Hon’ble Krishna Murari, J.—These are two appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the ‘Act’) against the judgement and award dated 7.4.1993 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mathura awarding a sum of Rs. 4,30,000/- as compensation on account of death of one Virendra Sharma in a motor accident.

First Appeal No. 686 of 1993 has been filed by the Insurance Company alleging that the award made is excessive. Whereas First Appeal No. 674 of 1999 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the award.

The two appeals are to be considered in the backdrop of the following facts—

Virendra Sharma met with a fatal accident on 4.12.1989 at about 11.30 a.m. near Van Chetana Kendra on Vrindavan-Mathura Road while he was going on his scooter. He was knocked down by Ambassador car bearing registration No. UGE-1299, which was being driven rashly and negligently. He suffered grievous injuries and underwent treatment at various hospital from 4.12.1989 to 26.12.1989 and ultimately died on 26.12.1989 at Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 26 years and was a Government employee drawing monthly salary of Rs. 2420/-.

2. The proceedings were contested by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle as well as Insurance Company by filing written statement.

3. Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and after analyzing the evidence brought on record, both oral and documentary, held that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending ambassador car. Tribunal further held that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid driving license and it was duly insured with the Insurance Company. Tribunal determined the dependency of Rs. 3,60,000/-, and further awarded a sum of Rs. 5000/- towards suffering and pain, Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 15,000/- towards mental pain and untimely death. Tribunal also awarded a lump sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards funeral expenses, medical expenses in treatment and repair of the scooter. In this manner, a total sum of Rs. 4,30,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal towards compensation. Simple interest 12% per annum from the date of making of the application till actual payment was also awarded.

The Insurance Company has challenged the award only on the question of quantum. It is submitted that compensation awarded is excessive. Lump sum deduction has not been granted. It is also submitted that a sum of Rs. 70,000/- granted under non-pecuniary heads is excessive.

4. On the other hand, the appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation has been filed by the claimants on the grounds that the Tribunal has failed to calculate the compensation according to the longevity of the life, future prospects of promotion, revision of pay, annual increments etc. have not at all been taken into account. It is also submitted that the amount awarded is too meagre.

5. We have considered the argument advanced by Sri P.K.Sinha, learned counsel for the Insurance Company and Sri Neeraj Upadhyay for the claimants.

6. The Tribunal has calculated the compensation by taking monthly salary of the deceased as Rs. 2420/- per month. The Tribunal disbelieved the oral evidence that the deceased was spending Rs. 1500/- per month on the family and without there being evidence, held that he was spending Rs. 1000/- per month on the family. The Tribunal further applied multiplier of 30 and arrived at the loss of dependency to the family as Rs. 3,60,000/-. The Tribunal failed to take into account the fact that the deceased had 34 years of service left at the time of death and would have earned annual increments and pay revision during that period.

It is noticeable that though the Tribunal held that the deceased was not suffering from any illness or vice and thus, his average age would be 70 years and also had a minor daughter yet ignoring the aforesaid aspect and also the annual increment, pay