G.P. Mittal, J.:--

1. The appeal is for reduction of compensation of Rs. 16,01,680/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) in favour of Respondents No. 1 to 3 for the death of Balendra, who suffered fatal injuries in a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 21.05.2013.

2. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, the Claims Tribunal found that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle bearing registration No. UP-50W-7145 by its driver-cum-owner Abhijeet Singh (Respondent No. 4 herein). It was claimed that the deceased was running a shop and was earning Rs. 45,000/- per month. In the absence of any evidence with regard to the deceased’s income, the Claims Tribunal took minimum wages of a Matriculate (as per the deceased’s qualification), added 30% towards future prospects (age being 42 years), deducted 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses and applied a multiplier of 14 to compute the loss of dependency at Rs. 13,66,680/-.

3. The Claims Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 2,35,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages to compute the overall compensation of Rs. 16,01,680/-.

4. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant Insurance Company:-

(i) There was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Consequently, the compensation awarded ought to have been reduced; and

(ii) There was no evidence with regard to deceased’s good future prospects, thus, addition of 30% towards future prospects was not justified.

NEGLIGENCE

5. In order to prove negligence, Respondents examined one Sudhir, an eye witness to the accident. He testified about the manner of the accident and deposed that the motorcycle bearing registration No. UP-50W-7145 was being driven at a very high speed and it hit the deceased as a result of which, the deceased fell down and suffered injuries which proved fatal. The Claims Tribunal found that nothing elicited in cross-examination of PW-2 to discredit his testimony.

6. Respondents No. 1 to 3 had placed on record a photocopy of the site plan prepared by the IO in FIR No. 340/2013, registered at Police Station Daurala, Meerut. It shows that the offending motorcyclist had entered the service road from a bye-lane and had struck the motorcycle driven by the deceased. It was the duty of the driver of the motor cycle bearing registration No. UP-50W-7145 to have slowed down before entering the service road and to have entered the same after ensuring that there was no vehicle or pedestrian coming from the place where he was about to take a turn. The Claims Tribunal therefore, rightly believed the testimony of PW-2, the eye witness. The negligence was therefore, sufficiently established on the test of preponderance of probability. It cannot be said that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The finding on negligence cannot be faulted.

MULTIPLICAND AND FUTURE PROSPECTS

7. Smt. Suda, widow of deceased Balendra testified that the deceased was doing business and was earning Rs. 45,000/- per month. No details of the business were given by said Suda. No documentary evidence was also produced with regard to the business being carried on by the deceased. The Claims Tribunal therefore, rightly took the minimum wages of a Matriculate as per his qualification to compute the loss of dependency.

8. As far as future prospects are concerned, proposition of law laid down in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 that there will be addition of 50% and 30% towards future prospects when a victim is in settled employment having bright future prospects like government service in the age group of upto 40 years and above 40 years but less than 50 years respectively was affirmed by a three Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65. The question of grant of future prospects was also dealt with by this Court at great length i