JUDGMENT : NYAPATHY VIJAY, J. 1. This Appeal is filed by the appellants questioning the Award and Decree dated 31.03.2016 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 81 of 2012 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under: The claimants are the mother, wife and children of one Nageswara Reddy (hereinafter called as ‘deceased’). The MVOP was filed claiming compensation on account of the death of the deceased. It is their case that when the deceased traveling to Banglore in a Bus bearing No. AP-28-Y-6336 died on 28.12.2011, when the bus driver drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner while overtaking a lorry going ahead of the bus. In the process, the bus turned turtle towards left side of a ditch. It was pleaded that the deceased was working as civil contractor and getting Rs.8,90,330/- per annum and he was also an income tax assessee by the date of his death. It was further pleaded that the deceased was doing agriculture work in his own land to the extent of Ac.70.00 cents. Therefore, compensation of Rs.2,00,00,000/- was sought. 4. The Respondent No. 1 i.e. the owner of the bus remained ex-parte. The Respondent No. 2 i.e. the Insurance company filed their counter by denying the averments mentioned in the petition and further refuted negligence on the part of Driver of the bus. It is further pleaded in the counter that both the insured and the police failed to discharge their mandatory duties under Section 134 (C) and Section 158 (6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. In the course of examination on behalf of claimants, PWs 1 to 3 were examined, Exs.A.1 to A.9 were marked and on behalf of insurance company Ex.B1 copy of policy was marked. 6. The Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of Volvo bus bearing registration No. AP-28-Y-6336? 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to claim compensation of Rs.2,00,00,000/- or to what just amount and from whom the same shall be recovered? 3. To what relief? 7. 6. The Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of Volvo bus bearing registration No. AP-28-Y-6336? 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to claim compensation of Rs.2,00,00,000/- or to what just amount and from whom the same shall be recovered? 3. To what relief? 7. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and awarded an amount of Rs.27,30,000/- towards compensation. 8. Heard Smt. Thota Suneetha, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Katta Laxmi Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 9. The counsel for the appellant contended that the compensation awarded is grossly low and that there is apparent error in the calculation of income adopted by the Tribunal as the Tribunal had not included refundable tax in the income while awarding compensation. It is her contention that only the tax payable as reflected in the Income Tax returns should be deducted and not the refundable tax amount. It is her contention that the compensation awarded is grossly low and sought for enhancement. 10. The counsel for the respondents-Insurance company contended that the Income tax returns were filed by PW-3, a tax consultant and he had admitted that he is not competent to file tax returns and only an auditor has to file the returns as the income exceeds Rs 10,00,000/-. Further, it is doubtful whether the tax returns were filed at all. It was further contended that there is no proof that the deceased was a certified Class-I contractor and in the absence of authentic evidence establishing income of the deceased, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be faulted with. 11. After hearing the respective counsel, the only issue for consideration in this appeal is “whether compensation awarded by the Tribunal is adequate in the facts and circumstances of the case?” 12. The only documents that need to be considered in this case are Ex.A.6 and Ex.A.7, which the Income Tax returns for the AY 2010- 2011 and AY 2011-2012 respectively. The Ex.A.6 is Form ITR-V (Income Tax Return-Verification) i.e. e-filing of tax return without digital signature. The only documents that need to be considered in this case are Ex.A.6 and Ex.A.7, which the Income Tax returns for the AY 2010- 2011 and AY 2011-2012 respectively. The Ex.A.6 is Form ITR-V (Income Tax Return-Verification) i.e. e-filing of tax return without digital signature. This Ex.A.6 was filed on 15.10.2010 and the breakup of the income of the deceased in the Income Tax return is as under: Computation Statement For the year ended 31-03-2010 Profit and gains of Business of Profession Net Profit as per profit and loss account 5,23,825.00 LESS : Deduction U/S. 80C 1,00,000.00 4,23,825.00 Add : agriculture Income 2,40,000.00 Total Income 6,63,825.00 Tax thereon 1,03,148.00 Less : Rebate on A.G. Income 34,000.00 69,148.00 Add HEC 3% 2,074.00 Tax payable 71,222.00 Less: T.D.S. 3,28,996.00 Refund due 2,57,774.00 13. The Ex.A.7 is in ITR-4 i.e. tax return for taxpayers who opt for tax under presumptive income scheme. The profit and loss account annexed there shows that the gross bills was Rs.3,60,22,029/- and the deceased may have to file ITR-3 as the gross turnover is over and above Rs.2 crores. Be that as it may, this Ex.A.7 was digitally signed and filed on 11.11.2011. The breakup of the income of the deceased in the Ex.A.7 IT return is as under: Computation Statement For the year ended 31-03-2011 Net Profit as per profit and loss account 5,40,330.00 LESS: Deduction U/S. 80C 3,50,000.00 Total Income 8,90,330.00 Profit and gains of Business of Profession Tax thereon 1,24,740.00 Less : Rebate on A.G. Income 39,641.00 85,099.00 Add HEC 3% 2,553.00 Tax payable 87,652.00 Less: T.D.S. 3,60,268.00 Refund due 2,72,620.00 14. The Tribunal though had accepted the Ex.A.6 and Ex.A.7, but had taken income in Ex.A.6 only and did not take into consideration the income in Ex.A.7. For the purpose of the appeal, the income under Ex.A.7 can be taken into consideration for the purpose of computation of compensation as the same having been filed on 11.11.2011 before the accident. 15. The average income of the deceased after excluding agricultural income and tax payable is under Ex.A.6 and Ex.A.7 is as under: For Ex.A.6: Total Income (Rs. 6,63,825/-) - Tax (Rs. 71,222/-) - Ag. Income (Rs. 2,40,000) = Rs. 3,52,603/- For Ex.A.7: Total Income (Rs. 8,90,330/-) - Tax (Rs. 87,652/-) - = Rs. 8,02,678/-. In the Ex.A.7 return, the deceased did not mention agricultural income, but had sought rebate on agricultural income @ Rs. 6,63,825/-) - Tax (Rs. 71,222/-) - Ag. Income (Rs. 2,40,000) = Rs. 3,52,603/- For Ex.A.7: Total Income (Rs. 8,90,330/-) - Tax (Rs. 87,652/-) - = Rs. 8,02,678/-. In the Ex.A.7 return, the deceased did not mention agricultural income, but had sought rebate on agricultural income @ Rs. 39,642/-. 16. The average income is Rs. 3,52,603/- + Rs. 8,02,678/- divided by 2 (for two years) = Rs. 5,77,640/-. The monthly income of the deceased for the two years is Rs. 48,136/-. 17. Though, there is no dispute with regard to age of the deceased, but the deceased being a contractor, there would be variation in his income. The variation is inevitable as the business of the contractor is tender dependent and proximity with the ruling establishment. In the opinion of the Court, it would not be safe to totally rely on ITR returns for two years to arrive at average income for the purpose of computation of compensation. 18. As regards the contention of the counsel for the insurance company, with regard to veracity of the Income Tax returns, this Court is of the opinion that these documents were filed online by the deceased and are authentic, nothing has been pointed by the counsel as to why these documents should be doubted. It is to be noted here that these documents were accepted by the Tribunal and the compensation awarded on the basis of these documents was accepted by the Insurance company. Therefore, it is not open to the Insurance company to raise these name sake objections in the appeal filed by the claimants seeking enhancement. The other argument with regard to there being no proof of the deceased being class-I contractor, this Court is of the opinion that the gross turnover, profit and loss account etc., filed as annexures to the Ex.A.6 and Ex.A.7 sufficiently indicate that the deceased was a contractor and the same would suffice. 19. The deceased being a contractor would have filed Income Tax returns for the previous AY years and the claimants in fairness should have filed the same for the Court to arrive at just compensation. Further, there is no proof as to when the deceased became contractor and what was his occupation prior to becoming contractor. Therefore, the Court is inclined to fix the monthly income of the deceased @ Rs. 40,000/- per month after deduction of tax. Further, there is no proof as to when the deceased became contractor and what was his occupation prior to becoming contractor. Therefore, the Court is inclined to fix the monthly income of the deceased @ Rs. 40,000/- per month after deduction of tax. The revised compensation payable is as under: Monthly Income Rs. 40,000/- Addition to income to future prospect [40% deceased being less than 40 years] Rs. 56,000/- [Rs. 40,000 + Rs. 16,000] Annual income [56,000 x 12] Rs. 6,72,000/- Deduction towards personal and Living Expenses (1/4) Rs. 5,04,000/- [Rs. 6,72,000 - Rs. 1,68,000] Multiplier based on age of 39 years 15 Amount of compensation Rs 75,60,000/- [Rs. 5,04,000 x 15] Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/- x 4 Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total amount of compensation Rs. 77,50,000/- 20. As no agricultural income was claimed in the Ex.A.7, this Court is not granting any supervisory expenses thereon. In the above table, loss of consortium was granted to all claimants taking into consideration, the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, 2018 (18) SCC 130 . 21. The Interest payable is revised to 9% as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Anjali and Others v. Lokendra Rathod and Others, 2022 Live Law (SC) 1012. The balance amounts shall be deposited by the Respondent Insurance company within two months before the Tribunal and the claimants shall be entitled to the amounts as per the ratio and conditions determined by the tribunal. 22. With the above observations, the Appeal is partly allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand closed.