The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal principles from the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) to determine the compensation under various heads, including future prospects, personal and living expenses, and conventional heads, and modify the impugned award accordingly.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award dated 02.07.2014 ("impugned award") passed by the Court of learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.

2. By way of the impugned Award dated 02.07.2014, learned Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 52,29,900/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum including the amount of interim award of Rs.50,000/- from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the amount and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the entire awarded amount within a period of one month. The learned Claims Tribunal granted the compensation under the following heads:

SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT

3. Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath, learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company contended that the learned Claims Tribunal has not appreciated that the respondents miserably failed to prove the salary of the deceased as Rs.37,000/- per month in as much as PW-2/Sh. Robinson despite opportunity having being given, could not produce any corroborating evidence to show that the salary of the deceased was Rs. 37,000/- per month at the time of the alleged incident. PW-2 made a general statement that application given by the deceased and attendance registers were misplaced, however, no corroborating and supporting document to this effect was filed by the witness. Learned counsel further contended that in terms of dicta of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported as (2017) 16 SCC 680, compensation under the head "Future Prospects" is to be paid by adding 40% of the assessed income of the claimant instead of 50% as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. Learned counsel further contended that in terms of dicta of Pranay Sethi (Supra), compensation under the head "Love and Affection" has to be deducted.

SUBMISSION OF THE RESPONDENTS

4. Mr. Anurag Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents while placing reliance on the testimony of PW-2/Sh. Robinson, Accountant, M/s Fashion Experts Company contended that the deceased joined the company pursuant to the appointment letter (Ex. PW-1/B). Learned counsel also placed reliance on Statement of Accounts of the deceased (Ex. PW-2/C) to contend that the deceased was paid salary in accordance with the agreed salary of Rs. 37,000/- per month. He further contended that testimony of PW-2 alongwith Ex. PW-l/B makes emphatically clear that the deceased was working with M/s Fashion Experts as a `Designer' on a salary of Rs. 37,000/- per month. Learned counsel while placing reliance on the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) contended that compensation under the head "Loss of Consortium" "Loss of Estate" and "Loss of Funeral Expenses" needs to be modified/enhanced.

COURT'S REASONING

5. Brief facts of the case as noted by the learned Claims Tribunal are as under:

3. On 29/12/2006, the deceased Sh. Hitesh Kumar Chopra met with an accident with a vehicle bearing no. DL-lP-6332 which was being driven by respondent no. 1, Sh. Udai Bhan who came at a very high speed driven in a rash & negligent manner, hit the motorcycle of the deceased bearing no. DL-7SAQ-1011. As a result of which he received fatal injuries."

6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned Claims Tribunal has incorrectly calculated the income of the deceased as to be of Rs. 37,000/- per month. This Court has gone through all the documents and pleadings on record. PW-2/Sh. Robinson, Accountant, M/s Fashion Experts Company proved the income of the deceased and also proved the fact that he was employed with M/s Fashion Experts as a `Designer' before his death. At this stage, it is relevant to peruse the testimony of PW-2/Sh. Robinson, Acc