The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of principles related to negligence, composite negligence, and contributory negligence in motor accident claims, as well as the calculation of compensation and the rate of interest.

JUDGMENT :

Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.

1. Heard Sri B.P. Verma, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Devendra Kumar, Advocate has absented himself even in the third round. We have perused the award and record of the Tribunal impugned.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and order dated 6.2.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.No.494 of 2002 awarding a sum of Rs.1,77,375/- with interest at the rate of 7% as compensation.

3. Brief facts as culled out from the record are that on 26.2.2002, the deceased-Satyadev Sharma was going on scooter No. U.P.-15 G/7219 from L. Block Shastri Nagar to Tejgarhi and when he reached near Bank of Baroda then Tanker No. U.P.No.9002 hit the scooter from behind. He was treated in Lokpriya Hospital Meerut and Apollo Hospital Delhi and ultimately on 4.3.2002, he died. A very strange accident has occurred whereby a young person after being hit by a bus and tanker, died after about ten days in the hospital. Tribunal very strangely granted compensation to the tune of only 25% which was the liability of the tanker. The Tribunal held the driver of the bus to be negligent to the tune of 70% but did not grant compensation as according to the Tribunal, having not joined the owner or the driver of the said bus disentitled the claimants from claiming compensation. The better option for the Tribunal was to direct the driver and owner of the bus to be joined as respondents but neither the insurance company of the tanker gave such application. In this backdrop, that we are called upon to decide the liability and the compensation awardable to the legal heirs of the deceased. The deceased was aged about 46 years and was working as Labour and Industrial Law Consultation as well as Manager (Legal) in Sanghal Paper Ltd. And was earning Rs.20,000/- per month.

4. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is in dispute. Apportionment of negligence is under challenge. 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 for which we have minutely scanned the record. The involvement of three vehicles; bus, truck and scooter driven by deceased is not in dispute. The dispute is non-grant of 70% of compensation attributed to the negligence of bus driver.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was 46 years of age at the time of accident and was in the job and was having labour consultancy as Manager( Legal) in Sanghal Paper Ltd. and was earning Rs.20,000/-per month. His income was considered by the Tribunal to be Rs.75,000/-per annum which according to the counsel for the appellants is on the lower side and should be considered at least Rs.20,000/-per month. 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).

6. 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 26.7.2002 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. It is further submitted that the judgment of Supreme Court in Vimal Kanwar and Others Versus Kishore Dan and others ( 2013) 7 SCC 476 which has been pressed into