JUDGMENT : A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J. I. Introduction:- 1. This appeal is directed against the order and decree dated 09.11.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.51 of 2013 by the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, at Rajahmundry [for short “the learned MACT”], where under a claim made for awarding compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of one Rudraraju Venkatalakshmi Narasimha Raju (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in a road traffic accident, by his legal heirs and dependents, was allowed by granting of compensation of Rs.6,31,900/-. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed by the claimants. 2. Claimant No.1 is the wife, claimant Nos.2 and 3 are daughters and claimants Nos.4 and 5 are sons of the deceased. 3. Respondent No.1 is the driver and respondent No.2 is the owner, of the rd offending vehicle. 3 respondent is the Insurance Company. II. Case of the claimants, in brief, is that : 4...... [i] On 25.06.2012 at about 10.00 a.m., while the deceased was proceeding on his motor cycle near Chittavaram at Narsapuram road, lorry bearing No. AP 20 T 2490 (herein after referred as ‘the offending vehicle’) driven by the 1st respondent, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased causing instantaneous death. [ii] The deceased was aged ‘60’ attending civil constructions work, earning Rs.6,00,000/- p.a., contributing his income for the claimants. The claimants are the legal heirs and dependants of the deceased. Negligence of st nd the 1st respondent is the cause for the accident. The 2nd respondent, owner of st the vehicle and employer of the 1 respondent, is vicariously liable for rd compensating the claimants. The 3rd respondent is the insurer, with whom the offending vehicle was insured. Claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. 5. 1st and 2nd respondents, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, remained ex parte before the learned MACT. III. Case of the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company, in brief, is that : 6...... [i] The offending vehicle was insured with the 3 respondent, covering the period from 20.04.2012 to 19.04.2013 subject to compliance of conditions of the Insurance Policy. [ii] Claimants shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, compliance of the conditions of the Insurance Policy, including valid driving licence to the deceased and negligence of the deceased is the cause for the accident. [ii] Claimants shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, compliance of the conditions of the Insurance Policy, including valid driving licence to the deceased and negligence of the deceased is the cause for the accident. [iii] Age, occupation and income of the deceased claimed by the claimants are not correct and quantum of compensation claimed is excessive. 7. On the strength of pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by the learned MACT: 1) Whether the accident arose due to rash and negligent driving of st lorry bearing No.AP 20 T 2490 by 1st respondent, resulting death of the deceased? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3) To what relief? IV. Evidence before the learned MACT: 8. Documentary evidence:- Exhibit No. Description Remarks Ex.A1 Attested copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.79 of 2012 of Narsapuram Police Station For the Claimants Ex.A2 Attested copy of Inquest Report. Ex.A3 Attested copy of M.V. Inspector Report. Ex.A4 Attested copy of Post Mortem Report Ex.A5 Attested copy of Charge Sheet in Cr.No.79/2012 of Narsapuram P.S. Ex.A6 Original Certificate given by Jampana Constructions in favour of Sri Srinivasa Constructions run by the deceased dt.30.03.2015. Ex.A7 Income Tax returns filed by the deceased to the Income Tax department for the assessment year 2011-2012. Ex.A8 Income Tax returns filed by the deceased to the Income Tax department for the assessment year 2012-2013 Ex.A9 Driving Licence of the deceased showing date of birth as 01.05.1951. Ex.A10 Form 16A submitted by the deceased, for the assessment year 2011-2012 (1-1-2010 to 31-12- 2010) for a sum of Rs.1,14,553/-. Ex.A11 From 16A submitted by the deceased for the assessment year 2012-2013 (1-1-2010 to 31-3- 2011) for sum of Rs.73,147/-. Ex.A12 Form16A submitted by the deceased for the assessment year 2012-2013 (from 1.4.2011 to 3.6.2011) for a sum of Rs.86,726/-. Ex.A13 Form16A submitted by the deceased for the assessment year 2012-2013 (from 1.7.2011 to 30.9.2011) for a sum of Rs.1,47,197/-. Ex.A14 Form 16 A submitted by the deceased to the Income Tax Department for the assessment year 2012-2013 (from 1.10.2011 to 31.12.2011) for a sum of Rs.1,26,225/-. 9. Oral Evidence:- 1. P.W.1: Rudraraju Rukmini Claimant No.1/wife of the deceased P.W.2: Valavala Srinivas Eye witness to the accident. Ex.A14 Form 16 A submitted by the deceased to the Income Tax Department for the assessment year 2012-2013 (from 1.10.2011 to 31.12.2011) for a sum of Rs.1,26,225/-. 9. Oral Evidence:- 1. P.W.1: Rudraraju Rukmini Claimant No.1/wife of the deceased P.W.2: Valavala Srinivas Eye witness to the accident. PW.3:Pulipaka Suresh Charted Account, who filed I.T returns for the deceased None examined for the respondents V. Findings of the learned MACT: 10...... [i] Accident is not in dispute. PW.2, an eye witness to the accident st stated about the negligence. 1 respondent, driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte. No other eye witness is examined. Therefore, the evidence is sufficient to hold the negligent driving of the offending vehicle. [ii] Claimant No.1 is the wife, claimants 2 and 3 are the daughters, claimants 4 and 5 are sons, their relationship is not denied. [iii] Since the claimants lost love and affection and 1 claimant lost dependency, all the claimants are entitled for compensation. [iv] Ownership of the 2nd respondent over the offending vehicle and rd the same being insured with the 3rd respondent are not in dispute. Negligence st of the 1 respondent is the cause for the accident. Therefore, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. [v] Income Tax returns under Ex.A7 and Ex.A8 and the evidence of PW.3/Charted Accountant, would show the gross total income at Rs.10,89,899/- as per Ex.A7, but Rs.23,10,397/- as per Ex.A8. [vi] PW.1 stated that books of accounts are not maintained by her husband. Ex.A8/ presented after death of the deceased, is not supported by any books of accounts, so it cannot be considered. [vii] As per the evidence of PW.3, 8% of the turnover would be treated as income, if the annual turnover is below Rs.60,00,000/-. 8% of Rs.10,89,890/- comes to Rs.87,192/-. [viii] There is no financial loss to family, because the business is continued by the family, is the contention of the Insurance Company, but the same is not acceptable. Since the age of the deceased is ‘65’, no future rd prospects can be assessed. The deduction of Rs.87,192/- at 1/3 towards personal expenditure, the contribution to the family comes to Rs.58,128/-. Multiplier applicable is ‘7’, then the loss of dependency comes to [Rs.58,128x’7’] Rs.4,06,896/- and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenditure, in all they are entitled, Rs.6,31,900/-. VI. The deduction of Rs.87,192/- at 1/3 towards personal expenditure, the contribution to the family comes to Rs.58,128/-. Multiplier applicable is ‘7’, then the loss of dependency comes to [Rs.58,128x’7’] Rs.4,06,896/- and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenditure, in all they are entitled, Rs.6,31,900/-. VI. Arguments in the appeal: For the appellant-claimants: 11...... [i] Learned MACT erred in taking the age at ‘65’ and the multiplier ‘7’. [ii] Learned MACT erred in taking the income notionally for the year2011-2012 at 8% of gross turn over. [iii] Learned Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd of income towards personal expenditure. [iv] Learned MACT has failed to appreciate the evidence on record. For the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company:- 12. The quantum of compensation already awarded is excessive. There are grounds to interfere with the judgment and the appeal is fit to be dismissed. 13. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by the both sides. 14. There is no appeal by the Insurance Company. The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company alone contested the matter before the learned MACT. Appeal is filed by the claimants alone. Therefore, the accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, liability of Insurance Company, violation if any of conditions of the Insurance Policy, are all out of dispute. Threfore, the only questions and points remained for determination are: 1) What is the just and reasonable compensation to which the claimants are entitled, whether compensation of Rs.6,31,900/-, awarded by the learned MACT is just and reasonable or require any interference/modification? If so, to what tune? 2) What is the result of the appeal? Point No.1: VII. Precedential Guidance: 15...... [i] Hon’ble Apex Court to have uniformity of practice and consistency in awarding just compensation provided certain guidelines in Smt. Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. 2009 (6) SCC 121 vide paragraph Nos.18 and 19, while prescribing a table directed adoption of suitable multiplier mentioned in column No.4 of the table. As per the observations in the judgment the claimants have to establish the following: 1. Age of the deceased. 2. Income of the deceased. 3. Number of dependents. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. 2009 (6) SCC 121 vide paragraph Nos.18 and 19, while prescribing a table directed adoption of suitable multiplier mentioned in column No.4 of the table. As per the observations in the judgment the claimants have to establish the following: 1. Age of the deceased. 2. Income of the deceased. 3. Number of dependents. [ii] Hon’ble Apex Court directed certain steps while determining the compensation, they are: Step No.1: Ascertain the multiplicand, which shall be the income of the deceased he / she should have contributed to the dependents and the same can be arrived after deducting certain part of personal living expenses of the deceased. Step No.2: Ascertaining Multiplier. This shall be with reference to the table provided and table is provided in judgment itself. Step No.3: Calculation of the compensation. Final Step: After calculation adding of certain amount towards conventional heads towards loss of estate, loss of consortium, funeral expenditure, cost of transport, cost of medical expenses for treatment of the deceased before the death etc. are advised. [iii] Enhancing the scope for awarding just compensation, the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others , 2017 (16) SCC 680 case guided for adding of future prospect. In respect of permanent employment, 50% where the deceased is below 40 years, 30% where the deceased is 40-50 years and 15% where the deceased is 50-60 years. [iv] The actual salary to be taken shall be after deducting taxes. Further, in respect of self employed on fixed salary addition is recommended, at 40% for the deceased below 40 years, at 25% where the deceased is between 40-50 years, at 10% where the deceased is between 50-60 years. Further, adding of compensation for loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/- and Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively is recommended by Hon’ble Apex court with an addition of 10% for every three years in Pranay Sethi’s case. [v] Further enlarging the scope for awarding just and reasonable compensation in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and Others , (2018) 18 SCC 130 , Hon’ble Apex Court observed that compensation can be awarded under the heads of loss of consortium not only to the spouse but also to the children and parents under the heads of parental and filial consortium. VIII. Analysis of Evidence:- 16...... VIII. Analysis of Evidence:- 16...... [i] PW.1, wife of the deceased, stated about the relationship, loss of dependency etc.. PW.2 is an eye witness to the accident, narrated about the accident and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is not much relevant for considering and determining the quantification of compensation, to which the claimants are entitled. [ii] The evidence of PW.3 alone is relevant. Summary of evidence of PW.3 is as follows: 1) PW.3 is a Charged Accountant and the deceased his client. 2) As per the evidence of PW.3, deceased used to attend civil contract works and file income tax return. 3) Income Tax returns for the year 2011-2012 are filed by PW.3. During chief examination, PW.3 has stated that gross total income of the deceased as Rs.10,89,899/- and net tax payable is Rs.1,86,399/-. 4) For the year 2012-2013, wife of the deceased/1st claimant, paid the income tax showing the gross income of the deceased as RS.23,10,397/-, with net tax payable Rs.5,54,263/-. The deceased used to pay VAT Tax and Sales Tax on his business. 5) During the cross-examination, he has stated that the threshold of tax audit is Rs.60 lakhs for gross turn over for the assessment year 2011-2012. Hence, audit is conducted. 6) Ex.A7, Ex.A8 do not reflect the Tax audit. 7) As per Section 44 (a) (d) of Income Tax Act, 8% of the turnover would be treated as income, if the annual turnover is below Rs.60 lakhs. 8) Rs.1,77,022/- is the TDS for the assessment year 2011-2012. 9) Rs.5,39,685/- is TDS for the assessment year 2012-2013. 10) After the death of the deceased, his family members formed the Firm and they are continuing the contract business of the deceased. [iii] Ex.A7, Income Tax returns filed by the deceased Firm, indicating that the Tax returns are filed in the name of Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha Raju Rudra Raju. Total income is shown at Rs.10,89,889/- and his description is shown as Proprietor of Srinivasa Constructions. [iv] After deducting the provision for Tax from Rs.10,89,889/-, balance is shown at Rs.9,03,484/-. [v] The argument is that taking 8% of the turn over does not arise when the income is clear from the returns filed. Sirinviasa constructions balance sheet as on 31.03.2011 is indicating for the purpose of VAT output at Rs.1,26,34,969/-, 8% of the same comes to around Rs.10,10,000/-. [v] The argument is that taking 8% of the turn over does not arise when the income is clear from the returns filed. Sirinviasa constructions balance sheet as on 31.03.2011 is indicating for the purpose of VAT output at Rs.1,26,34,969/-, 8% of the same comes to around Rs.10,10,000/-. After deduction of Tax liability probably the income would comes to Rs.9,00,000/-.No doubt it is a self assessment. [vi] If the Ex.A8 is taken into count, there will be further increase. However, as the returns under Ex.A8 are filed subsequent to death and the learned MACT is justified in taking the return filed by the deceased prior to death alone. [vii] The grievance of the appellants is that, taking of 8% of Rs.10,89,889/- income reflected in income tax Returns, when TDS is paid at around Rs.1,86,411/- is not correct approach. [viii] If the stand of the claimants is to be taken as correct from the profit around Rs.9,00,000/-, monthly income comes to Rs.75,000/-. [ix] It is relevant to note that the claimants in their claim petition pleaded the income of the deceased at Rs.6,00,000/-. The claimants are from business and urban back ground, duly assisted by the legal and Tax professionals, having a family business. [x] Further, it is also relevant to note that a Certificate issued vide Ex.A6, by Jampana constructions shows that Jampana constructions executed contracts at Gudivada and Nandigama, for Rs.1,34,26,786/- during the year 2010-2011. But it is a Construction Company, who are its members, whether it is a Firm having several partners is not known. [xi] Form 16-A of Jampana Constructions covered by Ex.A10 and Ex.A11 would show that it is a private limited Firm. [xii] Income Tax returns, covered by Ex.A7 are pertaining to Srinivasa Constructions. What is the nature of the establishment of Srinivasa Constructions, whether it is the sole Proprietory concern and what was the actual take home of the deceased, is not clearly spoken by the PW.3. [xiii] Upon considering the evidence available on record, it is not possible to completely rely on Ex.A7 and Ex.A8 alone, likewise taking 8% of the income shown in Ex.A7 is also found not correct. However, taking of income notionally at Rs.20,000/- per month, Rs.2,40,000/- per annum, found reasonable. rd [xiv] Whereby the annual income comes to Rs.2,40,000/-. [xiii] Upon considering the evidence available on record, it is not possible to completely rely on Ex.A7 and Ex.A8 alone, likewise taking 8% of the income shown in Ex.A7 is also found not correct. However, taking of income notionally at Rs.20,000/- per month, Rs.2,40,000/- per annum, found reasonable. rd [xiv] Whereby the annual income comes to Rs.2,40,000/-. If 1/3 of the same is deducted towards personal expenditure, the contribution of the deceased to the family comes to Rs.1,60,000/-. The age of the deceased as per the driving licence/Ex.A9 [where under the date of birth is mentioned as01.05.1951] as on the date of accident, is ‘62’ years. [xv] For the age group of ‘62’ the multiplier applicable is ‘7’ as per Sarla Verma’s case. Then upon application of the same, the entitlement for compensation under the head of loss of dependency comes to [Rs.1,60,000 x ‘7’] Rs.11,20,000/-. Hence, the claimants are entitled for Rs.11,20,000/- under the head of loss of dependency. [xvi] The claimants are entitled Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium. In all the entitlement of claimants comes to Rs.13,50,000/-. 17. In the light of precedential guidance and in view of the reasons and evidence referred above, the entitlement of the claimants for reasonable compensation in comparison to compensation awarded by the learned MACT is found as follows: S. No. Head Granted by the learned MACT Fixed by this Appellate Court 1. Loss of dependency Rs..4,06,896/- Rs.11,20,000/- 2. Loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.40,000/- @ each claimant: 40,000x5) 3. Funeral Expenditure and Transport Expenditure Rs.25,000/- Rs.15,000/- 4. Loss of estate Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.15,000/- Total: Rs.06,31,896 /- Rs.13,50,000/- 18. In view of the aforesaid reasons, it is found that claimants are entitled for compensation for Rs.13,50,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization decree and the award under challenge require modification accordingly. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. Point No.2: 19. In the result, the appeal is allowed, as follows: (i) The compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.6,31,900/-with interest @8% p.a. is modified as Rs.13,50,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realization. Apportionment: (ii) Claimant No.1 is entitled at Rs.7,50,000/- with proportionate interest and total costs. Point No.2: 19. In the result, the appeal is allowed, as follows: (i) The compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.6,31,900/-with interest @8% p.a. is modified as Rs.13,50,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realization. Apportionment: (ii) Claimant No.1 is entitled at Rs.7,50,000/- with proportionate interest and total costs. (iii) Claimant Nos.2 to 5 are entitled at Rs.1,50,000/- each with proportionate interest which shall be inclusive of compensation under the head of loss of consortium. (iv) All the claimants are entitled to withdraw their respective share of compensation amount on deposit at once. (v) The claimants shall pay the Court fee in respect of the enhanced part of compensation, before the learned MACT. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed.