The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation for loss of dependency and non-pecuniary heads, based on the deceased's income, multipliers, personal expenses, and the rate of interest.

1. The above-captioned two appeals arise out of common impugned Award of 2nd January, 2008 which grants compensation of Rs.16,87,400/- with interest @ 7% per annum to Claimants on account of death of one Krishan Pal Singh in a road accident on 21st February, 2004. In the above-captioned first appeal, reduction of compensation is sought whereas in the above-captioned second appeal, enhancement of compensation is sought.

2. The facts are already noted in detail in impugned Award and so, need no reproduction. Suffice to note that apart from the evidence of Claimants, there is evidence of Sameet Gambhir (PW-4), a friend of deceased, who has deposed on the income aspect of deceased. The breakup of compensation as awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) is as under:-

3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the above-captioned two appeals have been heard together and by this common judgment, they are being decided.

4. Learned counsel for Insurer submits that 50% addition towards ‘future prospects’ has been erroneously made by learned Tribunal while assessing the ‘loss of dependency’ and that multiplier of 15 ought to have been applied as the deceased was aged 37 years on the day of the accident. So, it is submitted that impugned Award needs to be suitably modified to reduce the quantum of compensation granted.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for Claimants submits that compensation granted by learned Tribunal is inadequate and it needs to be suitably enhanced. It is pointed out by learned counsel for Claimants that the compensation granted under the non-pecuniary heads is inadequate and that the income of deceased ought to have been taken on the basis of bank statements of deceased. It is submitted that the multiplier applied is correct. Enhancement of compensation is sought by learned counsel for Claimants while pointing out that deceased was a Company Secretary by profession and was into private practice and was earning well and this aspect has not been considered by learned Tribunal. It is also pointed out by learned counsel for Claimants that since there are four dependents, therefore, deduction of 1/4th ought to have been made towards ‘personal expenses’ of deceased and not 1/3rd, as has been done by learned Tribunal. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for Claimants that the rate of interest granted by learned Tribunal is on lower side and it needs to be suitably enhanced. In support of these submissions, reliance is placed upon Supreme Court’s decisions in Rajesh and Others v. Rajbir Singh and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 54 and Kalpanaraj and Others v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (2015) 2 SCC 764 and decision of this Court in MAC. APP. 324/2016 titled Kiran v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., rendered on 9th December, 2016.

6. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award, evidence on record and the decisions cited, I find that since deceased was aged 37 years on the day of accident, therefore, multiplier of 15 ought to have been applied. Learned Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 16. However, the Tribunal has rightly not placed reliance upon the bank statements of deceased to assess the ‘loss of dependency’ because it does not co-relate with deceased’s Income Tax Returns of last two years. Learned Tribunal has rightly relied upon the Income Tax Returns to assess the income of deceased. This Court is fortified by a recent decision of Supreme Court in Kalpanaraj (supra) to rely upon the Income Tax Returns to assess the income of deceased. So, no case for enhancement of compensation under the head of ‘loss of d