The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of the Supreme Court judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi & Ors. and the proper calculation of compensation based on the deceased's income and other relevant legal principles.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J. The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award dated 29.04.2014 passed by the Court of learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Saket Courts, Delhi in Suit No. 221/2013 ("impugned award").

2. Facts borne out of the records are that on 13.06.2013 at around 12.30 pm, deceased Prem Singh driving his motorcycle no. DL 3S CN 2327, carrying claimant Bimlesh as pillion rider was going from Delhi towards his native village, when reached near bridge of Noorpur, PS Tapple, Distt. Aligarh, UP, on the natures call of the claimant Bimlesh, deceased stopped the motorcycle on the side of the road, at the same time offending truck bearing no. UP 78 BT 9012 driven by Respondent No. 8 in rash and negligent manner came at a fast speed and hit the deceased and his motorcycle. As a result, he sustained multiple grievous injuries and was removed to Kailash hospital, Noida by ambulance of Yamuna Expressway and at the hospital he was declared brought dead. Thereafter, his postmortem was conducted at the Government hospital. Being severally affected physically, mentally and financially by the accident, the respondents/claimants have filed a claim petition before the learned Claims Tribunal seeking a compensation of Rs.30 lacs.

3. By way of impugned Award dated 29.04.2014, the learned Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.20,07,199/- with interest @ 9% 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. The learned Claims Tribunal granted the compensation under the following heads:

SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT

4. Mr. Sameer Nandwani, learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company contended that the Impugned order is perverse and has been passed without appreciating the principles of law, documents and the evidence on record. Learned counsel further contended that no documentary proof was brought on record by the respondent to show his employment as such applying minimum wages for calculation of compensation and also granting 50% increase towards future is perverse and arbitrary. He further contended that the ratio laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported as 2017 AIR (SC) 5157 cannot be applied retrospectively.

SUBMISSION OF THE RESPONDENTS

5. Mr. S. N. Parashar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents/Claimants contended that the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle has been proved on record by production of records pertaining to the criminal case registered against the driver as also the testimony of PW-1/Bimlesh w/o of the deceased who was an eye witness to the alleged incident. Learned counsel further contended that in terms of judgment of Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported as 2017 AIR (SC) 5157 an addition of 40% of the established income of the respondents/claimants has to be granted under the head `Future Prospects' instead of 50% as the respondents/claimants was of the age of 28 years at the time of the alleged incident. Learned counsel further contended that as per the testimony of PW-1/Bimlesh, respondent No. 1 herein, the deceased was working as Driver and was earning a sum of Rs.14,000/- per month, however, the learned Claims Tribunal erred in granting minimum wages of unskilled labour instead of skilled labour. Learned counsel further contended that the deceased was survived of seven dependents and as such the deduction of self expenses should be calculated as 1/5 instead of 1/4 as calculated by learned Claims Tribunal. Learned counsel while placing reliance on the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) c