P.C. Verma, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 31.5.2003 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Hardwar in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 87 of 2001, Brijnandan Sharan Bansal v. Managing Director, Pep-su Road Trans. Corporation (PRTC), Depot Patiala, District Patiala (Punjab).
2. Claimants raised the claim through the aforesaid Claim Petition No. 87 of 2001 for Rs. 11,60,000 on account of the death of Nirmala Devi wife of Brijnandan Sharan Bansal, claimant No. 1 and mother of Anil Bansal and Anju Bansal, claimant Nos. 2 and 3. The death of Nirmala Devi occurred in the accident, which took place on 4.6.2001 at about 11 a.m. near Himalaya Dhaba within the circle of village Amb, P.S. Amb, District Una (H.P.) by bus No. PB 11-M 1699 on account of rash and negligent driving by its driver. The deceased Nirmala Devi was going to pilgrimage of Nav Durga by a private bus No. UP 10-D 8151 along with other ladies. During the course of journey on 4.6.2001, at about 11 a.m., the said bus stopped at Himalaya Dhaba in village Amb aforesaid and there the deceased and others stepped down from the bus to have tea. When the deceased was standing near her bus, bus No. PB 11-M 1699 came rashly and negligently and hit her. The occurrence of accident is proved. The liability for payment of compensation is also proved against the insurer, National Insurance Co. Ltd.
3. The appeal has been filed by the claimants challenging the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on issue No. 4 only, which was with regard to the amount of compensation payable to the claimants. The other issues framed in the case were decided in favour of the claimants, but while deciding issue No. 4 the Tribunal recorded its finding that the accident in question had taken place and had also held that the deceased was 52-53 years old at the time of her death. It has further been recorded that at the time of death, deceased Nirmala Devi was employed with 'Bansal Transformer Company' and her income was Rs. 78,000 per annum which has been proved from the income tax returns of the deceased. The Tribunal did not accept the income tax returns on the ground that there was variation in the signatures of Nirmala Devi made on the income tax returns and further did not decide the annual income as no pay slip of the deceased was filed by the claimants. It has come in the statement of Brijnandan Sharan Bansal, PW 1, the husband of the deceased that Bansal Transformer Company is a registered firm. The deceased was the Director of the said concern and was getting Rs. 6,500 per month. Though the learned Tribunal has found that from the income tax returns the annual income of the deceased was Rs. 78,000 and as per statement of PW 1 the deceased was drawing Rs. 6,500 per month but disbelieved the entire evidence of PW 1 on the ground that the accounts of the Bansal Transformer Company from where she was drawing salary as Director were not verified by the Chartered Accountant. The Claims Tribunal fell into error in ignoring the income of the deceased as also the documents of income tax on which basis the deceased paid the income tax. These documents can be said to be a proof of annual income.
4. Furthermore, the Tribunal has not recorded any cogent reason to discard the unrebutted oral statement of the husband of the deceased, PW 1, that the deceased was drawing Rs. 6,500 per month and was Director of the firm. Disbelieving the documentary evidence of income tax and oral statement on the ground that no pay slip was filed and the document of the firm was not verified by the Chartered Accountant was not proper. From the documents on record, i.e., income tax returns of the years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 the income of deceased stands proved to be Rs. 78,000 per annum which stands corroborated by the oral statement of the husband of deceased, PW 1, that deceased was Director of Bansal Transformer Company and was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 6,500. The income tax return is a sufficient proof of annual income. Non-verification of the accounts of the firm by the Chartered Accountant cannot be a ground to ignore the income tax returns, which were filed by the deceased in the income tax office and on the basis of said income the income tax was paid by her. The learned Tribunal should not have also ignored the income tax returns. Moreso, it has come very categorically in the statement of PW 1, the husband of deceased that she was getting Rs. 6,500 per month. Therefore, for these reasons we hold that the income of the deceased was Rs. 78,000 per annum. Since in the Second Schedule appended to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the maximum limit of Rs. 40,000 has been fixed, therefore, Rs. 40,000 per annum only is to be calculated for awarding the amount of compensation. After deduction of 1/3rd in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred for maintaining herself had she been alive, the amount comes to Rs. 40,000-Rs. 13,334 = Rs. 26,666 per annum. Finding has come that the deceased was of 52-53 years old, in that situation a multiplier of '11' is to be applied in this case. After applying the multiplier of '11', the amount comes to Rs. 2,93,326. Thus, claimants are entitled to get Rs. 2,93,326 in addition to the general damages paid by the learned Tribunal, vide impugned judgment.
5. Mr. D.S. Patni, the learned Counsel appearing for National Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 2, has vehemently argued that finding has been recorded that all the claimants were earning members, therefore, they were not dependants and thus they were not entitled to get any compensation. We do not find any force in this contention as from bare perusal of Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act and Schedule appended thereto it is very clear that dependency is not required. Furthermore, it has come in the statement of PW 1 that from the income of the husband of the deceased, PW 1 and the deceased the family was being maintained. Even the earnings of the family members would go to the family as save money and that will enhance the status of the family. Therefore, legislature has deliberately not provided in Section 163A or under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act that claim shall only be paid to the dependants of the deceased. While amending the Motor Vehicles Act and inserting Sections 163A and 163B specific provision for payment of claim to the dependants has not been made and it has a valid reason that doing so for the reason that income always goes to the family. Had the deceased been alive, she would have earned and that income would have gone to the family. To compensate this, in case of non-earning member the notional income of Rs. 15,000 has been fixed in the Schedule. For the reason, we have rejected the contention of learned Counsel for National Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 2 and we hold that in addition to what has been awarded by the impugned award as additional damages under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimants shall be paid Rs. 2,93,326 as compensation. Out of this amount, Rs. 50,000 which has already been paid to appellants, shall be deducted.
6. Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and award dated 31.5.2003 is modified accordingly. The claimants-appellants shall get Rs. 2,93,326 (rupees two lakh ninety-three thousand three hundred twenty-six) from National Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 2. Out of this amount Rs. 50,000 (rupees fifty thousand) which the appellants have already received, shall be deducted. Appellants shall also be entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of application on the enhanced amount of compensation.