The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, based on the deceased's monthly income, application of a multiplier, and deductions for tax and personal expenses.

The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 06/11/2007, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Margao (Tribunal, for short), in Claims Petition No.39/2000, by which, a compensation of Rs.13,57,000/-, has been granted in favour of respondent nos.1 and 2, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act, for short) in respect of death of one Prabhakar Desai.

2. At the outset, it is necessary to mention that the challenge is limited to the quantum of the compensation awarded.

3. The brief facts are that now deceased Prabhakar was a Chartered Accountant. He was aged 59 years on the date of the accident. On 12/12/1998, the deceased was proceeding in his Maruti Car, bearing No.GA-02-A-5638. The accident occurred at about 17.45 hours, when the Truck bearing No.KL-7-U-6714 came from opposite direction and dashed against the Maruti Car, as a result of which, Prabhakar died on the spot. Respondent nos.1 and 2 sought compensation of Rs.40,71,410/-from the appellant and respondent nos.3 and 4, under different heads. The appellant (respondent no.3 before the Tribunal) contested the claim, inter alia, on the ground that the compensation claimed was excessive and without any basis.

4. Before the Tribunal, respondent no.1 was examined as AW1 along with Prasanna (AW2), Nagesh Hegade (AW3) being a Chartered Accountant, Manuel De Sa (AW4), Anthony Lucas (AW5) and Dr. E. J. Rodrigues (AW6). There was no evidence led on behalf of the appellant.

5. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the Truck. The Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs.13,57,000/-.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant is before this Court, in which, respondent nos.1 and 2 have filed cross-objections for enhancement.

7. I have heard Shri Afonso, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Smt. Agni, the learned Senior Counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2. There is no appearance on behalf of respondent nos.3 and 4.

8. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the Tribunal was in error in coming to the conclusion that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.23,000/-per month. It is submitted that the income of the deceased for the Financial Year (FY) 1996-97 was shown to be Rs.1,14,379/-, while in the next year i.e. FY 1997-98, it is shown as Rs.2,46,668/-and for part of the FY 1998-99 i.e. upto 12/12/1998 (the date of the accident), it is shown as Rs.2,00,375/-. It is contended that the Tax Returns for the year 1997-98 and for part of the Year 1998-99, were filed after the accident and as such, could not have been relied upon. It is submitted that there is sudden spurt shown in the income in the FY 1997-98 and part of the FY 1998-99, which is suspicious and could not have been relied upon. It is submitted that reliance placed by the Tribunal on the evidence of Nagesh Hegade (AW3) is misplaced. It is submitted that the Tribunal ought to have gone by the income as shown in the FY 1996-97.

9. On the contrary, it is submitted by Smt. Agni, the learned Senior Counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 that merely because the returns for the FY 1997-98 and 1998-99 (part) have been filed subsequent to the occurrence of the accident, would not be sufficient to discard the same, if the evidence otherwise is found to be acceptable. The learned Senior Counsel points out that under Section 159 of the Income Tax Act, the legal representatives of the assessee are deemed assessees and are required to file the Income Tax returns and as such, there is nothing unusual, if the Tax Returns are filed subsequent to the death of the assessee. On behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2, reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others; (2012)6 SCC 421 and Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others, in order to submit that even in the case of self-employed persons, addition of 15 % has to be made, where the age of th