Hon’ble Salil Kumar Rai, J.—Heard the counsel for the parties.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Act, 1988’) against the judgment and award dated 26.10.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Kaushambi in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 19A of 2002 whereby the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the claimant. A cross-objection has also been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation and this Court vide its order dated 3.2.2017 condoned the delay in filing the cross-objection. Therefore, the cross-examination has also been heard on merits alongwith the appeal.

3. Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 19A of 2002 was filed by the claimant-respondent No. 1 claiming a compensation of Rs. 2,09,500/- for the death of his son Sri Virendra Kumar Sonkar on 14.11.2001 in an accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of Vehicle No. U.P. 72-B/8551 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Vehicle’) which was owned by respondent No. 3 and was insured with the appellant. Claimant is the father of the deceased. In column 7 of the claim petition, the parents of the deceased, i.e., the claimant-respondent No. 1 and the mother of the deceased were shown as dependants of the deceased. In column 6 of the claim petition, the claimant had stated the annual income of the deceased to be Rs. 15,000/- per annum on the basis of para 6 of the II Schedule of the Act, 1988. It was alleged in the claim petition that on the date of his death, the deceased was 18-19 years old. The appellant as well as the owner of the vehicle filed their written statements denying their liability to pay any compensation. In the claim petition, the Tribunal framed Issues regarding factum of accident, negligence of the driver of the vehicle in causing the accident, the inter se liability of the defendants, i.e., the owner of the vehicle and the appellant-Insurance Company to pay compensation and the amount of compensation payable to the claimant. In its impugned award, the Tribunal decided the issues relating to factum of accident and the negligence of the driver of the vehicle in favour of the claimant and held that Sri Virendra Kumar Sonkar died on 14.11.2001 in an accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. The Tribunal held the Insurance Company, i.e., the appellant liable to pay compensation to the claimants, because on the date of accident, the vehicle was insured with the appellant and the driver of the vehicle had a valid driving license. The Tribunal applied a multiplier of 15 on the basis of the age of the parents of the deceased and held the notional income of the deceased to be Rs. 20,000/- per annum and consequently awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the claimants after deducting 1/3 as personal expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal did not award any compensation to the claimant for funeral expenses, loss of love and affection, loss of estate or loss of consortium.

4. In the present appeal, the Insurance Company has challenged the award only on the ground that the compensation awarded to the claimants is excessive and arbitrary and the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal, i.e., 8% per annum calculated from the date of filing the claim petition is also arbitrary. It was argued by the counsel for the appellant that, in column 6 of the claim petition, the claimant had stated the income of the deceased to be Rs. 15,000/- per annum and, therefore, the Tribunal had acted arbitrarily in determining the compensation on the basis of a notional income of Rs. 20,000/- per annum. It was also argued by the counsel for the appellant that the deceased was a bachelor and, therefore, while determining the multiplicand 50% should have been deducted as personal expenses from the notional income of the deceased and the Tribunal had erred in deducting only 1/3 as personal expenses