Point of law: The 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 has been preferred by the claimants-appellants against the judgment and order dated 31.03.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Chairman, District Judge, Etah (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in M.A.C.P. No. 259 of 2009 (Smt. Kamla and Others vs. Shri Gurdeep Singh Kakreja and Another), whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,24,500/- as compensation to the claimants with interest at the rate of 6% simple interest per annum.

2. The claimants-appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of quantum.

3. The brief facts of the case are that claimants-appellants filed a Motor Accident Claim Petition before the Tribunal for claiming the compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the death of Satyavir @ Satvir in a road accident with the averments that on 20.05.2009 deceased was going with his brother in tractor bearing No. UP-21B-8515 with Trauli filled up with sand, on National Highway-24. At about 2:30 AM (night) when the tractor reached near Akhhar Dham Temple, a truck bearing No. HR-12A-1425 came from behind, which was driven very rashly and negligently by its driver and hit the tractor from behind. In this accident, the deceased fell from the tractor and the wheel of the truck ran over him due to which he sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Respondents filed their respective written statements.

4. Aggrieved mainly with the compensation awarded, the appellants preferred this appeal.

5. Heard Mr. S.C. Kesarwani, learned counsel for the appellants and Dharmendra Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record.

6. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence has attained finality and The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (in short ‘Insurance Company’) has not challenged the liability imposed on it by the Tribunal. The only issued to be decided is the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted that the deceased was 21 years of age at the time of accident and was unmarried. It is also submitted that monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 15,000/- because he was a labourer but the Tribunal has assessed his income only Rs. 2,500/- per moth, which is on the lower side. It is next submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards future loss of income.

8. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has applied multiplier of 11 on the basis of the age of the mother of the deceased while the multiplier should have been applied according to the age of the deceased as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Munna Lal Jain vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma, 2015 (3) T.A.C. 1 (SC). It is also argued that under the non-pecuniary damages no amount is awarded for filial consortium and the rate of interest is awarded only 6% per annum and that too simple imprisonment, which is not just and proper.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that there is no evidence is on record regarding the income of the deceased, hence assessment of monthly income of the deceased by Tribunal as per the settled principles of law. It is further submitted by Insurance Company that Tribunal has deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased while ½ should have been deducted as per the direction of Hon’ble Apex Court in Munna Lal Jain (Supra). The rate of interest awarded is also just and proper, hence, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and order passed by Tribunal which may call for any interference by this court.

10. This fact is not disputed that the deceased was 21 years of age and unmarried boy at the time of accident. Learned Tribunal has assessed his monthly income Rs. 2,500/- but keeping in view the fact that deceased was labourer and his daily income may be safely assumed as Rs. 100/- hence, we he