JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Nigamendra Shukla for the appellants, Sri Manish Kumar Nigam for Insurance Company and Sri Manviya Tripathi for the owner and driver of the Car.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 25.3.2015 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Judge (EC Act) Ghaziabad, (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.120 of 2014.

3. Brief facts as culled out from the record are that on 8.1.2014 the deceased along with her husband was travelling by motorcycle, bearing no.UP-16-AH-8708 and when they reached at U-turn near Radission, a Car bearing no.UP-14-BQ-0549 which was being driven rashly and at exorbitant speed dashed the motorcycle from behind due to which both the deceased and her husband suffered multiple injuries. The deceased succumbed to the injuries during treatment on 15.1.2014. The deceased was 32 years of age and was working as IT Analyst in Tata Consultancy Co.

4. The heirs of the deceased instituted a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.3,20,50,000/-. The Tribunal has considered her income Rs.54,614/-per annum and awarded a sum of Rs.27,85,314/-with interest at the rate of 6 per cent.

5. Learned counsel for the claimants has contended that the finding of the Tribunal in holding the deceased/her husband to be 50% negligent is bad as the deceased has not contributed to the accident having taken place.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was 32 years of age and was working as IT Analyst in Tata Consultancy Co. The Tribunal has considered her income Rs.54,614/-per annum but has not granted future loss of income. It is submitted that the deceased was survived by four dependents and, therefore, the deduction of ½ towards personal expenses is bad and it should be 1/4th.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has not granted any amount under the head of non-pecuniary damages which requires to be considered and granted. He has further submitted that the interest granted by the Tribunal is on the lower side and requires enhancement. The learned advocate has relied on the decisions in the case of Yerramma and others v. G.Krishnamurthy and another, 2014 (4) TAC 337 (SC) and Sarla Devi and others Vs. Divisional Manager, M/s. Royal Sundaram Aliance Ins. Co. Ltd. And another, 2014 (4) TAC 343 (SC). Paragraph no.6 of Yerramma (supra) is quoted herein below:

6. After thorough consideration of the facts and legal evidence on record in the present case, we are of the view that the collision between the motor vehicles occurred when the respondent-Corporation bus was turning to its right side without showing the turn indicator to enter the bus depot. The driver of the offending vehicle of the respondent-Corporation bus was negligent by not giving the right turn indicator and causing the accident. The driver of the respondent-Corporation bus should have been aware of the fact that he was driving the heavy passenger motor vehicle, and that it was necessary for him to take extra care & caution of the other vehicles on the road while taking the turn to enter the depot. Had the driver of the offending vehicle taken sufficient caution and care, slowed down and allowed reasonable provision for other vehicles on the left side of the road to pass smoothly, the accident could have been averted. Hence, we are of the view that the Tribunal and the High Court have erred in the apportionment of negligence at 25% on the part of the deceased and 75% on the part of the driver of the respondent-Corporation bus without evidence adduced in this regard by the respondent. But on the other hand, legal evidence produced on record by the appellants in this case would show that the accident was caused on account of the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle of the respondent-Corporation. Therefore, the erroneous finding recorded by the Tribunal & concurring with the