ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant is the widow of a fatal road accident victim. At the time of the accident, which occurred on 14th August, 2012 and led to his instant death, the victim was 28 years old. Apart from the appellant, the victim left behind him his two minor children, aged father, unmarried brother and sister.

3. The jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh [MACT] was invoked by the appellant by filing an application [M.A.C.P. No.75 of 2013] under section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 [the Act]. She claimed Rs.52,65,000.00 as compensation. On 3rd April, 2017, the MACT allowed the application in part. A sum of Rs. 6,63,000.00 was awarded as compensation to the appellant together with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of the application.

4. An appeal under section 173 of the Act carried by the appellant from the said award, before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, succeeded but again partially. The compensation amount was increased from Rs. 6,63,000.00 to Rs. 19,74,000.00 vide judgment and order dated 11th April, 2023 of the High Court.

5. This appeal is directed against parts of the said judgment and order dated 11th April, 2023. One part of the appellant's grievance is that the High Court, though noted Rule 220A-3(i) of the UTTAR PRADESH MOTOR VEHICLES RULES , 1998 [the UP Rules, 1998] and held that the appellant "is entitled to 50% enhancement in wages towards future prospects, consistent with the UP Rules, 1998", fell in error in actually calculating the quantum of enhanced compensation payable to her by factoring in 40% of the victim's salary and not 50%. The other part of the grievance is that the High Court failed to grant any amount towards interest on the enhanced quantum of compensation.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Grievance of the appellant, on both counts, appears to be valid and acceptable.

7. The Constitution Bench in National Insurance Company Ltd. V S. Pranay Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC 680 held:

"59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:

***

59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.

***"

8. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Urmila Shukla , (2021) 20 SCC 800 this Court upon considering a host of decisions including Pranay Sethi (supra) held that if a statutory instrument has devised a formula which affords better or greater benefit, such statutory instrument must be allowed to operate unless the statutory instrument is otherwise found to be invalid.

9. All these relevant decisions were noted in the judgment under appeal and in paragraph 18, the High Court did record a correct finding. However, the miscalculation in paragraph 22 occurred because of factoring in 40% of the salary towards future prospects instead of 50% despite the victim being less than 40 years old on the date of his untimely death. This led to a reduced compensation being awarded to the appellant, which appears to be an inadvertent error and requires correction.

10. We are also of the view that the omission and/or refusal of the High Court to award interest on the enhanced compensation is also not in accordance with law. In Alok Shanker Pa