Accordingly, the yearly income was considered to be Rs. 36,000/- and
after deduction of 50%, it came to Rs. 18,000/- per year, since the age
group of the deceased was 30-35, the multiplier of 17 was applied and
accordingly, the amount of future dependency of the Applicant was
calculated at Rs. 3,06,000/-. Additionally, Rs. 2000/- towards funeral
expenses were given, thereby bringing the total amount of compensation
to Rs. 3,08,000/-. What the Tribunal did not consider as claimed by the
Appellant is that the deceased Padma was earning Rs. 25,000/- per
month, as the same was claimed on the basis of an acknowledgment of
income tax return for the AY 2007-2008, where the gross total income was
shown as 2,84,767/-, as it had been argued on behalf of the Respondent
No. 2-insurance company that there was no iota of documentary proof to
suggest that income was earned out of beauty parlour business by
deceased Padma and bare acknowledgment issued by the income tax
department for the AY 2007-2008 would not be sufficient proof as the
Applicant had not produced true copy of income tax return nor the record
of trading account, profit and loss account and balance sheet in respect of
the beauty parlour business and that the Applicant did not examine the
concerned CA or income tax officer to prove the fact of having filed
income tax return. The Tribunal relied upon the decision of the Calcutta
