JUDGMENT

M.S. Sonak, J. - Since, learned Counsel for the parties requested that this matter be disposed of finally at the stage of admission, record and proceedings have been called for and same have been perused.

2. The appellant disputes quantum of compensation by submitting that the total amount of compensation awarded deserves to be reduced by Rs. 4,60,800/. The appellant has accordingly valued the appeal and paid Court fees on the amount of Rs. 4,60,800/.

3. Mr. Rathi, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that in this case, there was no evidence on record to sustain the finding that the deceased was drawing an income of Rs. 6000/per month. In the absence of any evidence, Mr. Rathi submits that income of deceased could have been taken at Rs. 4500/per month, at the highest.

4. Mr.Rathi relies upon decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & others, 2017 (13) SCALE 12 , to submit that addition towards future prospects can be maximum 40% and not 50%, as held by the MACT. He submits that the MACT has correctly determined the multiplier 16 but, possibly by way of inadvertent error, multiplied annual income, less the deduction towards personal expenses, by 17. Mr.Rathi submits that this is an error apparent on record.

5. Mr. Rathi further submits that in terms of the ruling in Pranay Sethi (supra), including the particular observations in paragraphs No. 54 and 61(vii), compensation towards conventional heads ought not to have exceeded in all Rs. 70,000/. He also refers to paragraph no. 51 of the ruling to submit that Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, which deals with the aspect of "General Damages" makes no reference to the heading of loss of "Love and affection". He, therefore, submits that no award is liable to be made towards loss of love and affection.

6. Mr.Rathi, on the basis of aforesaid, submits that deduction of more than Rs. 4,60,800/is due from out of compensation awarded by the MACT. However, since the appeal is restricted to the amount of Rs. 4,60,800/, such deduction be ordered and the impugned award may be modified accordingly.

7. Mr.Rathi also submits that award of interest @ 9% p.a. is quite excessive than the current rate of interest of 7.5%. He submits that modification is due on this aspect as well.

8. Mr.Sayed, learned Counsel for Respondents No. 1 to 7-claimants, submits that there is evidence on record that the deceased was working as Supervisor on construction site and was also engaged in part-time business of sale of imitation jewellery. He submits that evidence of the claimants, in this regard, has gone unchallenged and there is really no reason to interfere with the determination by the MACT.

9. Mr. Sayed submits that the decision of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), is no bar for making an award under the head of "Loss of Love and affection" to the parents and children. He submits that the award made by the MACT is consistent with the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court and, therefore, the same may not be interfered with. He submits that the appeal may be dismissed.

10. The rival contentions now fall for consideration:

11. On the aspect of income of the deceased, on perusal of evidence on record, there is really no reason to interfere with the determination made by the MACT. The evidence on record indeed indicates that deceased Ateeq was employed on a construction site and may had part time business of dealing with imitation jewellery. No doubt, the witness, who is wife of deceased, has stated that she was engaged in the business of imitation jewellery. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is reasonable to proceed on the basis that Ateeq, by way of part-time, was involved in this business along with his wife. Besides, the MACT has determined monthly income of Ateeq at only Rs. 6000/per month, which comes to about Rs. 200/per day. Since, this determination is well within the bounds o