Sanjay Karol, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.09.2024 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1832 of 2022 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore, which, in turn was preferred against the order dated 19.01.2022 in Claim Case No. 92/2019 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal[Hereinafter 'MACT'.], Manawar[Hereinafter 'the Tribunal'.].

3. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 08.01.2017, the deceased namely Sushil, then aged 49 years, was proceeding along with two others from Indore towards Manawar, in a vehicle bearing registration number MP 11 CC 2555, when the offending vehicle, a dumper bearing registration number MP 09 HG 9690 being driven by Respondent No. 1, dashed into the vehicle of the deceased from the opposite side in a rash and negligent manner. Consequently, the deceased lost his life on the spot due to serious injuries suffered on his head, chest and other parts of the body.

4. An application seeking compensation[Claim Case No. 141/17.] was filed before MACT, Manawar, Dhar, Madhya Pradesh under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the claimant-appellants, being his legal representatives, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,41,00,000/-, stating therein that deceased was conducting business as an Insurance Agent and was the sole breadwinner of the family. It was stated therein that he used to earn Rs. 1,50,000/- per month.

5. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 49,77,000/-, vide award dated 19.01.2022, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 40,000/- per month.

6. Being aggrieved thereof, the claimant-appellants filed an appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore, seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

7. The High Court vide the impugned order dated 24.09.2024 in Misc. Appeal No. 1832 of 2022 enhanced the total compensation payable by Rs. 26,32,500/-, to a total amount of Rs. 76,09,500/-. The monthly income of the deceased was enhanced to Rs. 62,500/-.

8. Yet dissatisfied, the claimant-appellants are now before us. The significant point of challenge is that the compensation awarded is inadequate, warranting interference in accordance with law.

9. Keeping in view the principles laid down by this Court in Rashmirekha Tripathy and Anr. v. The Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Sriram General Insurance Company Limited and Ors[C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 27220 of 2024.], we proceed to examine the issue at hand.

10. In the considered view of this Court, the High Court erred by taking the average income of the last four ITRs. Given that the deceased was working as an Insurance Agent, it is completely plausible that there was a hike in his income in a certain financial year, dependent on performance. The same would not become a reason to take an additional ITR into consideration for the purposes of computation of his annual income.

11. Upon a perusal of the ITRs on record, the income of the deceased for the AY 2015-16 stood at Rs. 4,03,180/-. For AY 2016-17, it stood at Rs. 9,59,665/- and for the previous AY 201718, it stood at Rs.7,00,559/-. Therefore, taking into consideration the average of these previous three years and the nature of profession of the deceased, his annual income is assessed as Rs.6,87,802/-.

12. In view of the aforesaid, the compensation now payable to the appellants would be recalculated as under:

CALCULATION OF COMPENSATION