On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the insurance-company, opposes the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the claimants and submits that the finding of the learned Tribunal in respect of Issue No.1 is not correct and the alleged accident took place due to rash and negligence driving of deceased Rajendra Singh himself. Counsel further submits that the finding of the learned Tribunal, in respect of Issue No.3 regarding quantum of compensation, is also not correct. Counsel also submits that the learned Tribunal has determined the age of the deceased on the basis of Exhibit-31 i.e. Income Tax Return, which was filed after the death of Rajendra Singh. Counsel contends that in the Voter Identity Card of deceased Rajendra Singh, the date-of-birth was mentioned as 1964, therefore, he was more than 47 years old at the time of alleged accident and the learned Tribunal has wrongly adopted a higher multiplier. Counsel also contends that the learned Tribunal, while deciding Issue No.3, has wrongly considered the ‘future prospectus’ of the deceased to the extent of 30% without any sufficient evidence. Counsel pleads that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of deceased as Rs.2,24,609/annually on the basis of Exhibits-12, 13 & 14 respectively. Counsel also pleads that the learned Tribunal had deducted 1/4th amount towards ‘personal expenses’ of the deceased, which is contrary to the provisions of the Act. Lastly, counsel submits that the learned Tribunal has
