2015-16, the same cannot be discarded while computing income of deceased especially when during her lifetime, she used to file ITRs which are on record. Furthermore, we do not see any exaggeration in the income in ITR of deceased filed through her husband vis-a-vis her last few years ITRs. Furthermore, we do not see any exaggeration in the income in ITR of deceased filed through her husband vis-a-vis her last few years ITRs. The Tribunal has taken an average income of the deceased considering her last 3 years ITRs and not last ITR, albeit, filed through her husband. We would not find any error in such an approach on the part of Tribunal in this particular set of facts while deriving income of the deceased. 11. So, in view of the aforesaid discussion and our reasons, we are unable to agree with the submission of learned advocate of insurance company to discard last ITR of deceased while computing income of deceased. 12. This leads to the next limb of argument of learned advocate of insurance company that except filing income tax returns of deceased, no supportive evidence to prove such income was produced by the claimants then income of deceased reflected in her ITRs should be ignored. Such an argument on the part of insurance company is misconceived, inasmuch as, who, having an ample opportunity to dislodge the claim of claimants and could have proved that deceased was not actually running business but failed to lead any contrary evidence in support of its bald assertion. 13. We cannot lose sight of the fact that in 21st century, an educated woman can always have her own independent source of income and can very well manage different type of business apart from carrying and fulfilling her matrimonial and domestic obligation towards the family. The approach of insurance company in this regard is deplorable mainly because there is no supporting documentary evidence submitted by claimants to prove the income, which were mentioned in the respective ITRs of deceased. The Tribunal is not supposed to undergo in any audit inquiry and so roving inquiry at the instance of the insurance company to find out actually whether deceased was running business or not?. The burden, which was cast upon insurance company to prove its defense, cannot throw upon claimants or Tribunal. We would like to observe that in the present case, the insurance company has miserably failed to discharge its initial burden to prove the claim wrong. Now, at this stage, it can not be permitted to agitate and doubt ITRs of the deceased, which is considered as statutory document. 14. We would like to observe that in the present case, the insurance company has miserably failed to discharge its initial burden to prove the claim wrong. Now, at this stage, it can not be permitted to agitate and doubt ITRs of the deceased, which is considered as statutory document. 14. In any case, when Tribunal has placed reliance upon previous ITRs of deceased while computing income of deceased then as per aforesaid pronouncement of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by considering income tax returns, which is an statutory document, we do not find any error on the part of Tribunal while assessing her average annual income of Rs.3,12,736/- and so also taken into account 40% future prospective rise of income as per dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 . 15. The Tribunal has deducted 1/4 as personal expense of deceased by considering parents-in-law of deceased as dependent upon the deceased being claimants. 16. Learned advocate appearing for the insurance company has raised an argument that by deducting 1/4 personal expense of deceased instead of 1/3, the Tribunal has committed an error while awarding compensation. It is the case of insurance company that parents-in-law of deceased cannot be considered as dependent upon deceased. We are not impressed by such argument on the part of insurance company as the issue is no longer remained res integra as it has already been decided by Supreme Court of India in the case of N. Jayashree and others versus Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Ltd., reported in 2002 (14) SCC 712, wherein, it has been held as under:- “20. In Montford Brothers of St. Gabriel and Anr. vs. United India Insurance and Anr. this Court was considering the claim petition of a charitable society for award of compensation on account of the death of its member. The appellant society therein was a registered charitable society and was running various institutions as a constituent unit of Catholic church. Its members, after joining the appellant society, renounced the world and were known as ‘brother’. In this case, a ‘brother’ died in a motor vehicle accident. The claim petition filed by the appellant society seeking compensation on account of the death of aforesaid ‘brother’ was rejected by the High Court on the ground of its maintainability. Its members, after joining the appellant society, renounced the world and were known as ‘brother’. In this case, a ‘brother’ died in a motor vehicle accident. The claim petition filed by the appellant society seeking compensation on account of the death of aforesaid ‘brother’ was rejected by the High Court on the ground of its maintainability. This Court after examining various provisions of the MV Act held that the appellant society was the legal representative of the deceased ‘brother’. While allowing the claim petition it was observed as under: “17. A perusal of the judgment and order of the Tribunal discloses that although Issue 1 was not pressed and hence decided in favour of the appellant claimants, while considering the quantum of compensation for the claimants, the Tribunal adopted a very cautious approach and framed a question for itself as to what should be the criterion for assessing compensation in such case where the deceased was a Roman Catholic and joined the church services after denouncing his family, and as such having no actual dependents or earning? For answering this issue, the Tribunal relied not only upon judgments of American and English Courts but also upon Indian judgments for coming to the conclusion that even a religious order or an organisation may suffer considerable loss due to the death of a voluntary worker. The Tribunal also went on to decide who should be entitled for compensation as legal representative of the deceased and for that purpose it relied upon the Full Bench judgment of Patna High Court in Sudama Devi v. Jogendra Choudhary, which held that the term “legal representative” is wide enough to include even “intermeddlers” with the estate of a deceased. The Tribunal also referred to some Indian judgments in which it was held that successors to the trusteeship and trust property are legal representatives within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure.” 21. Coming to the facts of the present case, the fourth appellant was the mother-in-law of the deceased. Materials on record clearly establish that she was residing with the deceased and his family members. She was dependent on him for her shelter and maintenance. It is not uncommon in Indian Society for the mother-in-law to live with her daughter and son-in-law during her old age and be dependent upon her son-in-law for her maintenance. Materials on record clearly establish that she was residing with the deceased and his family members. She was dependent on him for her shelter and maintenance. It is not uncommon in Indian Society for the mother-in-law to live with her daughter and son-in-law during her old age and be dependent upon her son-in-law for her maintenance. Appellant no.4 herein may not be a legal heir of the deceased, but she certainly suffered on account of his death. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that she is a “legal representative” under Section 166 of the MV Act and is entitled to maintain a claim petition.” 17. We would also like to observe that in present case also, parents-in-law were residing together with the deceased/her family, which is confirmed from reading of cause title of the judgment itself. 18. It is a matter of common practice prevailing in Indian society that parents-in-law ordinarily living with son and daughter-in-law and when they are at an advance age of life, daughter-in-law would not only take care of their day to day needs but may also support the family financially. 19. It is also true that claimant no.1 happens to be son of claimant No.3 and 4 (Parents-in-law) would also requires to take care of his parents but it would not be out of place to mention that daughter-in-law can also be supportive family member when all are living together as the joint family. Be that as it may, nothing adverse has been brought by insurance company before us that deceased was not helping her parents-in- law. So, in view of above, no error committed by Tribunal in deducting personal expense of deceased. 20. Apart from the aforesaid law, we may not lose sight one crucial fact the deceased, being woman apart from running her business, would also provide her domestic services to the family, which is now lost by claimants due to her untimely death. The Tribunal has not considered such aspect of the matter but only considered her income from the business leaving aside her domestic services rendered by her to the Claimants. 21. It is by now well settled law that in a case of death of a woman, her domestic services require to be considered by Tribunal while computing compensation. The Tribunal has not considered such aspect of the matter but only considered her income from the business leaving aside her domestic services rendered by her to the Claimants. 21. It is by now well settled law that in a case of death of a woman, her domestic services require to be considered by Tribunal while computing compensation. It is apt to refer and rely upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kirti and others versus oriental insurance company limited reported in 2021 (2) SCC 166 , wherein it has been held thus:- “21. In Arun Kumar Agrawal v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [Arun Kumar Agrawal v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 9 SCC 218 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 664 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1313], this Court, while dealing with the grant of compensation for the death of a housewife due to a motor vehicle accident, held as follows: (SCC pp. 237-38, paras 26- 27) “26. In India the courts have recognised that the contribution made by the wife to the house is invaluable and cannot be computed in terms of money. The gratuitous services rendered by the wife with true love and affection to the children and her husband and managing the household affairs cannot be equated with the services rendered by others. A wife/mother does not work by the clock. She is in the constant attendance of the family throughout the day and night unless she is employed and is required to attend the employer's work for particular hours. She takes care of all the requirements of the husband and children including cooking of food, washing of clothes, etc. She teaches small children and provides invaluable guidance to them for their future life. A housekeeper or maidservant can do the household work, such as cooking food, washing clothes and utensils, keeping the house clean, etc. but she can never be a substitute for a wife/mother who renders selfless service to her husband and children. 27. It is not possible to quantify any amount in lieu of the services rendered by the wife/mother to the family i.e. the husband and children. However, for the purpose of award of compensation to the dependants, some pecuniary estimate has to be made of the services of the housewife/mother. 27. It is not possible to quantify any amount in lieu of the services rendered by the wife/mother to the family i.e. the husband and children. However, for the purpose of award of compensation to the dependants, some pecuniary estimate has to be made of the services of the housewife/mother. In that context, the term “services” is required to be given a broad meaning and must be construed by taking into account the loss of personal care and attention given by the deceased to her children as a mother and to her husband as a wife. They are entitled to adequate compensation in lieu of the loss of gratuitous services rendered by the deceased. The amount payable to the dependants cannot be diminished on the ground that some close relation like a grandmother may volunteer to render some of the services to the family which the deceased was giving earlier.” (emphasis supplied) The above pronouncement has been followed by this Court in its recent judgment in Rajendra Singh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [Rajendra Singh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 7 SCC 256 : (2020) 4 SCC (Civ) 99 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 134], wherein the notional income of a deceased housewife was calculated for the purposes of granting compensation in a motor accident case. 22. Before discussing this topic further, it is necessary to comment on its gendered nature. In India, according to the 2011 Census, nearly 159.85 million women stated that “household work” was their main occupation, as compared to only 5.79 million men. 25. The sheer amount of time and effort that is dedicated to household work by individuals, who are more likely to be women than men, is not surprising when one considers the plethora of activities a housemaker undertakes. A housemaker often prepares food for the entire family, manages the procurement of groceries and other household shopping needs, cleans and manages the house and its surroundings, undertakes decoration, repairs and maintenance work, looks after the needs of the children and any aged member of the household, manages budgets and so much more. In rural households, they often also assist in the sowing, harvesting and transplanting activities in the field, apart from tending cattle [see Arun Kumar Agrawal [Arun Kumar Agrawal v. National Insurance Co. In rural households, they often also assist in the sowing, harvesting and transplanting activities in the field, apart from tending cattle [see Arun Kumar Agrawal [Arun Kumar Agrawal v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 9 SCC 218 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 664 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1313] ; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepika [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepika, 2009 SCC OnLine Mad 828]]. However, despite all the above, the conception that housemakers do not “work” or that they do not add economic value to the household is a problematic idea that has persisted for many years and must be overcome. 30. The issue of fixing notional income for a homemaker, therefore, serves extremely important functions. It is a recognition of the multitude of women who are engaged in this activity, whether by choice or as a result of social/cultural norms. It signals to society at large that the law and the courts of the land believe in the value of the labour, services and sacrifices of homemakers. It is an acceptance of the idea that these activities contribute in a very real way to the economic condition of the family, and the economy of the nation, regardless of the fact that it may have been traditionally excluded from economic analyses. It is a reflection of changing attitudes and mindsets and of our international law obligations. And, most importantly, it is a step towards the constitutional vision of social equality and ensuring dignity of life to all individuals. 31. Returning to the question of how such notional income of a homemaker is to be calculated, there can be no fixed approach. It is to be understood that in such cases the attempt by the court is to fix an approximate economic value for all the work that a homemaker does, impossible though that task may be. Courts must keep in mind the idea of awarding just compensation in such cases, looking to the facts and circumstances. [See R.K. Malik v. Kiran Pal, (2009) 14 SCC 1 , para 9 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 265 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1265] .] 32. One method of computing the notional income of a homemaker is by using the formula provided in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which has now been omitted by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019. One method of computing the notional income of a homemaker is by using the formula provided in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which has now been omitted by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019. The Second Schedule provided that the income of a spouse could be calculated as onethird of the income of the earning surviving spouse. This was the method ultimately adopted by the Court in Arun Kumar Agrawal [Arun Kumar Agrawal v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 9 SCC 218 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 664 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1313] . However, rationale behind fixing the ratio as one-third is not very clear. [See Arun Kumar Agrawal [Arun Kumar Agrawal v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 9 SCC 218 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 664 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1313] . 33. Apart from the above, scholarship around this issue could provide some guidance as to other methods to determine the notional income for a homemaker. [See Ann Chadeau, “What is Households' Non-Market Production Worth”, OECD ECONOMIC STUDIES No. 18 (1992); Also see United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, “Guide on Valuing Unpaid Household Service Work” (2017).] Some of these methods were highlighted by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Deepika [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepika, 2009 SCC OnLine Mad 828] which held as follows: (SCC OnLine Mad para 10) “10. The Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act gives a value to the compensation payable in respect of those who had no income prior to the accident and for a spouse, it says that one-third of the income of the earning surviving spouse should be the value. Exploration on the internet shows that there have been efforts to understand the value of a homemaker's unpaid labour by different methods. One is, the opportunity cost which evaluates her wages by assessing what she would have earned had she not remained at home viz. the opportunity lost. The second is, the partnership method which assumes that a marriage is an equal economic partnership and in this method, the homemaker's salary is valued at half her husband's salary. Yet another method is to evaluate homemaking by determining how much it would cost to replace the homemaker with paid workers. This is called the replacement method.” (emphasis supplied) 34. The second is, the partnership method which assumes that a marriage is an equal economic partnership and in this method, the homemaker's salary is valued at half her husband's salary. Yet another method is to evaluate homemaking by determining how much it would cost to replace the homemaker with paid workers. This is called the replacement method.” (emphasis supplied) 34. However, it must be remembered that all the above methods are merely suggestions. There can be no exact calculation or formula that can magically ascertain the true value provided by an individual gratuitously for those that they are near and dear to. The attempt of the court in such matters should therefore be towards determining, in the best manner possible, the truest approximation of the value added by a homemaker for the purpose of granting monetary compensation. 35. Whichever method a court ultimately chooses to value the activities of a homemaker, would ultimately depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. The court needs to keep in mind its duty to award just compensation, neither assessing the same conservatively, nor so liberally as to make it a bounty to claimants[National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] ; Kajal v. Jagdish Chand [Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413 : (2020) 3 SCC (Civ) 27 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 577]].” (emphasis supplied) 22. If we keep the above factors in mind, income of deceased, which was considered by Tribunal requires to be increased by taking into account gracious services rendered by deceased to her family to which claimants are beneficiary then even if we might have accepted the argument of learned advocate for the insurance company, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3 expense instead of 1/4 as claimant nos.3 and 4 being parents-in-law would not be considered as financially dependent upon deceased then also taking into account the above said notional income of a domestic services, if it would have been considered, would offset in so called anomaly (which we do not feel so) on the part of Tribunal while fixing personal expense of deceased. 23. 23. Further, we could notice that Tribunal has awarded only Rs.44,000/- towards consortium amount to the Widower and minor son, which ought to have been Rs.48,400/- each to the claimant Nos.1 and 2. Likewise, under the head of loss to estate and funeral expenses Rs.18,150/- each requires to be awarded to the claimants. 24. It has been strangely observed by Tribunal in para 13 of its impugned judgment that though there were medical bills of treatment of deceased worth Rs.1,50,000/- produced on record but being it duplicate bills, such expense was not granted to the claimants only on the ground that bills are duplicate. We may not dwell into it but only observed that if it has come on record that deceased had undergone medical treatment and died during course of such treatment then claimants are entitled to receive medical expenses. 25. Thus, viewing from any angle, award is just and reasonable. We have discussed other issues and our aforesaid observations, are factors which weighed with us not to entertain the present appeal as according to this Court, in all, Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation to the claimants wherein there is no scope of reduction in the compensation. CONCLUSION 26. The upshot of aforesaid discussions, reasons and findings, we are of the view that Tribunal has not committed any error in considering income of deceased on the basis of her past 3 years income tax returns on record and so also not committed any error in deducting 1/4 as personal expense of the deceased when it has not considered her domestic services into account and not granted conventional amount as per law. We, accordingly, held that just and reasonable compensation has been awarded to the claimants by the Tribunal, which does not require interference by this Court. 27. Thus, in view of the above, the appeal is meritless and requires to be dismissed in limine and hence, the appeal is DISMISSED with no order as to cost. Resultantly, Civil Application is also disposed of accordingly.