The court applied and interpreted the principles established in Supreme Court decisions to modify the calculation of compensation and interest in a motor accident case.

SUNIL GAUR, J.

1. Impugned Award of 24th September, 2015 grants compensation of Rs. 19,22,352/- to respondents-claimants with interest @ 10% p.a. on account of death of one Avadh Bihari Singh, aged 45 years, in a vehicular accident on 25th November, 2013. Respondents- claimants are the wife, three daughters and father of the deceased.

2. The facts of the case stand noted in the impugned Award, need no reiteration. Suffice to note that the income of the deceased has been calculated on minimum wages and 30% addition towards future prospects has been made while relying upon Supreme Court’s decision in Rajan vs. Soly Sebastian and Another, (2015) 10 SCC 506. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (henceforth referred to as the Tribunal) while taking dependants to be more than four, has made deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased and by applying the multiplier of 14, loss of dependency has been calculated as under:-

Loss of Dependency
(a)	Annual Income of deceased-Avadh Bihari Singh (8,086 x 12)	Rs. 97,032/- p.a.
(b)	30% addition towards future Prospects	Rs. 29,109.60/- Rs. 1,26,141.60/-
(c)	1/4th deduction on personal living expenses	Rs. 31, 535.40/- Rs. 94,606.20/-
(d)	Total Loss of dependency	Rs. 94,606.20 x 14 = Rs. 13,24,486.80/-

3. The challenge to the impugned Award by learned counsel for appellant-Insurer is on the ground that deceased was not having any permanent job or regular income and so, no addition towards future prospects ought to have been made and that the deduction towards personal expenses of deceased ought to be 1/3rd and not 1/4th. The interest granted on the compensation amount is also said to be exorbitant. To submit so, reliance is placed upon recent Constitution Bench’s judgment of Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 SCC On Line SC 1270 and Sarla Verma vs. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121.

4. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondents supports the impugned Award and submits that future prospects have been rightly granted and since deceased was providing manpower for chimney work at brick kilns and used to earn Rs. 15,000/- p.m. and besides he was also doing agricultural work and so, the quantum of compensation granted is just and proper and thus, this appeal deserves to be dismissed.

5. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award, evidence on record and the decisions cited, I find that the learned Tribunal has rightly relied upon Supreme Court’s decision in Rajan (Supra) to make an addition towards future prospects but in view of Supreme Court’s recent decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra), the addition towards future prospects ought to be 25%, as the deceased was aged 45 years and not 30% as granted by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the impugned Award so far as it makes an addition towards future prospects, is modified to the extent that the addition made towards future prospects is reduced from 30% to 25%.

6. So far as deductions towards personal expenses is concerned, I find that in view of Supreme Court’s decision in Sarla Verma (supra) deduction towards personal expenses of deceased ought to be 1/3rd and not 1/4th, as two daughters of the deceased were married and not dependent upon the deceased. After applying the multiplier of 14, the “loss of dependency” is calculated as under:-

Loss of Dependency
(e)	Annual Income of deceased-Avadh Bihari Singh (8,086 x 12)	Rs. 97,032/- p.a.
(f)	25% addition towards future Prospects	Rs. 24,258/- Rs. 1,21,290/-
(g)	1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses of deceased	Rs. 40,430/- Rs. 80,860/-
(h)	Total Loss of dependency	Rs. 80,860/- x 14 = Rs. 11,32,040/-