ORDER 1. Heard. 2. Leave granted. 3. The appellant-claimant has approached this Court, by way of this appeal with special leave, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded to him pursuant to the death of his father, Shri Kamlesh Kumar Jain, in a road traffic accident that took place on 4th June, 2015. The Claim Application [Claim Case No. 380 of 2015.] was filed by the appellant, his mother, Smt. Shakuntala (wife of the deceased) and Smt. Mohanbai (mother of the deceased), seeking 1,02,55,000/- (Rupees One Crore Two Lakh Fifty Five Thousand only) as compensation pursuant to death of Shri Kamlesh Kumar Jain in the road traffic accident. 4. The IXth Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore [Hereinafter, referred to as ‘Tribunal.’] (Madhya Pradesh) vide award dated 7th May, 2022, partly allowed the claim application and granted compensation to the tune of Rs.9,52,432/- (Rupees Nine lakh fifty-two thousand four hundred thirty-two rupees only) to the claimants, treating Shri Kamlesh Kumar Jain as an unskilled labourer and assessing his monthly income at Rs. 5,939/-, based on the schedule of daily wages prevailing in the State of Madhya Pradesh. 5. It may be stated that in support of the claim application, the appellant himself appeared in the witness box and asserted that his father, i.e., Shri Kamlesh Kumar Jain, was aged 44 years at the time of the accident and was involved in a wholesale business of readymade garments from which he had an annual income of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only). The appellant in his evidence exhibited and proved the Income Tax Return of the deceasedKamlesh Kumar Jain, for the financial year 2013-14, wherein the gross total income is shown to be Rs.2,07,770/- and the total income after deduction is shown to be Rs. 1,99,770/-. 6. The Tribunal, however, discarded the Income Tax Return on the ground that the documents were unsigned and had been downloaded from the internet. It further observed that the documents were in form of electronic records for which the requisite certificate, under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, had not been produced on record and thus, the same could not be read in evidence. 7. During the pendency of the claim petition, the appellant’s mother as well as his grandmother passed away. Accordingly, the appellant, in his individual capacity, preferred an appeal [Misc. 7. During the pendency of the claim petition, the appellant’s mother as well as his grandmother passed away. Accordingly, the appellant, in his individual capacity, preferred an appeal [Misc. Appeal No. 3854 of 2022] before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore [Hereinafter referred to as ‘High Court’.]. The High Court assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.8,735/- per month, treating him as a skilled labourer, and accordingly, enhanced the compensation by Rs. 3,91,608/-. Thus, the total compensation came to Rs. 13,44,440/- (Rupees thirteen lakh forty-four thousand four hundred forty only). The High Court also declined to consider the Income Tax Return, exhibited by the appellant, during his testimony. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 2nd August, 2024 of the High Court and seeking enhancement of compensation, the appellant is before us in this appeal by special leave. 9. The driver and the owner of the offending vehicle have not put in an appearance in this case. The Tribunal found that the Insurance Companyrespondent No.3 was liable to indemnify the award. 10. Having heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned judgment, we are of the firm opinion that the High Court as well as the Tribunal committed grave error in discarding the Income Tax Return and the computation of income of the deceased, i.e., Shri Kamlesh Kumar Jain, proved in the evidence of the appellant. 11. Suffice it to say that the strict rules of evidence do not apply to Motor Accident Claims proceedings hence, it was not at all necessary for the appellant to file a certified copy of the Income Tax Return on record. The appellant had proved the Income Tax Return by deposition on oath, and hence, there was no reason whatsoever, for disputing the same. 12. If at all, the Tribunal or the High Court had any doubt about the genuineness of the document, then, a certified copy could have been summoned. 13. Hence, we are of the firm opinion that the income of the deceased, i.e., Shri Kamlesh Kumar Jain has to be taken as per the disclosure made in the Income Tax Return for the year 2013-14. 14. 13. Hence, we are of the firm opinion that the income of the deceased, i.e., Shri Kamlesh Kumar Jain has to be taken as per the disclosure made in the Income Tax Return for the year 2013-14. 14. The accident occurred on 4th July, 2015, and, therefore, the Income Tax Return of the deceased for the Assessment Year 2013-14 is required to be considered as the contemporaneous documentary evidence reflecting his actual income. As per the computation, the total annual income of the deceased was Rs. 2,07,770/-, which would translate into a monthly income of Rs. 17,315/-. However, after deductions under Chapter VI-A, the net assessable income comes to Rs. 1,99,770/-, corresponding to a monthly income of Rs. 16,648/-, which, for the purpose of computation of compensation, is rounded off and treated as Rs. 16,650/-. 15. Accordingly, keeping in view the age of the deceased at the time of the death being 44 years, the compensation awardable is calculated in the following manner: Heads Calculation Amount /- Monthly Income (Base income assessed from records/ITR) Rs. 1,99,770 ÷ 12 = Rs. 16,480 (≈ Rs.16,650) per month Rs. 16,650 Future Prospects (25%) (As per National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi(2017), addition for expected rise in income) Rs. 16,650 × 25% = Rs. 4,162 Monthly Income + Future Prospects (Total monthly earning potential, including expected rise) Rs. 16,650 + Rs.4,162 Rs. 20,812 Deduction on Living & Personal Expenses (1/3rd) (As per Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009), 1/3rd deduction when deceased leaves behind 2–3 dependants) Rs. 20,812 × 1/3 (–) Rs.6,937 Total Monthly Income (Multiplicand) (Income available for dependants after deduction) Rs.20,812 – 6,937 Rs. 13,875 Multiplier (Age 44 → Multiplier 14 as per Sarla Verma table) 14 14 Total Annual Loss of Dependency (Multiplicand × 12 × Multiplier) Rs.13,875 × 12 x 14 Rs. 23,31,000 Funeral Expenses (Conventional head) (Fixed by Pranay Sethi at Rs.15,000, revised to Rs.16,500) Rs.16,500 Rs. 16,500 Loss of Consortium (Spousal/Parental/Filial) (Rs.44,000/claimant as per Satinder Kaur (2021)) Rs.44,000 x 1 Rs. 44,000 Total Compensation Rs.23,31,000 + Rs.16,500 + Rs.16,500 + Rs.44,000 = Rs. 24,08,000 Interest 6% 16. The total compensation payable to the appellant, by considering the income of the deceased to be Rs. 16,650/-, comes to Rs. 24,08,000/-( Rupees Twenty-Four Lakh and Eight Thousand Rupees only). Hence, the Insurance Company-respondent No. 3, shall pay the differential amount (rounded off) so arrived at, i.e., Rs. 24,08,000 Interest 6% 16. The total compensation payable to the appellant, by considering the income of the deceased to be Rs. 16,650/-, comes to Rs. 24,08,000/-( Rupees Twenty-Four Lakh and Eight Thousand Rupees only). Hence, the Insurance Company-respondent No. 3, shall pay the differential amount (rounded off) so arrived at, i.e., Rs. 10,63,560/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Sixty Three Thousand Five Hundred and Sixty only) over and above the amount awarded by the High Court, to the appellant within a period of two months from today. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of six (6%) percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim application. 17. The appeal is allowed in these terms. No costs. 18. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand.