The main legal point established in the judgment is the recalibration of compensation based on the deceased's income, future loss of income, and non-pecuniary damages, along with the consideration of contributory negligence and the adjustment of the interest rate.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Vidya Kant Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Pawan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company and perused the judgment and order impugned.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 20.10.2016 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.No.61 of 2015 awarding a sum of Rs.24,74,984/-with interest at the rate of 7% as compensation As the appeal can be decided on settled legal position for calculation and hence record and paper book by consent of all we dispensed, so that both competing parties can be benefited for the insurance company can save huge interest.

3. The accident and involvement of vehicle is not in dispute. The respondent has not challenged the liability imposed on them. The only issue to be decided by this Court is, the quantum of compensation awarded. The age of the deceased as decided by Tribunal has attained finality.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was 32 years of age at the time of accident and was in self business having his business in the name of s M/s Tulsi Industries. His income was considered by the Tribunal to be Rs.2,89,850/-per annum, is also not in dispute. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future loss of income of the deceased which should 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 the amount granted under non-pecuniary damages are on the lower side and it should be as per the decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra). Unfortunate aspect is that the Tribunal did not award any amount under the head of future loss of income and granted only Rs.15,000/-for non pecuniary damages and deducted 25% holding deceased guilty of contributory negligence.

5. As against this, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the award does not require any interference as the date of accident is 16.12.2014 and the decision of the Tribunal is prior to the judgment of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050 and therefore the Tribunal has not committed any error in not granting the future loss of income and the amount for non pecuniary damages granted are as per U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the U.P. Rules, 1998").

6. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and considered the factual data. This Court finds that the accident occurred on 16.12.2014 causing death of Ashutosh Gupta who was 32 years of age at the time of accident. The Tribunal has assessed his income to be Rs.2,89,850/-per year which according to this Court is just and proper, looking to his vocation. To which as the deceased was in the age bracket of 31, 35, 40% of the income will have to be added as future loss of income, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra). The deduction of 1/3rd granted by the Tribunal is just and proper as the dependents on deceased were widow, mother and a six year old minor daughter. The multiplier of 17 granted by the Tribunal would be recalculated as 16 as per the judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. The amount under non-pecuniary heads should be at least Rs.1,00,000/-in view of the decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra) as every three years 10% (rounded to Rs.3,000/-) be added to Rs.70,000/-. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels no interference is called for as far as deduction of personal expenses is concerned.

7. The principle of contributory negligence has been discussed time and again. A person who either contributes or is author of the accident would b