Point of Law: Accident – Death - Enhancement of compensation - Tribunal may release the money with certain stipulations and that guidelines have to be followed but not rigidly followed as precedents – Award modified.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. The claimants being dissatisfied with the awarded amount preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation.

3. The claimants moved Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 628 of 2016 before Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge/F.T.C., Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) claiming Rs.60,00,000/-with interest as compensation. It was averred therein that deceased was carrying on animal husbandry and income of the deceased was Rs.20,000/-p.m.. She was hale and hearty and aged about 28 years at the time of accident. Facts as culled from the record are that On 2.7.2016 at about 8 a.m. deceased riding pillion seat of motorcycle bearing Registration No. UP 70 CJ 6608 was going to Bade Hanuman Temple Dam, Allahabad and when the vehicle reached Rahimapur Petrol Pump, driver of Truck bearing Registration No. UP 72 T 4339 driving rashly and negligently without blowing horn, dashed the said motorcycle as a result of which the deceased suffered severe and fatal injuries and she died on the spot itself.

4. The Tribunal after recording evidence and after hearing the learned advocates for the parties, the Tribunal, vide Judgment and award dated 26.4.2017, awarded a sum of Rs.5,11,000/- along with 7% simple interest from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of actual payment thereof.

5. The accident is not in dispute. The insurance company has accepted their liability. The only issue to be decided is, the quantum of compensation awarded.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased was earning income of Rs. 20,000/-from the milk business but the Tribunal assessed Rs. 3000/-per month as her income. The Tribunal wrongly deducted ½ in place of 1/3rd and also assessed less amount under the head of future loss of income. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has granted Rs.10,000/-for loss of estate and Rs.5,000/-for funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/-as loss of consortium of the spouse which are on lower side and inadequate.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference of the Court. The learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the claimant is the husband of the deceased. It cannot be said to be dependent having his own income. It is further submitted that being own profession, the income assessed by the tribunal need not be interfered with.

8. After hearing the counsels for the parties and after perusing the award and order impugned, notional income of deceased can be considered to be Rs.4,500/-per month as occupation of the deceased was not proved by any cogent evidence, to which as the deceased was below 40 years of age, 40% will have to be added. Looking to the dependants of the deceased and the fact that the claimant is the husband of the deceased, deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased should be 1/2. As deceased was in the age bracket of 26-30, multiplier of 17 is applicable

9. Hence, the compensation payable to the appellants in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) is computed as herein below:

i. Income Rs.4500/-

ii. Percentage towards future prospects: 40% namely Rs.1800/-

iii. Total income: Rs.4500 + 1800= Rs. 6,300/-

iv. Income after deduction of 1/2: Rs.3,150/-

v. Annual income: Rs.3150 x 12= Rs.37,800/-

vi. Multiplier applicable:17

vii. Loss of dependency: Rs.37,800 x 17=Rs.6,42,600/-

viii. Amount under non pecuniary heads: Rs.70,000/-

x. Total compensation: Rs.7,12,600/-

10. As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned, it should be 7.5% in view of the latest decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mannat Johal and Others, 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705 (S.C.) wherein the Apex Court has held as under :-

"13. The aforesaid features equally apply to the contentions urged on behalf of the cla