Point of Law; issue of negligence is concerned, it stands concluded in favour of appellants as there is no cross appeal or rather it has not been pointed out before us that the deceased was a tort feassor

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Pankaj Rai, learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company and perused the judgment and order impugned.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 13.7.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Muzaffar Nagar (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.No.370 of 2014 awarding a sum of Rs.31,99,757/- with interest at the rate of 7% as compensation.

3. The accident is not in dispute. As per the judgment of Apex Court in U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Km Mamta and Others, AIR 2016 SCC 948, all the grounds raised in the appeal are required to be adjudicated and that is how, we would decide issue of negligence of driver and quantum and would go ahead with the discussion. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal has been partly decided in favour of appellants and none of the drivers or insurance companies have challenged the award. The respondents have not challenged the liability imposed on them jointly and severally. The issues to be decided are compensation awarded and whether there was negligence of deceased in the accident taking place for which the Tribunal has deducted the monetary benefit admissible to the claimants.

4. Brief facts as culled out from the record are that on 27.6.2014 the deceased along with his friends was traveling from village Soram to Manali in the car bearing No. HR-26 BV-7516, at about 2:15 a.m. in the morning when they reached Gurdeepazi at Kirtpur Sahab to Bilaspur Road, a Truck bearing No. HP-23 B-5215 came from the front and hit the car. As a result of the negligence of the drivers the accident was caused whereby, deceased Udaiveer Singh and his friend-Rajneesh Kumar who were sitting in the car have died on the spot and Mukul and Prempal who were also travelling in the car have sustained grievous injuries.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased was 42 years of age at the time of accident. The deceased was a government Assistant Teacher. His income was considered by the Tribunal to be Rs.31,090/-per month. It is further submitted that the Tribunal granted future loss of income of the deceased. The future loss should be granted as per Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2011 and also as per decisions of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Sri K.R. Madhusudhan and others Vs. Administrative Officer and another, (2011) 4 SCC 689. It is further submitted that the amount granted under non-pecuniary damages is on the lower side and same should be computed and granted as per the decision titled National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 0 Supreme (SC) 1050. It is further submitted that the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased should be 1/3rd or 1/4th as he was survived by widow, mother and two sons. It is submitted by learned counsel that tax is calculated wrongly and the deduction of income tax by adding future prospect is against legal position of law and is bad.

6. It is further submitted that the deceased was not a tort-fessor despite that Tribunal has deducted compensation which could not be done as it is settled law that amount cannot be deducted if the person sustained injuries or death occurred for no fault of his.

7. The counsel for the appellants has submitted that from the factual data, this Court can cull out that that the accident occurred on 27.6.2014 causing death of Udaiveer who was 42 years of age at the time of accident. The Tribunal has assessed income to be Rs.31,090/-per month even if not disturbed by this Court as Rs.580/- is the deduction which includes Rs.500/- as tax. It is submitted that the deceased was in the age bracket of 40-50 and had a permanent job hence additi