Point of law: Tribunal had awarded interest at the rate of 12% p.a. but the same had been too high a rate in comparison to what is ordinarily envisaged in these matters. The High Court, after making a substantial enhancement in the award amount, modified the interest component at a reasonable rate of 7.5% p.a. and we find no reason to allow the interest in this matter at any rate higher than that allowed by High Court.

JUDGMENT :

AJAI TYAGI, J.

1. This appeal at the behest of the appellants has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 04.04.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chitrakoot in MACP No. 154/70/2016 (Smt. Sarla Devi and Others vs. Satendra Singh), whereby learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 16,95,350/- with rate of interest 7% per annum.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the claim petition was filed by the appellants for the death of Chandra Pal @ Chandan Singh Rathore, who died in road accident. It is averred in petition that on 16.10.2016 at about 7:30, the Deceased Chandra Pal was travelling in Tata Safari No. UP-79J-9596 from Maihar to Karvi Banda road via Chitrakoot. When he reached at the place of accident, the aforesaid vehicle was overturned due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle. In this accident, deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. As per averments the of petition, deceased was Assistant Teacher and his salary was Rs. 30,958/- per month.

3. Learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 16,95,350/- compensation with rate of interest of 7% per annum but appellants were not happy with the award. Hence, this appeal.

4. Heard Shri Shiv Narayan Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Mohd. Ashraf, learned counsel for the respondent as well as perused the record.

5. The accident is not in dispute. The Insurance Company has not challenged the liability imposed on it. Hence, mainly the dispute between the parties is regarding the amount of compensation.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that on the date of death of the deceased, he was serving as Assistant Teacher in Primary School Mahotara, Block-Naraini, District- Banda and was getting salary of Rs. 30,958/- per month. It is also submitted that on the date of accident, deceased was on probation and getting probation allowances of Rs. 7,300/- per month. Learned counsel for the appellants emphatically submitted that learned Tribunal has considered the salary of the deceased as Rs. 7,300/- per month only but the real fact is that after confirmation, deceased would have got Rs. 30,958/- per month as salary. Hence, Tribunal should have calculated the amount of compensation on the basis of salary Rs. 30,958 per month and not on the basis of Rs. 7,300/-. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that Tribunal has not added any sum towards future loss of income. In addition to these arguments, last argument was made by learned counsel for the appellants that in non-pecuniary heads, Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 15,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs. 5,000/- for funeral expenses. Learned counsel for the appellants relied on the latest judgment of this Court Dr. Anoop Kumar Bhattacharya and Another vs. National Insurance Company Limited, 2021 Law Suit (All) 1327.

7. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company objected the contentions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that at the time of death, the deceased was on probation and during probation period his salary was Rs. 7,300/- only as per his salary certificate. Learned counsel argued that the compensation was calculated by Tribunal on the basis of the amount of salary which the deceased was getting on the date of accident which is quite correct. Future salary cannot be taken into consideration. Learned counsel also submitted that appellants have wrongly argued that the Tribunal has not added any sum towards future loss of income because Tribunal has added 50% of income for future prospects. Lastly, learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of 17 while keeping in view the 30 years of age of the deceased, the multiplier of 16 should have been applied as per the direction of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 ACJ 1298. Hence, there is no error or illegality in fixation of award and it does not call any interference by