JUDGMENT :

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by Insurance Company against award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla (in short ‘MACT’), whereby MACT has awarded compensation for a sum of Rs.13,38,500/- along with interest thereon @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization of whole amount, to be payable by appellant/Insurance Company to respondent No.1 and her children as apportioned in the impugned award.

2. I have heard learned counsel for contesting parties and have also gone through record.

3. First issue raised by learned counsel for appellant is that addition of 15% of income of deceased in his income for the purpose of determining amount of compensation is wrong particularly in view of ratio of pronouncement of Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017(4) ACJ 2700: AIR 2017 SC 5157: (2017)16 SCC 680, reiterated in Civil Appeal No 2705 of 2020 titled United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur and others decided on 30th June, 2020. It is contended that in view of above referred judgments of the Supreme Court coupled with facts of present case, only 10% of the income could have been added for the purpose of calculation of amount of compensation payable.

4. On aforesaid issue, the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case has concluded as under:-

“59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-

…………….

59.3 While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case, the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.

59.4 In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component….”

5. In present case age of deceased in claim petition has been mentioned as 51 years. PW1 claimant/respondent No.1, in her statement, has stated the age of her husband as 50 years, whereas in postmortem report, age of deceased has been recorded as 52 years. In driving licence of deceased, his date of birth has been recorded as 3.11.1960. Accident had taken place on 2.11.2012. Therefore, on the day of accident, according to date of birth recorded in driving licence, deceased had 11 days short to complete 52 years. In any case, age of deceased was above 50 which is in the age group of 50 to 60 years.

6. It has come in evidence of PW3 Narender Singh that except for some period in the year 2011, he had engaged the deceased in casual manner and it is also proved on record by claimant/respondent No.1 that deceased was earning his livelihood as a driver as well as tourist guide. Therefore, deceased was not having permanent job, but, was self employed and during his regular engagement as driver, his employer was giving him a fixed salary.

7. In aforesaid facts and circumstances, applying dictum of para 59.4 of Pranay Sethi’s case supra, only 10% of established income should be added in income of deceased for computation of compensation. Therefore, on this count, impugned award deserves to be modified.

8. Second issue raised on behalf of appellant is that award of Rs.50,000/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses and award of Rs.1 lac for loss of consortium to claimant is also contrary to pronouncements of the Supreme Court