JUDGMENT :

Sudeepti Sharma, J.

The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 1.6.2007 passed in the claim petition filed under Sections 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat (for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation granted to the appellants/claimants, who are the family members of the deceased.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

2. The brief facts of the case as mentioned in the claim petition are that on 9.11.2004, Sushil Kumar (since deceased) alongwith two other boys namely Vikas and Ashok Kumar was riding a motor-cycle for returning to Panipat from Karnal. Vikas was driving the motorcycle. Remaining two boys were pillion riders. At about 11.00 p.m. when they reached near Yamuna Enclave, Panipat, a truck bearing registration No. HR-69-1848 driven by Bijender-respondent No.2, at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner came from the backside and hit the motorcycle from behind. All the three riders on the motorcycle fell down on the road and sustained multiple Injuries. Sushil and Vikas received fatal injuries and died on the spot. Ashok Kumar was taken to Civil Hospital, Panipat.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and denied the factum of accident/compensation.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues

1) Whether accident in question took place due to rash and negligent, driving of truck No. HR-69-1848 and whether Sushil Kumar died on account of injuries received in the said accident, as alleged ? OPP

2) If issue No.l is proved, to what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled and from whom? OPP

3) Whether respondent No. 3 is not liable to pay any compensation in view of preliminary objections taken by it in the written statement ? OPR.

5. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,54,000/- to appellants/claimants alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum. Hence the claimants/appellants filed the present appeal for grant of enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to them.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

6. The learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contends that the Ld. Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 4000/- per month by taking into consideration income tax return. He further contends that:-

i) no amount was granted for future prospects, loss of estate and consortium.

ii) the amount awarded for funeral expenses is also on lower side. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and compensation should be enhanced as per latest law.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, however, vehemently argues on the lines of the award and contend that the amount of compensation as assessed by the learned Tribunal has rightly been granted.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case.

9. A perusal of the record shows that the Ld. Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 4000/- per month after taking into consideration income tax return, however, the amount awarded for funeral expenses is on lower side. Moreover, no amount was granted for future prospects, Loss of estate and consortium. Therefore, it requires indulgence of this Court.

SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another [(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121], laid down the law on assessment of compensation and the relevant paras of the same are as under:-

'30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having a considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the dec