The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal principles from previous judgments to determine the appropriate deductions and multipliers for the calculation of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J. The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act") against the Award dated 16.01.2013 passed by the Court of learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (West), Delhi ("impugned Award").

2. By way of impugned Award dated 16.01.2013 the learned Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.46,60,124/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the amount and directed the Insurance Company to pay the entire awarded amount within a period of one month. Learned Claims Tribunal granted the compensation under the following heads:

SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANTS

3. Mr. Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the appellants while seeking enhancement of the compensation contended that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in calculating the monthly income of the deceased/victim. He further contended that the learned Claims Tribunal has erroneously deducted the conveyance allowance from the total annual income of the deceased/victim for the purpose of determining the compensation under the head `Loss of Dependency'. Learned counsel further sought enhancement in the rate of interest awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal from 7.5% to 9%. Learned counsel while placing reliance on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported as (2017) 16 SCC 680 contended that compensation under the head `Loss of Consortium', `Loss of Estate' and `Loss of Funeral Expenses' needs to be modified/enhanced.

SUBMISSION OF THE RESPONDENT

4. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for Respondent no. 3 contended that the date of accident was 11.10.2010 and the date of birth of the deceased/victim was 14.01.1965. As such on the date of the alleged incident, the deceased/victim was more than 45 years of age and taking into the account the age of the deceased on the date of incident, the learned Claims Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier as 14 instead of 13. Learned counsel further contended that the learned Claims Tribunal has correctly assessed the income of the deceased/victim and no modification in the monthly income assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal is called for by this Court. Learned counsel fairly concedes for grant of compensation under the head `Loss of Consortium', `Loss of Estate' and `Loss of Funeral Expenses' in terms of Pranay Sethi (supra).

COURT'S REASONING

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

"...on 11.10.10 while the deceased was crossing the road at in front of Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, in the meantime the offending vehicle bearing No. DL-1PB 5356 which was driven by its driver Respondent no.1 in rash and negligent manner hit the deceased. Resultantly, the deceased fell down and died....."

6. The limited contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellants for enhancement of the compensation amount are that (i) the learned Claims Tribunal erred in not calculating the conveyance allowance in the total income of the deceased/victim for the purpose of computation of the compensation under the loss of dependency and (ii) for grant of compensation under the head `Loss of Consortium', `Loss of Estate' and `Loss of Funeral Expenses' in terms of Pranay Sethi (supra).

7. In this context, it will be pertinent to apply the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Shyamwati Sharma v. Karam Singh reported as (2010) 12 SCC 378 and Manasvi Jain v. DTC Ltd. reported as (2014) 13 SCC 22, wherein it was categorically held that except contribution towards income tax, the other voluntary contributions made by the deceased, which are in the nature of savings, cannot be deducte