JUDGMENT : REKHA BORANA, J. 1. The present appeals arise out of judgment and Award dated 27.06.2022 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Bhilwara in MAC Case Nos. 169/2019 (filed by the parents and siblings of the deceased) and 170/2019 (filed by the widow and children of the deceased). 1.2. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1936/2022 has been preferred by the claimants (widow and children of the deceased) for enhancement of the compensation amount as awarded by the impugned Award, whereby an amount of Rs.54,72,838/- was awarded in favour of all the claimants. 1.3. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1594/2022 has been preferred by the appellants (widow & children of the deceased) with a prayer that the apportionment of the award amount between the two sets of claimants in both claim cases be directed in terms of law. 1.4. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 557/2023 has been preferred by Oriental Insurance Company Limited with a prayer to quash and set aside the impugned judgment/Award, and that the appellant Insurance Company be exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation. 2. The brief facts giving rise to these appeals, as pleaded in the claim petitions, are that on 15.08.2018, Lehru Lal Gadri was proceeding from Brahmpuri to Mandal on his motorcycle bearing Registration No. RJ-06-EC-3824. At around 3:00 PM, in front of a brick factory near Haripura on Bhilwara Road, an Innova car bearing Registration No. RJ-06-UC-3456, being driven rashly and negligently, collided with his motorcycle. As a consequence, Lehru Lal suffered grievous injuries and was immediately taken to Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Bhilwara where he was declared dead. In respect of the accident, FIR No. 0252/2018 came to be registered at Police Station Mandal, District Bhilwara. 3. The offending vehicle, on the date of accident, was duly insured with non claimant No.3 Insurance Company. 4. The learned Tribunal, after framing the issues and considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, proceeded on to assess the annual income of the deceased at Rs.3,02,680/- on basis of the Income Tax Returns as exhibited, and after making necessary deduction and addition qua personal expenses and future prospects, awarded a total compensation of Rs.54,72,838/- in favour of the claimants. The breakup of the award is as under: 5. The breakup of the award is as under: 5. The Tribunal further directed that the claimants shall be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e., 25.09.2017. 6. While deciding both the claim petitions jointly, learned Tribunal apportioned the aforesaid compensation amount between the two sets of claimants as under: (i) In Claim Case No.169/2019 (a) Claimants – father Bhagu @ Bhaguta and mother Smt. Ghisi were awarded Rs. 4,00,000/- each to be kept in ‘Fixed Deposit’ for three years and Rs. 5,00,000/- each to be deposited in ‘Savings Account’ with a Nationalised Bank. (b) Claimant siblings i.e. Geeta, Debi Lal and Sita were awarded Rs.40,000/- each under the head of ‘Loss of consortium’ to be deposited in ‘Savings Account’ with a Nationalised Bank. (ii) In Claim Case No. 170/2019 (a) Claimant daughters Jyoti and Khushbu were awarded Rs.9,00,000/- each to be deposited in a ‘Fixed Deposit’ with a Nationalised Bank till they attain majority. (b) Claimant wife Sanjiya was awarded Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/- to be deposited as ‘Fixed Deposit’ with a Nationalised Bank for 5 years and 10 years respectively and the remaining award amount to be deposited in her ‘Savings Account’. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submitted that the learned Tribunal erroneously relied upon the Income Tax Returns (ITRs) for the years 2015-16 and 2013-14 (Exhibits-9 & 10) while computing the loss of income. Learned counsel submitted that the accident occurred on 15.08.2018 and it is only the income at that point of time which could have been taken into consideration. There being no evidence available on record qua the said period, ITRs of the earlier years could not have been relied upon. Therefore, in absence of any documentary evidence pertaining to relevant period, the learned Tribunal ought to have computed the income on basis of wages of a skilled labour applicable at that point of time. With the said averments, learned counsel submitted that the computation of loss of income is grossly inflated and the impugned Award deserves to be interfered with to that extent. 8. Per contra learned counsel appearing for the claimants (wife and minor children) submitted that the learned Tribunal committed no error in relying upon the ITRs as exhibited on record. With the said averments, learned counsel submitted that the computation of loss of income is grossly inflated and the impugned Award deserves to be interfered with to that extent. 8. Per contra learned counsel appearing for the claimants (wife and minor children) submitted that the learned Tribunal committed no error in relying upon the ITRs as exhibited on record. The said ITRs reflected a progressive trend and it is most natural that the income of the deceased enhanced in the subsequent years. Learned counsel submitted that the income of the deceased definitely increased with years and by the year 2018, it definitely was higher than that reflected in the ITRs of years 2013-14 and 2015-16 and hence, the learned Tribunal rather ought to have considered a higher base income while computing the loss. In support of his arguments, learned counsel relied upon the Hon’ble Apex Court judgments in Chandramani Nanda Vs. Sarat Chandra Swain and Anr. ; AIR 2024 SC 5705 and Malarvizhi & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr.; (2020) 4 SCC 228 and a judgment of this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sayra Khan and Ors. ; S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.223/2024 (decided on 30.01.2024). 9. The next ground raised by learned counsel for the claimants is that although the learned Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.40,000/- only qua the head of consortium, if proceeded on to direct for depositing Rs.40,000/- each in the bank accounts of the siblings of the deceased qua the head of consortium. Firstly, the amount qua consortium ought to have been awarded in favour of all the claimants independently and secondly, no amount ought to have been directed to be deposited in the bank accounts of the siblings from the total award amount. 10. Learned counsel lastly submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding a compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- in favour of the father of the deceased whereas it was nowhere established on record that he was a dependant of the deceased. Further, award of an amount to the father, equal to that of minor children, is patently unjust and against the settled principles governing the law of dependency. Further, award of an amount to the father, equal to that of minor children, is patently unjust and against the settled principles governing the law of dependency. In support of his argument, learned counsel relied upon the definition of ‘legal representative’ as defined in Section 2 (11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and upon Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which classifies father to be an heir of Class II. 11. Per contra learned counsel appearing for the claimants (parents and siblings of the deceased) submitted that the amount was rightly awarded in favour of the father too, he being a legal representative and a dependant of the deceased. Learned counsel submitted that the law of dependency is not governed by the law of succession and any legal representative, dependant on a deceased, is not required essentially to be an heir of I st Class too. The law of inheritance/succession would not strictly apply in motor accident claims as therein it is the dependency of the claimant on the deceased which is the most relevant factor. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the following Apex Court judgments : (i) Manjuri Bera (Smt.) Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.; (2007) 10 SCC 643 (ii) Custodian of Branches of Banco National Ultramarino Vs. Nalini Bai Naique ; AIR 1989 SC 1589 (iii) Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad Vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai & Anr.; (1987) 3 SCC 234 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record. 13. Coming on to the ground raised by learned counsel for the Insurance Company as to whether the income of the deceased on basis of ITRs of earlier years could have been taken into consideration, reliance on Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in Chandramani Nanda (supra) would be apt. Therein, the Court, while dealing with a situation where the accident took place in the year 2014 and the ITRs for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011- 12 were placed on record, observed that there was a gap of approximate 2 years and 9 months between the Income Tax Returns and the date of accident and hence, the income would rather have increased. The Court therein, enhanced the annual income of Rs.1,62,420/- as assessed by the learned Tribunal and the High Court, to Rs.2,00,000/- per annum. 14. The Court therein, enhanced the annual income of Rs.1,62,420/- as assessed by the learned Tribunal and the High Court, to Rs.2,00,000/- per annum. 14. This Court, in Smt. Sayra Khan (supra), while dealing with a situation where the accident occurred in the year 2020 and ITRs for the years 2013-14 and 2014-15 were placed on record, observed and held as under : “6. ….So far as the Income Tax Returns (Exh. 18 & 19) are concerned, the same also reflect the income of the deceased from the grocery shop only. These pertain to the years 2013-14 and 2014-15, and the non-filing of the Income Tax Returns for the subsequent years cannot lead to a presumption that the deceased did not earn anything after the year 2014-15. It is a natural phenomenon that a person generally experiences an increase in income with the efflux of time. A person who earned an amount of Rs. 16,456/- per month in the years 2013 to 2015 would definitely have earned more in the year 2020. It cannot be presumed that his income would have reduced with the passage of time. As is the settled position of law, documents such as Income Tax Returns and audit reports are reliable evidence to determine the income of the deceased. Further, there is no evidence available on record to show that the income of the deceased was contrary to the amount mentioned in the Income Tax Returns, or that the income as reflected in the said returns was inflated. Therefore, the computation of income on the basis of the IT Returns for the years 2013-14 and 2014-15 (Exh. 18 & 19) by the learned Tribunal, being the most just, plausible, and appropriate consideration, does not deserve any interference.” 15. Applying the above ratio to the present matter, a perusal of the ITRs as exhibited on record reflects annual income of the deceased to be Rs.2,26,320/- and Rs.3,02,680/- respectively. AW1 Sajiya i.e. wife of the deceased specifically deposed that her husband was engaged in the work of fitting of marbles and tiles, and his income was increasing progressively. Neither any evidence to the contrary has been led by the Insurance Company nor has the documentary evidence been contradicted. It is a natural phenomenon that any person engaged in occupational business would experience an increase in income with afflux of time. Neither any evidence to the contrary has been led by the Insurance Company nor has the documentary evidence been contradicted. It is a natural phenomenon that any person engaged in occupational business would experience an increase in income with afflux of time. A person who earned an amount of Rs.3,02,680/- in the year 2015- 16 would definitely have earned more in the year 2018. Further, as is the settled position of law, ITRs are reliable indicators of the earning capacity of the deceased and the best proof of income, unless proved otherwise. The fact of ITRs for the subsequent years having not been placed on record cannot lead to a presumption that the deceased did not earn anything for the said year. In the specific opinion of this Court, the computation of income by the learned Tribunal on basis of ITRs for the years 2015-16 and 2013- 14 (Exhibits-9 &10) being the most just, plausible and appropriate consideration, does not deserve any interference. SBCMA No.557/2023 as filed by the Insurance Company hence deserve to be, and is hereby dismissed. 16. Coming on to the issue whether the total consortium amount of Rs.40,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal is appropriate, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Ors.; (2018) 18 SCC 130 interpreted ‘Consortium’ to be a compendious term, which encompasses spousal consortium, parental consortium as well as filial consortium. It is well established that consortium is not confined to spousal consortium but extends to parental consortium for children and filial consortium for parents too. 17. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the said amount shall be awarded to each of the claimants i.e. wife, children, parents and siblings of the deceased. Thus, appellant Nos. 1 to 3 being wife and children and respondent Nos.4 to 8 being parents and siblings of the deceased in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1594/2022, shall be entitled to an amount of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of ‘Consortium’. 18. Coming on to the issue of apportionment of award amount between the respective claimants, it is trite that while assessing compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, the paramount consideration is ‘Loss of dependency’. The governing principle behind the loss of dependency is as to which claimant would have derived some financial benefit from the deceased had he remained alive. 18. Coming on to the issue of apportionment of award amount between the respective claimants, it is trite that while assessing compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, the paramount consideration is ‘Loss of dependency’. The governing principle behind the loss of dependency is as to which claimant would have derived some financial benefit from the deceased had he remained alive. Thus, apart from a claimant being a legal representative, his dependency on the deceased is a valid consideration for grant of compensation. The claimant therefore is required to show a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit from continuance of life of the deceased and not merely a speculative possibility of pecuniary benefit.[ Anju Behal and Ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation ; S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 68 of 1989 (decided on 18.08.1991)] 19. Applying the above ratio to the present matter, it was specifically pleaded by AW1 Sanjiya that her in-laws resided with younger brother of the deceased and her father-in-law was engaged in agricultural activities and was dependant on the younger brother of the deceased. Despite the said specific deposition of AW1, she was not cross-examined on the said aspect. Further, AW2 Bhagu @ Bhaguta, father of the deceased specifically admitted that he was not residing with his son and further that her daughter-in-law, along with her minor daughters, was living separately, although in the same village. In view of the above specific evidence, the father of the deceased could not have been held to be a dependant of the deceased. True it is that Section 166 of the Act of 1988 entitles each legal representative to file a claim for compensation and does not talk of any differentiation between Class I or Class II heirs, but then, a claimant falling in Class II category as per Hindu Succession Act, 1956 would definitely have to prove his/her dependency on the deceased and further that he/she would have derived some financial benefit from the deceased had he remained alive. The said aspect not been proved on record in the present matter, the father of the deceased could not be held entitled for award of any compensation in his favour except the amount qua the loss of consortium. The impugned award therefore deserves modification to the said extent. 20. The said aspect not been proved on record in the present matter, the father of the deceased could not be held entitled for award of any compensation in his favour except the amount qua the loss of consortium. The impugned award therefore deserves modification to the said extent. 20. In the specific opinion of this Court, the amount of Rs.9,00,000/- as awarded in favour of father of the deceased deserves to be apportioned between the mother Ghisi Devi and two minor daughters of the deceased, in equal share. 21. In view of the above observations and analysis, SBCMA Nos.1594/2022 and 1936/2022 are hereby, partly allowed . The impugned judgment/Award dated 27.06.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Bhilwara in MAC Case Nos. 169/2019 and 170/2019 is modified to the extent that the claimants shall be entitled to the following compensation: 22. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the actual payment is made. The respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount and the enhanced amount of compensation with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the same shall carry interest @7.5% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. 23. It is hereby held that all the claimants i.e. wife, parents, children and siblings of the deceased would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- each (with interest) qua the head of Consortium. The amount of Rs.9,00,000/- awarded in favour of Bhagu @ Bhaguta i.e., the father of the deceased shall be apportioned between the mother Ghisi Devi and two minor children of the deceased, in equal share. 24. An amount of Rs.3,00,000/- each (with interest) be kept in ‘Fixed Deposit’ for a period of three years in favour of Khushboo and Jyoti, the minor daughters of the deceased. An amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (with interest) be disbursed to Ghisi Devi, the mother of the deceased through her saving account. The amount of Rs.40,000/- each (with interest) be disbursed to all the claimants through their saving accounts. 25. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.