The main legal point established in the judgment is the reassessment of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, based on future prospects, loss of consortium, love and affection, and funeral charges, in accordance with relevant legal principles and previous judgments.

RITU BAHRI, J.

1. Present appeal has been preferred by the claimants-appellants (for short 'the appellants'), against award dated 4th March, 2013, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (for short, 'the Tribunal') whereby in a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,50,128/- was awarded to the claimants on account of death of Raj Kumari @ Paro along with her son Tej Pal who died in a motor vehicle accident.

2. On 21st April, 2012, Raj Kumari @ Paro (since deceased) along with her son Tej Pal (since deceased) had proceeded from Village Dhyangla to Ladwa for taking medicines of Raj Kumari @ Paro on motorcycle No.HR-07P-2212 which was driven by Tej Pal at a moderate speed and on due left side of the road. Arun Kumar was following them on separate motorcycle. At about 03:00 p.m. when they reached near I.G.N. College in the area of Village Dhanuara then the offending motorcycle bearing No.HR- 07H-5721 being driven by respondent No.1 Amarjit Singh in a rash and negligent manner and in violation of traffic rules came from Ladwa side i.e. opposite side and struck against the motorcycle of Tej Pal by coming on the wrong side of the road, as a result of which Tej Pal and Raj Kumari @ Paro fell on the road. The head of Tej Pal struck against the road and he died at the spot, whereas Raj Kumari @ Paro suffered serious and grievous injuries. She was shifted to CHC Ladwa and from there she was referred to LNJP Hospital, Kurukshetra but she could not survive and died on the way to LNJP Hospital, Kurukshetra on the same day. FIR No.61 dated 21.04.2012, under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC was registered against respondent No.1 in Police Station Ladwa.

3. The learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contends that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to the enhanced, in view of the judgment ''Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) Page 77', 'Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others, 2013 (9) SCC 54' and 'Munna Lal Jain and another v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others, 2015(3) Recent Apex Judgments 459', Asha Verman and others v. Maharaj Singh and others, 2015(2) RCR (Civil) 520 and Kalpanaraj and others v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, 2015(2) SCC (Civil) 193.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has vehemently opposed the present appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The compensation awarded by learned MACT as follows:-

Sr. No. Heads	Calculations
(i) Salary	Rs. 5000
(ii) 2/3 deducted as personal expenses of the deceased=	Rs. 3334/-
(iii) Compensation after multiplier of 16 is applied	3334 x 12 x 16= Rs. 6,40,128/-
(iv) Funeral charges	Rs. 10,000/-
(v) Total Compensation awarded	Rs. 6,50,128/-

7. Reference at this stage can be made to a judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Gopali and others, 2012 (12) SCC 198 whereby Hon'ble the Supreme Court in an old case of 1992 had taken the monthly income of deceased at Rs. 3000/- and cut of 1/10th was imposed, keeping in view the fact that a person having a minimum income of Rs. 3000/- could not think of spending 1/3rd of his income on himself.

8. Keeping in view the above mentioned judgments, the compensation has to be re-assessed as follows :-

Sr. No. Heads	Calculations
(i) Salary	Rs. 5000
(ii) 50% of (i) above to be added as future prospects=	Rs. 5000+ Rs. 2500= Rs. 7500/-
(iii) 1/10 of (ii) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased=	Rs. 7500-750= Rs. 6750/-
(iv) Compensation aft