Assessment of compensation under non-pecuniary heads and the rate of interest should be in line with established legal principles and specific legal provisions.

JUDGMENT

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 18.07.2017 with the following prayers:

"a. Allow/admit the appeal of the appellant and set aside/modify the award dated 18.07.2017 passed by Sh. Sanjay Sharma, Judge, MACT, KKD Courts, in the case titled as Smt. Neetu Devi Vs. Shanawaz ors. in Suit No. 606/2016, thereby reduce the quantum of compensation.

b. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case may also be granted in favour of Appellant and against the Respondents."

2. In brief the facts of the case are that Sanjay Verma @ Sanjay Lodhi, aged 36 years working as a professional driver, died as a result of injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 26.03.2016 at 3.00 a.m. on Moradabad-Hapur Road, near Star Light Tourist Hotel, Garh Mukteshwar, Distt. Hapur, U.P., when the truck bearing registration No. UP 13 T 8672 being driven by Sanjay Verma @ Sanjay Lodhi rammed into rear portion of the truck bearing registration No. UP 21 N 9547 (offending vehicle) which was stationed just adjacent to the divider without any caution signal and parking indicator by the driver (respondent no. 5 herein) of the offending vehicle.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4 and have perused the records of this case.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that learned Tribunal has failed to take into account the negligence on part of the deceased who was also responsible for the said accident. He submitted that learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased without any cogent proof as Rs.15,000/- per month and has erred in awarding Rs.4,00,000/- towards non-pecuniary head. It is further submitted that learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that deceased was a permanent resident of UP and since the accident occurred in UP, the minimum wages of UP should be applicable. It is further submitted by Ld. counsel for the appellant that the learned Tribunal did not consider the fact that there was a delay of 42 days in lodging the FIR, and no specific reasons were given by the legal heirs in respect of the delay in lodging of the present FIR.

5. On the other hand, it is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 to 4 that the claimants were not granted any compensation under the head of future prospects and the respondents are entitled to the same in light of decision passed in National Insurance Co Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (SLP (C) No. 25590/2014 decided on 31.10.2017). It is further submitted that the driver of the offending vehicle (respondent no. 5), though denied involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident, but failed to question PW-2 Sagir Khan in his cross- examination, on material aspect that the offending vehicle was stationed on the road without any indicator or rear light. He further submitted that there is nothing in the testimony of PW-2 Sagir Khan to disbelieve him and the same remained unchallenged before the learned Tribunal. It is further submitted that the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- awarded under the non-pecuniary head is just and reasonable. It is further submitted by learned counsel for respondent no. 1 to 4 that the residence of the claimants and deceased was at Delhi which is manifestly clear from the memo of parties filed by the appellant in the present appeal and further submitted that the deceased owned an Eicher Mini Truck No. UP 13 T 8672 and was holding a commercial driving license. The deceased had got his truck insured for the period from 02.07.2015 to 01.07.2016 and also paid premium of Rs. 21,660/-, and since at the relevant time, minimum wages paid to a skilled worker were Rs. 11,154/-, therefore, the monthly income of the deceased was legitimately assumed to be Rs. 15,000/- per