The main legal point established in the judgment is the correct assessment of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, including income, future loss of income, and interest rate.

JUDGMENT :

Ajai Tyagi, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants-appellants against the judgment and award dated 19.07.2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Azamgarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in M.A.C.P. No. 308 of 1999 (Mushtari Begum and others Vs. Kamla Shankar and others), whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,67,000/- as compensation to the claimants with interest at the rate of 6% 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 Rijwan @ Machhan in a road accident with the averments that on 16.08.1999 the deceased was going from his house to his brick-kiln in Azamgarh by car bearing no. U.P. E 928 at 10:20 AM, when he reached village Alipur within the jurisdiction of Tehsil Sagri, a bus bearing no. U.P. 53 A 6885 was coming from opposite direction, which was being driven very rashly and negligently by its driver. The aforesaid bus being driven in such a manner dashed the deceased’s car. In this accident, deceased sustained very serious injuries and died on the way to hospital.

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

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

6. The accident is not in dispute. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as ''Insurance Company') has not challenged the liability on it. Now the only issue to be decided is the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. As no other argument was advanced by any of the parties when the matter was heard, the details of case except for deciding the compensation are not being narrated.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted that the age of the deceased was 40 years at the time of accident. He was owner of brick-kiln and having agriculture farm also. It is also submitted that income of the deceased was not less than Rs.5,000/-per month but learned Tribunal has assessed his income only Rs.3,000/-per month, which is on the lower side. It is next submitted that learned Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards future loss of income and has deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased while deceased has left seven dependents, hence deduction towards personal expenses should have been 1/5th of the income.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants did not disagree with the multiplier of 15 as applied by the learned Tribunal but it is contended that learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses, which are on very lower side. No other argument was placed by the appellants-claimants on the issue of amount of compensation.

9. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company vehemently opposed the arguments placed by the appellants and submitted that learned Tribunal has not committed any error or illegality in fixing the compensation. Tribunal has made correct assessment of income of the deceased and sufficient compensation has been awarded in accordance with law. Hence, it needs no interference by this Court.

10. Perusal of record shows that it is admitted fact that the age of the deceased was 40 years at the time of accident but learned Tribunal has assessed his income Rs.3,000/- per month-, which is on lower side. Keeping in view of the fact that deceased was brick-kiln owner and having agriculture income also, we assess the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month i.e. Rs.60,000/- per annum.

11. The Tribunal has not added any percentage of amount towards future loss of income, which, in our opinion, is grave error. Since, the deceased will fall within