JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Mayank, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Sushil Kumar Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the judgment and order impugned.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 22.4.2016 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Mathura (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C. No. 567 of 2014 awarding a sum of Rs.23,51,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% as compensation.

3. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is not in dispute. The respondent 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 deceased was about 32 years at the time of the accident. Tribunal has wrongly assessed his income as Rs.16260/- by excluding the amount of HRA. It is submitted that in view of the Judgment of Apex Court in Vimal Kanwar and others Vs. Kishore Dan and others, 2013 (3) T.A.C. 6 (S.C.) the Tribunal could not have deducted HRA and thus, income of the deceased may be considered Rs.18159/-. Further it did not grant any amount under the head of future prospect, 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 amounts granted under non-pecuniary damages are on the lower side and it should be as per the decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra). It is further submitted that the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased should be 1/3rd. Hence, the award requires enhancement.

5. As against this, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the award does not require any interference. The Tribunal has not committed any error in not granting the future loss of income.

6. We have considered the submissions and considered the factual data. The deceased was fourth class employee in National Federation of Cooperative Federation of Corporative Sugar Factory. We agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that HRA cannot be excluded while considering the income of the deceased in view of Judgment in Vimal Kanwar (supra). Thus, we consider income of the deceased to Rs.18159/-. Further as the deceased was below 40 years of age and a salaried person, 50% is to be added towards future loss of income. Main contention of Sri Mehrotra is that deduction of 1/4 is bad as father cannot be said to be dependent and deduction of personal expenses has to be always based on the number of dependents/legal representative of the deceased. We are convinced with the submission of Sri Mehrotra. Thus, deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/3rd and not 1/4th. The amount under the head of non-pecuniary head would be Rs.70,000/-+30,000 as this is appeal of the year 2016 and about four years have elapsed.

7. Hence, total compensation payable is recalculated and is computed herein-below:

8. As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned, it should be 7.5% in view of the latest decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mannat Johal and Others, 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705 (S.C.) wherein the Apex Court has held as under:-

"13. The aforesaid features equally apply to the contentions urged on behalf of the claimants