Judgment and Order : BUDI HABUNG, J. Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. B. Baruah, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1/claimant. 2. The fact of the case in brief is that the son of the respondent No. 1 died as a result of an accident on 19.06.2011, while he was proceeding towards his home by riding a bicycle. The accident occurred when a vehicle bearing Registration No. WB-41-D-0391 (Truck) proceeding towards the same direction dashed him and the wheels of the said truck rolled over his body, as a result, the son of the respondent No. 1 died on the spot. The offending vehicle was insured by the appellant. Respondent 4 is the owner of the vehicle, and the respondent No. 3 is the driver. 3. The respondent no. 1/claimant filed a case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, before the learned Member, MACT, Dibrugarh, claiming compensation for the death of their son. On completion of the trail, the learned MACT, Dibrugarh by judgment and order dated 29.11.2014, awarded a total amount of Rs. 12,70,000/- with 6% interest per annum. 4. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgement and award dated 29.11.2014, the appellant preferred the present appeal on the following grounds: - a) That the learned Member, MACT, Dibrugarh failed to consider that the deceased was only 22 years old and was a small shopkeeper in a small locality. Although the claimant/ respondent claimed that the income of the deceased was Rs. 15,000/- per month, and filed income tax return in support of the same, the authenticity of the Income Tax return was categorically denied by the opposite party.It was therefore necessary for the claimant to prove the income of the deceased by examining the author of the document on the basis of which the income was considered as Rs. 15,000/- per month. b) That the observation of the learned Member, MACT, Dibrugarh that even thought the income certificate was obtained after the accident, the same cannot be disbelieved is against the settled position of law that income tax return filed after the death of a person have no evidentiary value. c) That the assessment and compensation made by the learned Member, MACT, Dibrugarh is palpably erroneous, as a result of which, the learned Member, MACT, Dibrugarh has imposed liability on the appellant which is excessive. 5. c) That the assessment and compensation made by the learned Member, MACT, Dibrugarh is palpably erroneous, as a result of which, the learned Member, MACT, Dibrugarh has imposed liability on the appellant which is excessive. 5. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijayalaxmi @ Roopa V. Shenoy &Anr Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors in Civil Appeal No. 2320 of 2025 . The relevant paragraph 7 is reproduced herein below: “ 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal and High Court on the income of the deceased. It has been clarified in Malarvizhi & Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors . that the determination of income must proceed on the basis of Income Tax Return when available, being a statutory document. More recently, this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand while determining the income of the deceased therein had observed: “8. ….Monthly income could be fixed taking into account the tax returns only if the details of payment of tax are appropriately brought into evidence so as to enable the Tribunal/Court to calculate the income in accordance with law.” 6. The learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V. Subbulakshmi & Ors Vs. S. Lakshmi & Anr reported in (2008) STPL 4621 SC . The relevant paragraph being Paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 20, 21, 22 and 24 are reproduced herein below: “ 3 . An application under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation for a sum of Rs.25 lakhs was filed by the appellants in the Court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur). A written statement was filed by the Insurance Company in the said proceedings. The same was adopted by the owner of the vehicle. Before the Tribunal, the appellants produced some documents to show that the income of the deceased was about 12,500/- per month. He is said to have been deriving income both as an agriculturist as also from his business as commission agent in the business of coconut. 4. The same was adopted by the owner of the vehicle. Before the Tribunal, the appellants produced some documents to show that the income of the deceased was about 12,500/- per month. He is said to have been deriving income both as an agriculturist as also from his business as commission agent in the business of coconut. 4. The Tribunal, inter alia, keeping in view the fact that the Income Tax Returns were filed only after the death of the said Vadivellu, estimated at Rs. 9,600/- per month. 5. The High Court, however, estimated the income of the deceased to be around a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month, from his agricultural operation and Rs. 3,000/- from his commission business, totalling a sum of Rs. 7,000/- per month and upon deducting 1/3rd thereof from the amount towards his personal expenses, the High Court held that his contribution to his family would come to about of Rs. 4,667/- per month. Applying the multiplier of 18, the loss of income was assessed at Rs. 10,08,072/-, instead and in place of Rs. 13,82,400/- as was found by the Tribunal. 20. So far as the question in regard to the quantum of compensation awarded in favour of the appellants is concerned, we are of the opinion that the High Court has taken into consideration all the relevant evidences brought on record. 21. The accident took place on 7.5.1997. Income tax returns were filed on 23.6.1997. 22. The Income Tax Returns (Exp. P-14), therefore, have rightly not been relied upon. 24. In the aforementioned fact situation, the High Court has not relied upon all the aforementioned documents, filed by the appellant. It may be true that there was no basis for the High Court to arrive at the conclusion that the income of the deceased was Rs.4,000/- from agricultural operation and Rs. 3,000/- from his commission business, but no reliable document having been produced to show that the deceased was earning an income of Rs.12,500/- per month, as claimed. The High Court, in our opinion, cannot be held to have, thus, committed any grave error in this behalf. There is no dispute as regards application of the multiplier. In a case of this nature, some guess work is inevitable. This Court could have gone into the question provided there was some materials had been brought on record by the appellants upon which reliance could be placed. There is no dispute as regards application of the multiplier. In a case of this nature, some guess work is inevitable. This Court could have gone into the question provided there was some materials had been brought on record by the appellants upon which reliance could be placed. There being no such material available on record, we are not in a position to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court.” 7. The learned counsel for the appellant also placed a work out trend of Notional income considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in different cases claimed in respect of different occupation of the victims which ranges from Rs. 2500/- to Rs. 5000/- per month. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the deceased is claimed to be 22 years old, but there is no birth certificate being produced nor any income certificate being produced. However, the learned counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that considering the claim and the trend of the National Income considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the income of the deceased if considered in between Rs. 7000-8000 is acceptable by the appellant with future prospect which can be considered at 40% as claimed by the respondent in CO/37/2019. 9. Mr. B. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent conceded with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and fairly submitted that both the income tax certificate for the year 2009-10 and 2010-11 were obtained after the death of the deceased. He however affirmed the authenticity of the income certificates, and fully supported the observation of the learned Tribunal that though the document was obtained after the accident, these documents cannot be disbelieved. However, considering the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant in reference with the decisions of the Hon’ble supreme court in the above referred cases, and to be fair, and as proposed by the learned counsel for the appellant, he however, is agreeable to the income of the deceased at Rs. 10,000/- per month and the future prospect at the rate of 40% be considered. 10. 10,000/- per month and the future prospect at the rate of 40% be considered. 10. Having heard both the learned counsel for the parties and also considering that the parties has conscientiously agreed on the proposal made by the learned counsel for the appellant and agreed upon by the respondent/claimant for some changes in the income, this Court is of the opinion that the income of the deceased fixed at Rs. 15,000/- can be reduced to Rs. 10,000/- per month with future prospect at 40%. 11. Accordingly, the income of the deceased is taken at Rs.10,000/- PM and annual income is Rs.1,20,000/- with future prospect at 40%. Since, there is no dispute as regards the application of the multiplier and others, the rest of the award shall remain intact. 12. In view of aforesaid, the compensation now payable to the respondent/Claimant would be calculated as under: Compensation Heads Amount awarded Monthly Income of the deceased @ Rs. 10,000/- per month Rs. 10,000x 12 months= Rs. 1,20,000/- (Annual income) Less (-) 50% personal expenditure of deceased (10,000x50%)=Rs. 5000x12 months= Rs. 60,000/- yearly Total dependency loss to the family Rs. 60,000 x 14 (Multiplier)= Rs. 8,40,000/- Loss of future prospects (40%) Rs. 8,40,000 + Rs. 3,36,000= Rs. 11,76,000/- Loss of estate Rs. 5,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs. 11,86,000/- Full and final amount to be paid is Rs. 11,86,000/- (Rupees eleven lakhs eighty six thousand) only. 13 . Accordingly, the appellant Bharat General Insurance Company Ltd is directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 11,86,000/- (Rupees eleven lakhs eighty six thousand) only as final awarded amount to the respondent/claimants as per the mode of disbursement and interest as mentioned in the judgment and award dated 29.11.2014. The appellant shall make payment within 90 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The appeal is partially allowed to the extent as indicated above and the judgment and award of the tribunal dated 29.11.2014 in MAC Case No.63/2011 stands modified accordingly. 14 . With the above observation, the appeal and CO/37/2019, stands disposed of. 15 . Let the record be sent back.