The court emphasized the importance of accurately determining the deceased's monthly income in assessing compensation entitlement.

JUDGMENT

1. The issue involved in this appeal is monthly income of deceased is considered by the tribunal on lower side.

2. It is the contention of learned counsel for appellants that the tribunal has committed grave error in not accepting the income of deceased at Rs.15,000.00 per month. The deceased was educated and was working as an Interior Designer and Decorater. The deceased had great future prospects and bound to earn substantial amount as his income. But, the Tribunal has considered Rs.3,000.00 per month as monthly income of deceased which is on lower side. The evidence is produced on record to show monthly income of deceased was Rs.15,000.00 but, it was not considered by the tribunal. Hence, requested to allow the appeal.

3. It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that no evidence produced on record to prove the income of deceased was at Rs.15,000.00 per month, on the basis of evidence produced on record. The tribunal has considered notional income of Rs.3,000.00 per month which is proper. The deceased was bachelor but the tribunal has deducted 1/3rd income for personal expenses, it should be 1/2.

4. I have heard both learned counsel, perused judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'). The issue involved in this appeal is income of the deceased.

5. To prove the income of deceased PW-1- Asad Musabhai Mithani, father of deceased has stated that deceased was his only son. Deceased had completed the diploma course in interior designing and decorations, he had also passed intermediate drawing examination. After completing his diploma course in interior designing and decoration in the month of December, 1995, the deceased started his own business. He was taking contract of interior decoration etc. Deceased had executed various works of house interiors and decorations and successfully completed the same, out of the said business, the monthly income of deceased was about Rs.15,000.00. Nothing elicited in cross-examination of this witness.

6. To support evidence of PW-1, appellants have examined PW-2-Akbar Hamid at Exhibit 21' and PW-3-Kamruddin Sattani at Exhibit 14. PW-2-Akbar Hamid has stated that, he was close friend of deceased, and the deceased had many projects in his hand prior to the accident. PW-3-Kamruddin Sattani has stated that, he had engaged services of the deceased for interior decoration of some flats in his society. He paid Rs.3,50,000.00 to the deceased.

7. The appellants have produced documents on record to prove that deceased had completed the diploma course in interior designing. The certificate is at Exhibit-'21'.

8. From the evidence of these witnesses and the certificate of passing diploma course in interior designing (Exhibit-'21'), it appears that, deceased was an interior designer and decorater. The tribunal has considered notional income of Rs.3,000.00 per month. In my view, approach of the tribunal considering monthly income of deceased is wrong when it has come on record that the deceased had completed diploma course in interior designing and decoration, the deceased was resident of Bandra (West) which is considered as high class society area, he was doing business there as also in view of the statements of the examined witnesses. The notional income of Rs.3,000.00 is on lower side. It should be Rs.5,000.00 per month. Hence, I am considering, the income of Rs.5,000.00 per month.

9. Deceased was 23 years old at the time of accident, hence, multiplier of 18 is proper. The tribunal has not awarded consortium amount and amount of loss of the estate and funeral expenses as per view of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram. 2018 ACJ 2782 (SC). The appellants are entitled for consortium amount and amount for funeral expenses and loss of the estate. The deceased was bachelor, hence, there should be 1/2 deduction for personal expenses.

10. Considering the above calculations, the appellants are entitled for f