Future prospects must be included in income calculations for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. Standard deductions for personal expenses should be uniformly applied based on dependents.

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 20.02.2013 passed in Suit No. 591/2012 by the Court of learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/(North)/Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "Impugned Award").

2. By way of the impugned Award dated 20.02.2013, the learned Tribunal Awarded a compensation of Rs.13,85,344/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the same and held that the Insurance Company shall pay the awarded compensation to the claimants.

3. Mr. Ravi Sabharwal learned counsel for the Appellant while placing reliance on the dicta of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported as 2017 AIR (SC) 5157, contended that an addition of 25% of the established income of the deceased should be granted under the head `Future Prospects'. He further contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) upholds the deduction ascertained in the case of Sarla Varma & Ors. Vs DTC & Anr. reported as (2009) 6 SCC 121 taking into account the age of the deceased and as such a deduction of 1/3 under the head `Personal and Living Expenses' is to be made. He fairly conceded that compensation @ Rs.40,000/- per legal heir is to be paid under the head `Loss of Consortium'. He further stated that compensation with respect to `Funeral Expenses' and `Loss of Estate' is also to be granted in terms of judgment of Pranay Sethi (Supra).

4. Mr. S. N. Parashar learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4/claimants agreed to the computation referred to by Mr. Ravi Sabharwal, Advocate.

5. The arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties are purely legal and based on the law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) has held as under:

"54. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh. It has granted Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.1,00,000/- loss of consortium and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to Santosh Devi, it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb Rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb Rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided.

Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhan