JUDGMENT :

KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J.

1. Heard Sri. Vijay Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company.

2. Facts giving rise to this appeal in narrow compass is that on 5.11.2014, husband of appellant no. 1, namely, Sarita along with her brother, namely, Pravin riding on his motorcycle bearing Registration No. DL-7SBW-8095 was going to his village Asawar, Police Station Gulawati from Delhi and when driver, namely, Ankit driving a van bearing Registration No. UP-16BT-8799 rashly and negligently dashed the said motorcycle on account of which Raj Kumar sustained severe injuries. He was rushed to district hospital where he breathed his last.

3. The claimants (dependents of the deceased) approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Bulandshahr (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ by way of filing M.A.C.P. No. 174 of 2015 claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- and interest at the rate of 15%.

4. The Tribunal by way of impugned judgment and award dated 3.9.2016 awarded a sum of Rs. 21,51,140/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 7% from the date of filing claim petition till date of payment. Being dissatisfied, the claimants filed present appeal challenging the said award.

5. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is not in dispute. The Insurance Company has not challenged the liability imposed on them. The only issue to be decided is, the quantum of compensation awarded.

6. I have perused the Judgment and award impugned herein. Submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant as well as submissions of learned counsel for the respondent are heard at length and are considered.

7. The submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the respondent are heard at length and are considered. Learned Tribunal has evaluated that for the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- there would be no tax to be deducted then the Tribunal, he has total amount of income and deducts 10% as tax which it could not have done. The income of the deceased as calculated was Rs. 17,885/-.

8. The income of deceased would be Rs. 17,855/- minus tax to be deducted. The appellant does not seek enhancement of salary amount and restricts his claim to Rs. 17,855/- as decided by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that The Tribunal has not granted any amount under the head of future loss of income in spite of the judgment of Apex Court rendered in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. Sri. Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel could not point out that Judgment of Sarla Verma (supra) and subsequent Judgment of Apex Court rendered in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (0) Supreme (SC) 1050, would not apply to the facts of this case. The Tribunal deducted 1/3rd of the income, i.e. Rs. 5,961/- towards personal expenses of the deceased, which, according to the appellants, should be 1/4th. The same is vehemently opposed by Sri. Srivastava and this Court is also in agreement with the submission of Sri. Srivastava that it cannot be 1/4th but 1/3rd only and, thus, the same is maintained. Multiplier of 15 is also in consonance with the decision rendered in Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra), which calls for no modification. As far as amount towards non-pecuniary damages are concerned, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,000/- which calls for interference as looking to the Judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra), it should be Rs. 70,000/- plus Rs. 10,000/- for every year, hence, lump sum amount would be Rs. 30,000/- and thus, consolidated amount towards it would come to total of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

9. The learned Tribunal has evaluated that for the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- there would be no tax deduction then the Tr