The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the quantum of compensation in a motor accident case, including the calculation of the deceased's income, future loss of income, applicable multiplier, and non pecuniary damages.

JUDGMENT :

1. As per office report dated 10.09.2019, notice dispatched to the respondent nos.1 and 2 by registered post AD has been returned undelivered. It is also reported that as sufficient period has elapsed from the date of issuance of notice, hence service of notice upon respondent nos. 1 and 2 is deemed sufficient in view of Chapter VIII Rule 12 of the High Court Rules.

2. Heard Sri Anuj Shukla and Sri Nigmendra Shukla, learned counsels for the appellants and perused the record.

3. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 28.01.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.9, Bulandshahr (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C. Case No. 73 of 2006 awarding a sum of Rs.1,52,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 6%.

4. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is also not in dispute. The only issue to be decided is the quantum of compensation awarded.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was 21 years of age at the time of accident and was a student of BDS first year. The Tribunal has considered the income of deceased to be Rs.15,000/-per annum. The Tribunal deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses, considered the dependency as Rs.10,000/-per annum, granted multiplier of 15 and added Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. The Tribunal on the basis of above calculation granted Rs.1,52,000/- to the claimants. The decision in the case of Sakti Devi Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2010 (1) TAC page 4 has been relied upon by the Tribunal and that is why the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that income of the deceased can be considered to be Rs.15,000/-per annum. The said view cannot stand scrutiny by this Court is the submission of learned counsel for the appellants.

6. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Meena Pawaia & others Vs. Ashraf Ali and others, (2021) 0 Supreme (SC) 694 wherein the Apex Court has considered the income of the deceased who was in the age group of 21-22 years and was 3rd year student in civil engineering to be Rs. 10,000/-per month, even under the Minimum Wages Act in the year 2012 and granted the amount under the head of future rise in income, though the income was considered to be on notional side. The Apex Court after considering the judgment of Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2012) 6 SCC 421, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, AIR 2017 (SC) 5157, Reshma Kumari Vs. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65 and Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, added 40% towards future loss of income of the deceased.

7. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the multiplier, amount loss of income and the interest awarded by the Tribunal are on the lower side and are required to be enhanced in view of the above decisions of the Apex Court.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and considered the decisions of the Apex Court, we are of the view that the income of the deceased who was a student of B.D.S. 1st year, would be at least Rs.10,000/-per month. To which, as the deceased was below 40 years of age, 40% should be added towards future loss of income of the deceased. As the deceased was bachelor and had mother and father, he would be spending 50% of the said amount for his personal expenses hence, deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased would be 1/2 and not 1/3rd as has been done by the Tribunal. The multiplier of 15 applied by the Tribunal on the basis of age of the parents is bad, as it should be on the basis of the age of the deceased who was in the age bracket of 21-25 years. Hence, the applicable multiplier would be 18. We