JUDGMENT : (CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J.) : The appellant – Insurance company filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter, for short ‘the Act’), aggrieved by the order dated 25.01.2017 in M.V.O.P. No.141/13 passed by Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vijayawada (hereinafter, referred as ‘Tribunal’), by which the respondents/claimants were granted compensation of Rs.55,05,000/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The claim was instituted by the Widow and mother of the deceased Mr.Marreddy Venkat Subbareddy under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation for death that occurred on 26.02.2012 in the road accident. Deceased who was working as Software Engineer in Hewlett Packard Global Software Private Limited, Bangalore, while he was proceedings on his motor cycle bearing No.AP 16BU 6315 in the service road leading to Bangalore City, when reached Beretena Agrahara, Hosur Road near Shahi Garments, a tempo traveler bearing No.KA 05D 5937 driven by the 3 rd respondent driver dashed the motor cycle in the opposite direction in rash and negligent manner, thereby deceased sustained severe injuries and while he was being shifted for treatment to the hospital, succumbed to injuries on the way. Crime No.124/12 was registered under Sections 304-A, 279 IPC and section 134 (a) and (b) of the Act by Electronic City Traffic P.S. Later on charge sheet was filed for the said offences. The claimants contended that the deceased was aged 31 years and was earning annual salary of Rs.5,50,000/-, so made claim for Rs.70 lakhs alleging that the accident has occurred due to sheer rash and negligent act of the driver of the tempo, which was insured with the appellant – Insurance Company. 4. The owner of the tempo and driver, respondents 1 and 3 before Tribunal remained ex parte and the 2 nd respondent Insurance Company contested the matter by filing written statement, inter alia denying that the accident had occurred because of rash and negligent act of driver of the tempo traveler and disputed the age and earnings of the deceased, thereby, contended that no liability can be fastened on it. 5. 5. Before the Tribunal, the claimants had examined the wife of deceased as P.W.1, H.R. Manager of Hewlett Packard Global Software Private Limited as P.W.2 and Mr.Prasad, an eye witness to the incident as P.W.3 and marked Exs.A1 to A13 and Ex.X1 to X5. None were examined for respondents, however, Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. Basing on the pleadings and documents marked, the Tribunal had framed following issues: “1. Whether the deceased M.Venkata Subba Reddy died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 20.06.2012 at about 19.35 hours near Shahi Garments, Hosur Road, Bangalore City, Karnataka State due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle Tempo Traveler bearing No.KA 05D 5937? 2. What is the correct age and income of the deceased by the date of the accident? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation as prayed for? If so, from whom and to what amount? 4. To what relief?” 6. On appreciation of pleadings and evidence on record, in so far as first issue was concerned, Tribunal by relying on the evidence of P.W.3, who was witness to the accident and appreciating the documentary evidence in Ex.A1 – FIR, Ex.A3 – Inquest report and Ex.A5 – Charge Sheet, which were corroborative, concluded that the deceased who was proceeding on motor cycle was hit by the tempo traveler coming in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and the said act was clearly attributable solely to the driver of the tempo traveler and that the respondent could not elicit or demonstrate in any manner that there was contributory negligence. So far as the second issue was concerned, age of the deceased was considered to be between 31 to 35 years and applied multiplier of 16 and the income of the deceased was assessed as Rs.4,95,000/- per annum, which was based on the appreciation of evidence of P.W.2 coupled with income tax returns i.e., Exs.X1 to X5 and Ex.A13 and after deducting 1/3 of such assessed income towards personal expenses, the net income was computed as Rs.3,30,000/- . The Tribunal further granted Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and thereby, in total granted compensation of Rs.55,05,000/-. Aggrieved by the aforesaid determination of compensation by order dated 25.01.2017, the insurance company preferred the present appeal. 7. The Tribunal further granted Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and thereby, in total granted compensation of Rs.55,05,000/-. Aggrieved by the aforesaid determination of compensation by order dated 25.01.2017, the insurance company preferred the present appeal. 7. Heard Sri N.Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Phani Babu Yalamanchili, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contends that the accident had taken place because of the collision of motorcycle and tempo traveler, therefore, it has to be inferred that there was negligence on the part of both the deceased as well as driver of the tempo traveler, as such, it is a case of contributory negligence but not negligence attributable solely to the driver of the tempo traveler. In support of the same, by drawing attention to the rough sketch in Ex.B2, the counsel tried to impress upon this Court that the collision in the service road was sheerly on account of the negligence of both, therefore, liability cannot be solely cost on the driver of the tempo traveler and thereby, the finding recorded by Tribunal suffers from perversity. The second submission made is that the income of the deceased should not have been considered as Rs.4,95,000/- based on the income tax returns and form-16 as none of the officials from the income tax department were examined to prove the same. Lastly, it is contended that the interest awarded at the rate of 7.5% is excessive, rather it should have been only 6% per annum in the view of the law laid down in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another , [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ]. 9. Lastly, it is contended that the interest awarded at the rate of 7.5% is excessive, rather it should have been only 6% per annum in the view of the law laid down in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another , [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ]. 9. Opposing the aforesaid contentions, the learned counsel for respondents/claimants submits that the order passed by the Tribunal to the extent of recording findings that the accident has occurred only because of the rash and negligent act of the driver of the tempo traveler and assessed the income of the diseased as Rs.4,95,000/- per annum and the application of multiplier 16 are well founded and does not suffer from any perversity, however, the learned counsel contends that the compensation awarded is not fair and reasonable, inasmuch as the Tribunal erred in not considering the granting of future prospects of the diseased as he was working as software engineer and aged only 31 years and further that the Tribunal had granted interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum only and rather should have granted 9% per annum as held by Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others , [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ] . Therefore, the learned counsel prays the court to grant fair and reasonable compensation. 10. Considered the rival submissions made by both parties and perused the record. The following points arise for our consideration: “1. Whether the Tribunal has awarded just and fair compensation to the claimants/respondents in the light of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties? 2. Whether the interest @7.5% is excessive?” Point No.1 :- Negligence: 11. This is a case of fatal accident occurred while the deceased driving motorcycle was hit by tempo traveler coming in opposite direction. The rough sketch Ex.B2 suggests that while the deceased riding motorcycle on service road proceeding towards Bangalore on the left side of the road, the tempo traveler came in the opposite direction instead of following the right side margin of the said road dashed the motorcycle on the left side of the road. The rough sketch Ex.B2 suggests that while the deceased riding motorcycle on service road proceeding towards Bangalore on the left side of the road, the tempo traveler came in the opposite direction instead of following the right side margin of the said road dashed the motorcycle on the left side of the road. Even the FIR registered under Ex.A1 at the instance of the first informant who stated to be working as security guard in the front office of a private company, who was on security guard duty when the accident took place and also the punch witnesses opined that the accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of tempo traveler. Ex.A5 – charge sheet also proceeds on the basis that the driver of the tempo traveler was at fault. The claimants witness - P.W.3, who is unrelated and an eyewitness, also spoke that the accident had occurred because of the rash and negligent act of the driver of the tempo traveler. A conjoint reading and appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence clearly demonstrate that the accident had occurred because of the rash and negligent act of the driver of the tempo traveler. The burden of proof required to be considered in cases under section 166 of the Act is only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability but not establishing beyond a reasonable doubt. The tribunal while considering the evidence on record both oral and documentary has come to the conclusion that the accident occurred only because of the negligent act of the driver of the tempo traveler, besides the insurance company except for making a statement in the written statement that there was contributory negligence, nothing was elicited either in the evidence of claimant witnesses or lead any independent evidence, particularly by examining the driver of the tempo traveler to prove otherwise. This Court, therefore, finds that the above conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal does not suffer from any perversity. Income: 12. So far as the age of the deceased is concerned, the same is claimed as 31 years and the Tribunal basing on the evidence on the record has considered the age of the deceased could be between 31 to 35 and has applied multiple of 16 following judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case (supra 1) , which we are also in agreement with. 13. 13. Coming to the aspect of the income of the deceased the same was determined by the Tribunal as Rs.4,95,000/- based on the evidence of P.W.2 – the HR Manager of the employer, through whom Exs.X1 to X5 were marked which are statutory documents such as Form-16 for the assessment year 2012-13, TDS certificates for the assessment year 2013-14 and pay slips and salary certificates of the deceased. The claimants also filed a salary certificate issued by the employer under Ex.A13. Upon considering the particulars of salary that is paid to the deceased by the employer i.e., June, 2012 and the proceeding periods with reference to Exs.X1 to X5 and Ex.A13, the Tribunal had determined the annual salary of the deceased as Rs.4,95,012/- and rounded off to Rs.4,95,000/-. The only objection raised by the appellant in computing the salary was that the Tribunal without examining the officials of income tax department should not have considered Form – 16 and TDS certificates placed on record. We are not impressed with this submission inasmuch as P.W.2, the H.R. Manager, who is authorized under Ex.X1, supported by the statutory documents under Ex.X2 & X4, besides the salary pay slips under Ex.X5 and salary certificate by the employer under Ex.A13 spoke about the said documents and as the Statutory documents are issued by income tax department, the same would suffice unless contra is pleaded and established. The Tribunal rightly on consideration of the income tax returns in form – 6 under Ex.X2 and TDS certificate under Ex.X4, went on to determine the income of the deceased. Though the appellant insurance company has objected to the income tax returns being taken into consideration for the purpose of income of the deceased on the ground that none of officers of the department were examined, it has not produced any material contra to showcase that the income of the deceased as claimed in the income tax returns was excessive. The Hon’ble Apex Court in various judgments has held that such documents i.e., Income Tax Returns are reliable evidence to determine the income of the deceased. The Hon’ble Apex Court in various judgments has held that such documents i.e., Income Tax Returns are reliable evidence to determine the income of the deceased. So following the above view as expressed in K.Ramya and Others v. National Insurance Company Limited and another , [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1338] , Malarvizhi and others vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and others , [ (2020) 4 SCC 228 ] and Smt.Anjali and others v. Lokendra Rathod and Others , [(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1682] , this Court finds that the determination of the income of the deceased based on the income tax returns does not suffer from any infirmity. Future Prospects 14. The Tribunal though determined the income of the deceased as Rs.4,95,000/- per annum, it had not provided for the future prospects. As rightly contended by counsel for the respondent, the Tribunal should have provided for future prospects following the judgment rendered in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra 2) . As the deceased was in private employment and that aged between 31 to 35 years, in terms of the aforesaid judgment, future prospects @40% has to be awarded. Once the aforesaid future prospects are added to the annual salary as determined above, the same would come to Rs.6,93,000/- and as the claimants are two in number, following the judgment in Sarla Verma’s case (supra 1) , 1/3 rd of the same has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Thereby, the net income would come to Rs.4,62,000/-. The Tribunal had rightly applied multiple of 16 which we also are in agreement with and needs no interference. Coming to the consortium, the Tribunal has committed an error and following the judgment in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra 2) , the respondents/claimants are entitled for consortium as stated below: S.No. Head Compensation Awarded 1. Net Annual Income Rs.41,250/- x 12 = Rs.4,95,000/- 2. Future Prospects (at the age of 31 years) Rs.1,98,000/- (i.e., 40% of the income) Total Income Rs.6,93,000/- 3. Deduction towards personal expenditure (i.e., 1/3rd) Rs.2,31,000/- 4. Total Annual Loss of Dependency Rs.4,62,000/- 5. Multiplier of 16 for the age of 31 years 16 x Rs.4,62,000/- = Rs.73,92,000/- 6. Conventional Heads: (i) Loss of Consortium (2 claimants) Rs.96,800/- (Rs.48,400/- x 2) (ii) Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/- (iii) Funeral expenses Rs.18,150/- 7. Total Compensation Rs.75,25,100/- Point No.2:- Interest: 15. Deduction towards personal expenditure (i.e., 1/3rd) Rs.2,31,000/- 4. Total Annual Loss of Dependency Rs.4,62,000/- 5. Multiplier of 16 for the age of 31 years 16 x Rs.4,62,000/- = Rs.73,92,000/- 6. Conventional Heads: (i) Loss of Consortium (2 claimants) Rs.96,800/- (Rs.48,400/- x 2) (ii) Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/- (iii) Funeral expenses Rs.18,150/- 7. Total Compensation Rs.75,25,100/- Point No.2:- Interest: 15. Finally the Tribunal had granted interest @ 7.5% per annum, though the appellant had contended that itself is on higher side by referring to the judgment in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) , inasmuch as in subsequent judgments, the Apex Court in Malarvizhi and others case (supra 4) and Smt.Anjali and others case (supra 5) had granted interest @9% per annum, respectively following those judgments, the interest is awarded @9% from the date of the claim petition till realization. Just and Fair Compensation: 16. It is settled law that the claimants are entitled for just and fair compensation and that endeavor should be made by the Court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the fact the claimants had not preferred any appeal for enhancement or filed cross objection in the appeal filed by either insurance company or owner. We had summed up the law on this aspect recently in The Divisional Manager, The New Indian Assurance Company Limited v. Emani Venkata Archana and four others, MACMA No.934/2015, dated 09.01.2025 , by placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in N.Jayasree v. Cholamandalam Ms.General Insurance Company Limited, (2022) 14 SCC 712 , Surekha v. Santosh , [ (2021) 16 SCC 467 ] , Meena Pawala v. Ashraf Ali , [ (2021) 17 SCC 148 ] and Smt.Anjali v. Lokendra Rathod (Supra 5). As the purport of compensation under Section 166 of the Act is to award just and fair reasonable compensation, this Court is granting the above reliefs to the respondents/claimants by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 17. As the purport of compensation under Section 166 of the Act is to award just and fair reasonable compensation, this Court is granting the above reliefs to the respondents/claimants by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 17. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed, however, compensation is enhanced over and above granted by the Tribunal to the claimants as just and fair compensation in the following terms: (i) The claimants/respondents are granted enhanced compensation of Rs.75,25,100/- as just and fair, with interest @ 9% per annum thereon from the date of claim petition till realization; (ii) The appellant to deposit the amount as aforesaid with interest and costs, adjusting the amount already deposited/paid if any, before the Tribunal within one month. (iii) On such deposit being made, the claimants shall be entitled to withdraw the same in the proportion as per the award, failing which, the amount shall be recovered as per law. (iv) The costs throughout is made in favour of the claimants/respondents. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed.