The main legal point established in the judgment is the calculation of compensation for loss of dependency, non-pecuniary damages, and future prospects of increase in income based on relevant legal precedents.

1. On 26.03.2007, Sartaz Hussain, aged about 45 years, earning his livelihood as cutting tailor master, was riding his bicycle with Mohd. Mumtaz aged 20 years, a bachelor riding on the carrier seat. At about 10.45 p.m. their cycle was hit by truck bearing registration no. HR 46B 7073, it being driven negligently by Gurdeep Singh (a respondent in these appeals). While Sartaz Hussain died on the spot, Mohd. Mumtaz succumbed to injuries and died during the course of treatment. Two accident claim cases were brought before the motor accident claims Tribunal, one (MACT 627/08/07), by the wife and other members of the family dependency on Sartaz Hussain, they being the appellants in MAC Appeal No. 423/2011 and, the other (MACT 629/08/07), by the parents of deceased of Mohd. Mumtaz. Both were clubbed for inquiry and decided by common judgment dated 17.01.2011 by the Tribunal upholding the claim that deaths had occurred due to negligent driving of the truck.

2. The Tribunal awarded compensation in the total sum of Rs.10,81,200/- in the case of claim on account of death of Sartaz Hussain, the said amount inclusive of Rs. 10,54,200/- towards loss of dependency, Rs. 10,000/- each towards loss of love & affection and loss of consortium, Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- on account of loss of estate. In the case of death of Mohd. Mumtaz compensation in the sum of Rs. 5,46,000/- was granted, it inclusive of Rs. 4,68,450/- for loss of dependency, Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of love & affection, Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- for loss to estate. The liability to pay the compensation in each case was fastened initially on the insurance company (appellant in MAC Appeal Nos. 408 and 411/2011) though its contention about breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy having been accepted, it was granted recovery rights against the driver and owner of the vehicle. The insurer was directed to pay the said amounts of compensation with interest @ 7.5 % per annum.

3. The claimants in the case arising out of death of Sartaz Hussain have come up with MAC Appeal No. 423/2011, seeking enhancement. The claimants in the case on account of death of Mohd. Mumtaz have filed cross-objections under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which application (CM No. 20287/2011) was directed to be registered as an independent MAC Appeal No. 427/2013 by order dated 1st May, 2013. It appears that the registry has wrongly captioned MACA 427/2013 as one filed by the driver and owner of the vehicle in question. It shall incorporate suitable corrections in its records. Be that as it may, the said cross-appeal also seeks enhancement of compensation on account of death of Mohd. Mumtaz.

4. The learned counsel for the insurance company and for the respective claimants in the two cases have been heard at length. The record has been perused.

5. In the case on account of death of Sartaz Hussain, the claimants had proved the income of the deceased with the help of income-tax returns (ITRs) for the assessment years (AY) 2004-05 and 2005-06. The income for AY 2005-06 was proved to be Rs. 97,255/-. The Tribunal on this basis added the element of future prospects of increase to the extent of 50%. Given the age of deceased (45 years) this element should not have exceeded 30% [Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121]. The learned counsel for the claimants in above case, however, points out that the tribunal had deducted Rs. 8840/- towards income tax liability. It is submitted that in the income-tax return (PW-1/5) for AY 2005-06, the earnings to the above extent did not attract any tax liability. The argument is that there was no requirement of deduction on such account. It is further submitted that non-pecuniary damages granted are deficient.

6. The insurance company’s argument about the extent of future prospects being correct, the loss of dependency is re-calculated (97255 x 1