JUDGMENT :

1. Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company (for short ‘the Insurance Company’) against the judgment and award dated 17.09.2011 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.90/2009, whereby an amount of Rs.16,19,596/-alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition was awarded as compensation in favour of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 ((for short ‘the claimants’).

2. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal had erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.22,703/-per month. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company also submits that the Tribunal deducted only 1/5th towards the personal expenses of the income of the deceased, whereas deceased had 3 family members because deceased’s son had got the Government Job. So, deduction should be 1/3rd of the deceased’s income. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company also submits that the Tribunal had not deducted the income tax on the awarded amount, as per the prevalent rate, income tax be deducted on the award amount. So, award of the Tribunal be modified.

3. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Smt. Rashmi Chawla & Ors. in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2724/2012 decided on 19.07.2012; (2) Darshan Kaur & Anr. Vs. Vidya Thakur & Ors. reported in 2017 ACJ 1583; (3) Kumaran & Ors. Vs. Roy Mathew & Ors. reported in 2017 ACJ 1325; (4) Smt. Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 and (5) Asha & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. reported in 2004 ACJ 448.

4. Learned counsel for the claimants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the Insurance Company and submitted that the Tribunal had deducted the income of the deceased’s son Surya Prakash from the deceased’s income. He further submitted that the Tribunal had awarded very meagre amount towards the love and affection. He further submitted that the Tribunal had awarded very meagre amount towards the funeral expenses as Rs.2,000/-, whereas it should be Rs.15,000/-. He further submitted that the Tribunal had not awarded any amount towards the loss of estate, whereas it should be Rs.15,000/-. He further submitted that the Tribunal had not awarded any amount towards the future prospects. As per the age of the deceased i.e. 53 years, claimants are entitled to get 15% of the deceased’s income as a future prospects. So, award passed by the Tribunal be modified.

5. Learned counsel for the claimants has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar & Ors. Vs. Kishore Dan & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.5513/2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.6367/2012) decided on 03.05.2013.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the Insurance Company as well as learned counsel for the claimants.

7. The Tribunal had assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.22,703/-per month but his son got compensatory appointment, so, the Tribunal deducted the salary of deceased’s son Surya Prakash from deceased’s income. The Tribunal had also committed error in deducting the 1/5th amount as a personal expenses of the deceased, whereas as per the dependency, it should be 1/3rd of the deceased’s income. The Tribunal had awarded very meagre amount towards the love & affection and consortium, whereas it should be Rs.40,000/-as a lump sum instead of Rs.5,000/-per claimants. The Tribunal had not awarded any amount towards the loss of estate, whereas it should be Rs.15,000/-. The Tribunal had awarded very meagre amount in the head of funeral expenses, whereas it should be Rs.15,000/-instead of Rs.2,000/-. The Tribunal had not awarded any amount towards the future prospects. As