JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants; Shri Nagendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents; and perused the record.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment & order dated 28.1.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Mathura (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.437 of 2005 awarding a sum of Rs.3,67,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% as compensation.

3. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is not in dispute. The respondent concerned has not challenged the liability imposed on them. The only issue to be decided is, the quantum of compensation awarded.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future loss of income of the deceased which is required to 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 amount under non-pecuniary heads granted and the interest awarded by the Tribunal are on the lower side and require enhancement. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that deceased was Business partner of M/s Sri Devi Pustak Bhawan, Agra by profession and was getting Rs.1,37,087/-per annum as per the ITR of the year 2004-05. It is also submitted that as the deceased was survived by his widow and three minor children and hence the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased as 1/4 is not in dispute. The multiplier has to be as per age of deceased should have been granted 15 is also not in dispute.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents, has vehemently objected the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and has submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any enhancement and it is also contended that the multiplier has to be as per age of deceased should have been granted 14 in place of 15.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the factual data, this Court found that the accident occurred on 24.10.2005 causing death of Anil Kumar Gupta who was 42 years of age and left behind him, widow and three minor children. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.2000/-per month. The deceased was Business partner of M/s Sri Devi Pustak Bhawan, Agra by profession, the tribunal has committed grave error in not considering that the appellants had proved the income of the deceased by proper evidence. The witness was also examined so as to bring whom the contention that the deceased was a Business partner of M/s Sri Devi Pustak Bhawan, Agra by profession. The evidence of the witnesses has not been accepted which is also against the Judgment in the case of the Apex Court in Vimla Devi and others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and another, (2019) 2 SCC 186, and, therefore, we are obliged to hold that the deceased died due to the accidental injuries.

7. The judgment of the Apex Court in Anita Sharma v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2021), 1 SCC 171 would also apply to the facts of this case.

8. As far as beneficial difference of limitation is concerned, the strict rules of civil procedure and evidence act are no required to adhered to.

9. In our case, prima facie it was proved that his income was Rs.11,424/-as ITR of the year 2004-05. In view of the judgment of Vimal Kanwar and others v. Kishore Dan and others, AIR 2013 SC 3830 except income Tax no amount could have been deducted by the tribunal in the year of question, i.e., 2005. The tribunal has erred itself in not considering the income of the deceased and has deducted amount which it could not deduct holding that they were personal benefits to the deceased. We cannot concur with the tribunal as far a