JUDGMENT :

SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.

1. This appeal is directed by original claimants for enhancement of compensation against judgment and award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) Latur in Motor Accident Claim Petition (M.A.C.P.) No. 385/2008.

2. Respondent No. 1 is the owner of offending vehicle and respondent No. 2 is the insurer of the said vehicle.

3. As no cross objection or cross appeal is filed by the owner or insurer of the offending vehicle, the facts regarding occurrence of the accident and finding regarding rash and negligent driving by the driver of offending vehicle need not be reproduced in the present appeal.

4. Heard Mr. Adgaonkar, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. S.G. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for respondent No. 2/Insurer.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that date of the accident is 15.02.2008 and on that date the deceased was 31 years old. He submits that the deceased was in service and he was permanent employee of Aviance Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Nagpur.

6. Next contention of learned Counsel for the appellants is that though annual income of the deceased was more than Rs. 1,20,000/- while determining the compensation the Tribunal considered inadequate annual income of the deceased on the basis of 15 days salary of deceased in the last month. He submits that even the Tribunal wrongly deducted one-third income from the annual income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, though the number of dependents in the family of deceased were “4.” He has pointed out that under conventional heads less compensation is awarded by the Tribunal and even rate of interest on compensation amount is not correct. He prays that rate of interest will be 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition.

7. The last contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that while determining annual income of deceased the Tribunal did not consider loss of future prospects due to premature death of the deceased. He placed reliance on the cases of Sarla Varma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corp. and Another, AIR 2009 SC 3104 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2018 (3) Mh. L.J. (SC) 70.

8. In reply, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2/Insurer submits that to prove monthly income of the deceased the claimants have not placed on record the bank account of the deceased to show as to how much salary was deposited in his account by the employer. He has drawn my attention towards cross-examination of Vaibhav Kasture (PW-2) wherein this witness has admitted that the allowances payable to the deceased are not part of the salary. He has also drawn my attention towards admission of this witness that monthly salary of the deceased was calculated on the basis of number of working days. Contention of the learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 is that the personal allowances payable to the deceased should be deducted alongwith taxes from his payable income.

9. Undisputedly, the deceased died in a motor vehicular accident on 15.02.2008. On the basis of Transfer Certificate (Exh.35) of deceased it can be gathered that the date of birth of deceased was 16.06.1976. Thus, the contention of appellants is correct that at the time of death the deceased was 31 years old young person.

10. By examining Vaibhav Kasture (PW-2), who is the Office Assistant in Aviance Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. the claimants have duly proved that since November 2005 deceased used to work in the said Pharmaceutical Company and he was permanent employee of the said Company. From the evidence of this witness it emerges that in the month of March 2006 the deceased was promoted as Business Development Manager (Exh.44). Other letters (Exhs. 46, 47) proved by this witness show the escalation in the monthly salary of the deceased. This witness has also duly proved monthly salary slip (Exh.48/1 to E