JUDGMENT

Anish Dayal, J. - The present appeals have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act") assailing award dated 10th January, 2014 ("impugned award") passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Saket, New Delhi ("MACT").

2. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. ("the Insurance Company") seeks modification of the impugned award on grounds that the monthly income of the deceased has been wrongly assessed, computation of dependents of the deceased is erroneous, and excess interest has been awarded. While the legal heirs of the deceased, Smt. Seema Devi (wife of the deceased/PW1), Master Abhay (son of the deceased), Shri Rameshwar Singh and Smt. Rama Devi (parents of the deceased) seek enhancement of the awarded amount.

Factual Background

3. On 17th April, 2012 at about 7:00 P.M., Rupender Singh ("the deceased"), aged 29 years at the time, was travelling to his village Isara Purvi, Uttar Pradesh on a motorcycle bearing number DL-9SM-1369. At this time, when he reached Edward Building, Noida Highway, District Gautam Budh Nagar, a truck bearing number UP-14-7060, driven at high speed, struck the deceased's motorcycle. As per the post mortem report, the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries.

4. The MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 47,75,000/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Rs. 40,00,000/- was to be deposited in the name of the deceased person's wife in a phased manner, i.e., a deposit of Rs. 4,00,000/- to be made every two years. The minor son of the deceased was awarded Rs. 5,00,000/- to be kept in an FDR until he attains majority. A sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- each was awarded to the parents of the deceased. Rs. 50,000/-has been awarded by the MACT vide an interim order dated 18th February, 2013. The computation of this amount is as under:

Submissions of the Insurance Company

5. Counsel for the Insurance Company made the following submissions:

5.1. Firstly, the income of the deceased ought to have been assessed at Rs. 11,592/- per month. In support of the same, he adverted to the income tax returns of the deceased ("ITR") filed by the claimants. He stated that for the Assessment Year ("AY") of 2011-12, i.e., Financial Year ("FY") 2010-11, his income was shown at Rs. 1,39,104/- per annum. Reliance in this regard was placed on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Anjali & Ors. v. Lokendra Rathod & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1683 wherein it was held that ITR shall be used to assess income of the deceased.

5.2. Secondly, since the deceased was in private employment, he ought to have been awarded future prospects at 40% rather than 50% as awarded by the MACT. For this, reliance was placed on the landmark decision in National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine 1270.

5.3. Thirdly, as per the guidelines issued in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 SCC OnLine SC 797, the father of the deceased must not be considered a dependent. Therefore, the deduction towards personal and living expenses ought to have been 1/3rd rather than 1/4th. As per her own testimony, PW1 and the deceased lived separately from the deceased's parents, who resided in their native village with the deceased's brother. Furthermore, reliance was placed on Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2009) 13 SCC 422 and Pranay Sethi (supra) in this respect.

5.4. Fourthly, with regard to non-pecuniary damages, he contends that the claimants were not entitled to compensation for 'Loss of Love and Affection' as was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United I