JUDGMENT : (Radhakishan Agrawal, J.) 1. This is claimants’ appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur (for short, the Claims Tribunal) in M.A.Claim Case No.529/2012 vide impugned award dated 08.04.2016. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 30.10.2011, when Suresh (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was returning to Ambikapur from village Pahadgaon while driving his Car bearing registration No.CG-15-B-3471, near N.H. 43 main road of Sanjay Nagar, Mahabirpur at about 7:30 pm, the said Car was hit by the truck bearing registration No.CG-14-A-3271 (in short, ‘the offending vehicle’), which was being driven by Non-applicant No.3/driver in a rash and negligent manner, resulting into, accident occurred and deceased died inside the Car itself. It is not in dispute that respondent No.2 was the owner of the offending vehicle whereas respondent No.1 was insurer of the same. 3. Owing to death of deceased Suresh Kumar Goyal, claimants, being wife and children of the deceased, filed a claim petition seeking total compensation of Rs.67,00,000/- on various heads, inter alia, stating that the deceased was aged 40 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs.2,50,600/- from Automobile business and agricultural work. 4. The claim application was resisted by the respondents/Non-applicants No.1 & 2 on various grounds including that the insurance company taking a plea that there is violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The respondent No.3 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal, vide impugned award dated 08.04.2016, after considering the evidence led by the parties, has held respondent no.3/driver of the offending vehicle liable for cause of accident by driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently, due to which, deceased died and there was no breach of policy conditions and awarded Rs.2,77,000/-along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realisation while directing the respondents to pay the compensation jointly and severally. 6. Shri C.J.K.Rao, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the deceased was income tax payee, as is evident from Ex.P.11, which is an acknowledgment of Income Tax return for financial year 2008-2009/assessment year 2009-2010, issued by the Income Tax Department and the same has been filed by him when he was alive, showing that his gross total income was Rs.1,78,550/- and the income tax payable is Rs.1,015/-. He further submits that the Ex.P.11 bears seal of the Income Tax Department and the date of filing of return was 31.03.2010. He further contends that despite there being documentary evidence, such as Ex.P.11 on record, the learned Claims Tribunal did not consider the same while assessing his annual income and merely on notional basis, the monthly income of the deceased was assessed at Rs.150/- per day and Rs.4,500/- on its own while considering the provisions contained in Minimum Wages Act and also considering him to be a daily wage labourer. He also contends that no future prospects has been awarded and that date of birth of the deceased is 01.12.1958 as per driving licence (Ex.P.10) and at the time of accident he was 53 years, but the learned Claims Tribunal has applied multiplier of 7 considering his age to be 63 years whereas the correct applicable multiplier would be 11. It is also submitted by him that neither the insurance company nor the driver and owner has examined any witness before the Claims Tribunal. His next contention is that the amounts awarded under other conventional heads are also on lower side and that applicable deduction would be 1/4th in place of 1/3rd as made by the Tribunal. He relied upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and Smt. Anjali & ors. vs. Lokendra Rathod & ors., reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1012 in support of his arguments. 7. Shri T.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent 1, while submitting that no appeal has been filed against the impugned award by the respondent/insurer, argued that the income tax return for the financial year 2008-2009/assessment year 2009-2010 has not been able to be duly proved by the claimants as no employee or officer of the Income Tax Department has been examined by them to prove the same. He further submits that no documents with respect to source of income and details of income have been submitted by the claimants. It is also contended by him that earlier income tax returns have not been filed by the claimants. He further submits that no documents with respect to source of income and details of income have been submitted by the claimants. It is also contended by him that earlier income tax returns have not been filed by the claimants. Further he argued that the Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, has rightly assessed the income of the deceased the impugned award is justified and hence, there is no scope for further enhancement. 8. On the other hand, Shri S.D.Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle is insured with respondent No.1/insurance company, therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability upon the insurance company. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record of the Tribunal including the evidence adduced by the parties minutely. 10. As regards assessment of income of the deceased, admittedly the claimants have filed acknowledgments of Income Tax returns for financial year 2008-2009/assessment year 2009-2010, assessment year 2010-2011 and that of year 2011/2012 issued by the Office of Income Tax Department, Ambikapur and marked as Exs.P.11, P.12 and Ex.P.13 and the said returns have been filed on 31.3.2010, 31.03.2012 and 25.04.2012 respectively, but neither the insurance company nor the owner and driver has examined any witness before the Claims Tribunal to rebut the statement of A.W.1 Smt. Krishna Devi, wife of the deceased. However, the learned Claims Tribunal did not consider the income tax returns, particularly, the document (Ex.P.11) on the ground that no officer or employee of the Income Tax Department has been examined by the claimants to prove the same and while observing as such, the learned Claims Tribunal proceeded to assess the monthly income of the deceased on its own. First of all, the learned Claims Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.150/- per day and Rs.4,500/- per month on notional basis while considering the provisions contained in Minimum Wages Act and also considering him to be a daily wage labourer and while assessing the monthly income of the deceased as such, no reasons were assigned by the learned Claims Tribunal in its impugned award as to why the Tribunal, on its own, has assessed monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- on notional basis while considering him to be a daily wage labourer. The approach of the Tribunal in assessing the monthly income of the deceased on lower side is not sustainable in law, in the light of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Smt. Anjali & ors. (supra) wherein the Supreme Court, while dealing with the importance of the income tax return, held in para 9 as under : “9. The Tribunal and the High Court both committed grave error while estimating the deceased’s income by disregarding the Income Tax Return of the Deceased. The appellants had filed the Income Tax Return (2009-2010) of the deceased, which reflects the deceased’s annual income to be Rs.1,18,261/-, approx. Rs.9,855/- per month. This Court in Malarvizhi & Ors vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors. (2020) 4 SCC 228 has reaffirmed that the Income Tax Return is a statutory document on which reliance be placed, where available, for computation of annual income. In Malarvizhi (Supra), this Court has laid as under: “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.” Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the deceased’s annual income be fixed at Rs.1,18,261, approx. Rs.9,855/- per month keeping in mind the deceased’s Income Tax Return for the year 2009-2010.” 11. Therefore, by applying the aforesaid judgment in the facts of the present case and keeping in view the acknowledgment of ITR (Ex.P.11) issued by the Income Tax Department, Ambikapur on 31.03.2010 and proved by the wife of the deceased – Smt. Krishna Devi (A.W.1), this Court is of the considered opinion that the deceased’s annual income be fixed at Rs.1,78,550/-, approximately Rs.14,879/- per month. Although prior to the financial year 2008-09, documents relating to income tax returns have not been filed by the claimants, but that would not have any adverse affect for assessment of income of the deceased. Although prior to the financial year 2008-09, documents relating to income tax returns have not been filed by the claimants, but that would not have any adverse affect for assessment of income of the deceased. Since during lifetime of deceased, the income tax return (Ex.P.11) has been filed, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the same is considered for the purpose of assessment of income whereas looking to the facts of the case, it would not be appropriate to assess the income by taking into account income tax returns (Ex.P.12 & Ex.P.13) filed after death of the deceased. The Supreme Court in catena of decisions has held that the income tax return is a statutory document on which reliance may be placed to determine the annual income of the deceased. This apart, while discussing the importance of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “MV Act”), the Supreme Court, in the above referred decision, has further held in paras 10 & 11, which read as under : “10. The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “MV Act”) gives paramount importance to the concept of ‘just and fair’ compensation. It is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims or their families. Section 168 of the MV Act deals with the concept of ‘just compensation’ which ought to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability. Although such determination can never be arithmetically exact or perfect, an endeavor should be made by the Court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the amount claimed by the applicant/s. In Sarla Verma & ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 , this Court has laid down as under: “16. … “Just compensation “is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit.” 11. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit.” 11. In Sarla Verma (supra), it was further held that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is between 2 and 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is between 4 and 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six. The same has been affirmed by the Constitution Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, (2017) 16 SCC 680 .” 12. In view of above observation in the above referred matter, this Court also reiterates 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 victims in motor accident cases and it is also 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, the learned Claims Tribunal, despite there being unambiguous documentary evidence on record in form of Income Tax return’s acknowledgment (Ex.P.11) of the deceased, has abstained itself in not taking into account such document in assessing the monthly/annual income of the deceased and merely assessed the income of the deceased on national basis, which cannot be sustained. 13. It is settled law that once the statutory document like income tax return is brought on record in order to prove the income of the deceased, the Tribunals shall consider such documents and assess the income of the victims by taking into consideration those statutory documents. 14. As per evidence on record, age of the deceased was 53 years at the time of accident, therefore, in the light of decision of Pranay Sethi (supra), the appropriate percentage towards future prospects would be 10% and the claimants are entitled to 10% towards future prospects. 14. As per evidence on record, age of the deceased was 53 years at the time of accident, therefore, in the light of decision of Pranay Sethi (supra), the appropriate percentage towards future prospects would be 10% and the claimants are entitled to 10% towards future prospects. Likewise, looking to the age of deceased as 53 years, the appropriate multiplier would be 11 as per the decision of Pranay Sethi (supra) and similarly, looking to the number of dependent family members, i.e., 4 in number, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased would be 1/4th and not 1/3rd as applied by the Tribunal. 15. In view of above, taking guidance from the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra), this Court recomputes the compensation in the following manner :- Sl. No. Description Amount in Rs. 1 Income of the deceased @ Rs.14,879/- per month approximately. 1,78,550/- 2 10% of (1) above to be added towards future prospects 17,855/- 3 Total annual income of the deceased 1,96,405/- 4 Multiplier of 11 applied to assess total loss of dependency. 21,60,455/- 5 1/4 deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. 5,40,114/- 6 Total loss of dependency after deduction 16,20,341/- 7 Funeral expenses 15,000/- 8 Loss of estate 15,000/- 9 Loss of spousal consortium to the appellant/claimant No.1 and loss of parental consortium to appellants No. 2 to 4 1,60,000/- Total compensation 18,10,341/- Award of the learned Tribunal. (-) 2,77,000/- Enhanced amount by this Court 15,33,341/- 16. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. Hence, the claimant is entitled for an additional amount of Rs.15,33,341/-. The additional amount shall carry interest as made by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount with interest shall be deposited by the insurer. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.