Point of Law: Income Tax is the mirror of one's income unless proved otherwise.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Udit Chandra, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Sudhanshu Behari Lal Gour, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The written submission of learned counsel for appellants is also taken on record.

3. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment dated 5.8.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Pilibhit (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No.63 of 2006 awarding a sum of Rs.6,50,000/-with interest at the rate of 6% as compensation.

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

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future loss of income of the deceased which is required to be granted in view of the decision in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050. It is further submitted that amount under non-pecuniary heads granted and the interest awarded by the Tribunal are on the lower side and require enhancement. It is also submitted that as the deceased was survived by his parents and hence the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased should be 1/3 and not 1/2 as by tribunal under challenge. The multiplier has to be as per age of deceased. To which as the deceased was in age bracket of 26-30 years, 50% of the income will have to be added as future prospects in view of the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050. Learned counsel for the appellant in his favour he has relied on the following judgments to substantiate his submissions for enhancement.

(i) National insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25590 of 2014, decided on 31.10.2017.

(ii) P.S. Somanathan and others v. District Insurance Officer and another, Civil Appeal No.1891 of 2011, decided on 17.2.2011.

(iii) Munna Lal Jain and another v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others, Civil Appeal No.4497 of 2015, decided on 15.5.2015.

(iv) Smt. Neeta w/o Kallappa Kadolkar and others v. The Div. Manager, MSRTC, Kolhapur, Civil Appeal Nos. 348-349 of 2015.

(v) Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza and others v. Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service, Civil Appeal No.8251 of 2013, decided on 3.10.2013.

(vi) Chandan Singh and another v. S.E.W. Construction Co. Ltd and others, Misc. Appeal No.296 of 2002, decided on 3.1.2003.

(vii) Smt. Kesh Kumari Verma and another v. Om Narain Shukla and another, First Appeal From Order No.319 of 2011, decided on 4.3.2014.

(viii) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Brijlata and others, M.A. Nos.675 and 707 of 2003, decided on 16.1.2008.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent, has vehemently submitted that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted and has submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any enhancement. The deduction can't be 1/3 but has to be 1/2 as deceased was bachelor and survived by parents.

7. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and considered the factual data. The accident occurred on 28.1.2006 causing death of Anupam Gupta who was 26 years of age and left behind him, parents. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.10,000/-per month, this assessment is wrong. There are three reasons for us to disagree with the learned Tribunal; (i) the post mortem report mentions the address of the deceased to be that of Rajasthan and he had purchased a motorcycle at Rajasthan, but he had not been working there; (ii) As held by the learned Judge, there was no accident having taken place in the Rajasthan