JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is by the claimants against the award dated 23.07.2015 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.) Dhamtari, C.G. in Claim Case No.155/2013, awarding total compensation of Rs.28,70,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till realization while fastening liability on the Insurance Company/non-applicant No.3. 2. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company has also filed cross objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC challenging quantum of compensation. 3. As per averments made in the claim petition, on 01.07.2013, deceased- Kishor Motwani, aged about 39 years and being proprietor of Nav Bharat Steel was earning Rs.2,83,500/- per annum, died in the motor vehicular accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of Truck bearing registration No.CG05-B/8892 (hereinafter referred as 'offending vehicle') by non-applicant no.1/driver of offending vehicle- Kesh Kumar. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was owned by non-applicant No.2-Jagjivan Singh and insured by Non-applicant No.3. 4. On claim petition being filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.75,55,000/-, the Tribunal, considering the evidence led by both the parties, passed an award as mentioned above. 5. Counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects, which ought to have been awarded looking to the age of the deceased i.e. more than 43 years and in view of the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . He further submits that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under conventional heads is on lower side, which needs to be enhanced suitably, in view of the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 . 6. He further submits that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under conventional heads is on lower side, which needs to be enhanced suitably, in view of the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 . 6. Counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company, in appeal as well as cross-appeal, submits that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,83,500/- per annum by taking into account the income tax returns for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 (Ex.P-18C), which was filed by the wife of the deceased (AW-1) after the death of deceased i.e. on 05.08.2013, whereas the Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the deceased by taking into account the income tax returns for the Assessment Years 2010-2011 (Ex.P-15), 2011-2012 (Ex.P-16) & 2012-2013 (Ex.P-17), which were filed by the deceased when he was alive. Referring to the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of V. Subbulakshmi & Ors. Vs S. Lakshmi & Anr. reported in AIR 2008 SC 1256 , he further submits that the Supreme Court, while dealing with the question of reliability of income tax return, has held that the income tax returns have rightly not been relied upon as the same have been filed after the accident. Therefore, it is prayed that the income of the deceased needs to be reassessed suitably. He further submits that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier 15, whereas it should be 14, looking to the age of the deceased i.e. more than 43 years and in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter Pranay Sethi (supra). Lastly, he submits that out of total income of deceased, future prospects should be added on half of the income of the deceased. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sushma H.R. and Anr. Vs Deepak Kumar Jha and Others reported in 2022 (4) T.A.C. 422 (SC). 7. Lastly, he submits that out of total income of deceased, future prospects should be added on half of the income of the deceased. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sushma H.R. and Anr. Vs Deepak Kumar Jha and Others reported in 2022 (4) T.A.C. 422 (SC). 7. Opposing the submission of learned counsel for the Insurance Company with respect to future prospects being added on half of the income of the deceased, it is submitted by counsel for the appellant/claimants that AW-1 Sunita Motwani, wife of deceased, has stated that after the death of deceased, the business run by him (deceased) has closed and the deceased was only the sole earning member of her family, therefore, the reliance in the matter of Sushma H.R. (supra) placed by the Insurance Company is not applicable in this case and the cross-appeal filed by the Insurance Company also deserves to be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. As regards the income of the deceased, it was pleaded by the claimants in the claim petition that deceased, being proprietor of Nav Bharat Steel, was earning Rs.2,85,000/- per annum. A perusal of the record would reveal that deceased, prior to his accident, has filed income tax returns for the Assessment Year 2010-2011 (Ex.P-15) showing the gross total income as Rs.1,92,000/- which was filed on 31.03.2011; for the Assessment Year 2011-2012 (Ex.P-16), the total income earned was shown to be Rs.2,33,575/-, out of which, the income earned from business/profession was shown as Rs.1,01,000/- and the income under the head 'capital gain' was shown to be Rs.1,32,575/-, however, the income shown under the head 'capital gain' i.e. Rs.1,32,575/- is not acceptable as the same is related to sale of immovable plot, therefore, only income earned from business/profession i.e. Rs.1,01,000/- per annum is considered as income of the deceased and likewise, for the Assessment Year 2012- 2013 (Ex.P-17), the income earned from business/profession was shown to be Rs.1,40,000/-, whereas the income earned from misc. receipts from repairing job work was shown to be as Rs.45,000/-, but income earned from house property of Rs.23,100/- being rent and Rs.304/- earned from bank saving account towards interest, cannot be treated as income for assessment of compensation. receipts from repairing job work was shown to be as Rs.45,000/-, but income earned from house property of Rs.23,100/- being rent and Rs.304/- earned from bank saving account towards interest, cannot be treated as income for assessment of compensation. Therefore, total Rs.1,85,000/- per annum (Rs.1,40,000/- + Rs.45,000/-) is considered as income of the deceased in order to compute the compensation. However, as per evidence of AW-2 Raj Kumar Wadhwani, Taxation Advocate, the income tax return for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 (Ex.P-18C) of deceased was filed on 05.08.2013 which bears the signature of wife of deceased/AW-1 Sunita Motwani and the deceased died on 01.07.2013, meaning thereby, the said return was filed after one month of the death of the deceased, which is not acceptable in the light of decision of V. Subbulakshi (supra) wherein it was held that “the Court below has rightly not been relied upon income tax return document submitted after the accident.” The Tribunal, while assessing the income of the deceased, did not consider the above documents (Exs.P-15 to P-17) and only on the basis of the document i.e. income tax return for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 (Ex.P-18C), assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,83,500/- per annum, which, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not just and proper and needs to be reassessed suitably. Therefore, I propose to recompute the compensation by taking the income of Rs.1,85,000/- per annum earned from business/profession and from misc. receipts from repairing job work, as shown in Assessment Year 2012-2013 (Ex.P-17), alleged to have been filed by the deceased when he was alive, which is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. As regards the multiplier 15 used by the Tribunal, in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has prescribed the multiplier of 14 for the age group between 41 to 45 years. Therefore, in the instant case, looking to the age of the deceased person i.e. more than 43 years as shown in the ITRs, the applicable multiplier would be 14 instead of 15 as used by the Tribunal. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra) has considered 25% towards loss of future prospects for the self-employed persons for the age group between 40-50 years. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra) has considered 25% towards loss of future prospects for the self-employed persons for the age group between 40-50 years. Therefore, in the present case, looking to the age of the deceased as mentioned above, the applicable percentage towards future prospects would be 25%. 11. So far the contention of learned counsel for the Insurance Company to the effect that out of total income of deceased, future prospects should be added on half of the income of the deceased is concerned, the evidence of AW-1 Sunita Motwani, wife of deceased, shows that after the death of deceased, the business run by him has closed. Therefore, reliance placed by the Insurer in the matter of Sushma H.R. (supra) being distinguishable on facts of the present case, is of no help to the Insurance Company. Thus, the contention made by learned counsel for the Insurance Company in this regard is hereby rejected. 12. Further, taking the guidance from the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others VS. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , Pranay Sethi & Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), this Court computes the compensation in the following manner:- Sl.No. Heads Calculation(in rupees) 01. Income of the deceased Rs.1,85,000/- per annum 02. 25% of (i) above to be added towards future prospects. Rs.46,250/- Rs.1,85,000/- + Rs.46,250/- = Rs.2,31,250/- 03. 1/3 deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased Rs.77,083/- Rs.2,31,250/- - Rs.77,083/- = Rs.1,54,167/- 04. Multiplier of 14 to be applied Rs.1,54,167/- x 14 = Rs.21,58,338/- 05. Towards Conventional Heads (loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium) Rs.1,50,000/- Total Compensation Rs.23,08,338/- Accordingly, the claimants are held entitled to get a sum of Rs.23,08,338/- as total compensation in place of Rs.28,70,000/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 13. It is pertinent to mention here that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 13. It is pertinent to mention here that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. The Tribunals must bear in mind the object of the Act in awarding just and fair compensation to the victim in motor accident cases and it is also the bounden duty of the Courts/Tribunals to see that the victim or injured of the motor accident cases is properly and reasonably compensated and in assessing, what has been described as a just compensation under the Act, all factors including possibilities have to be kept in mind. In the present case, learned MACT has, however, not properly assessed the income of the deceased, whereas it ought to have assessed the income of the deceased by taking into consideration the above aspects and that fallen into error in not awarding any amount towards future prospects and also erred in applying suitable multiplier as well as towards loss of consortium as held in Pranay Sethi & Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra). 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellants/claimants and the Cross Objection filed by the respondent No.3/Insurance Company are allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.