The court applied the principles established in the Supreme Court's decisions to re-assess the compensation and adjust the non-pecuniary heads in a vehicular accident case.

1. The above captioned two appeals are directed against Award of 7th April, 2017 vide which compensation of Rs.9,41,672/- with interest @ 9% per annum has been awarded to legal heirs of deceased-Raj Kumari, a Caretaker, aged 57 years, who had died in a vehicular accident on 31st October, 2016.

2. In the above captioned first appeal, the Insurer seeks reduction of quantum of compensation granted, whereas in the above captioned second appeal, enhancement of compensation is sought by Claimants.

3. Since these two appeals arise out of common Award of 7th April, 2017, therefore, both these appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. The facts as noted in opening paragraphs of the impugned Award are as under:-

“Briefly the facts of the case are that on 31.10.16, deceased was standing near the bus stand Ambedkar College for going towards her house at about 6:30 PM. In the meanwhile, the offending vehicle TATA ACE No. DL 1 LM 6481 came from the side of Gol Chakkar and going towards the Wazirabad. Driver of the said offending vehicle was driving the vehicle at a very high speed and in negligent manner and hit the deceased with forceful impact due to which, the deceased fell down and the person namely Rohit Jha called the police. Police came at the spot and deceased was taken to GTB Hospital where she was treated for her multiple grievous injuries on her person and due to this negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle, the deceased met with the accident and sustained grievous injuries.”

4. To render the impugned Award, the Tribunal has relied upon evidence of son of deceased and the other evidence on record. Since there was no proof of income, therefore, the Tribunal has assessed the loss of income of deceased on the basis of minimum wages of an unskilled worker and no addition towards ‘future prospects’ has been made. The Tribunal has relied upon Supreme Court’s decision in Royal Sundaram Alliance Ins. Co. Ltd. vs. Master Manmeet Singh & Ors. 2012 SCC OnLine Del 583, to make deduction of 25% from the assumed income, as the age of deceased was above 55 years and less than 60 years. After deducting, one-third towards „personal expenses? and by applying the multiplier of 9, the „loss of dependency’ has been assessed by the Tribunal. The break-up of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is as under:-

(1) Loss of Dependency	Rs.5,16,672/-
(2) Loss of Love and Affection	Rs.3,00,000/-
(3) Loss of Estate	Rs.1,00,000/-
(4) Funeral Expenses	Rs. 25,000/-
Total	Rs.9,41,672/-

       5. The challenge to impugned award by learned counsel for Insurer is on the ground that ‘loss of dependency’ was by son of deceased only, as the other two children of deceased were married and so, deduction of 50% towards ‘personal expenses’ ought to have been made by the Tribunal. Reliance is placed upon decision in Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 to seek reduction in the quantum of compensation granted under the „non pecuniary heads. So, it is submitted that the impugned Award deserves to be suitably modified.

6. On the contrary, learned counsel for the Claimants/legal heirs of the deceased refutes the aforesaid stand taken on behalf of counsel for Insurer and submits that the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal is inadequate. It is pointed out that deduction towards „personal expenses? is not justified as the Tribunal has already made deduction of 25% in view of the decision in Royal Sundaram (Supra). Thus, enhancement of compensation awarded is sought by learned counsel for the Claimants.

7. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned award, evidence on record and the decisions cited, I find that Supreme Court’s decision in Royal Sundaram(