JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Sharve Singh, learned counsel for the appellants; Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents; and perused the record.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment dated 07.02.2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.219 of 2016 awarding a sum of Rs.18,37,870/- 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 concerned has not challenged the liability imposed on them. The only issue to be decided is, the quantum of compensation awarded.

4. The insurance company has instructed the counsel for the insurance company that the matter be settled as even according to the judgment of the Apex Court as issue was no longer res integra as future prospects should have been granted as per the judgment of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has requested that the Court may look into the matter from the angle of the two minor children who have lost father at a young age. It is submitted that the Tribunal has not granted 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 and The Uttar Pradedsh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 though the rules specify misinterpretation in paras 44 and 46 of the tribunal order. It appears that the tribunal has committed gross error despite reproducing the provisions, how only 20% is granted. 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. The learned counsel submitted the salary certificate of the deceased, which is shown the income of the deceased was Rs.17,550/-per month as he was Supervisor in PPAP Tokai India Rubber Pvt. Ltd. It is also submitted that as the deceased was survived by widow, one minor son, one minor daughter and parents and hence the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased should be 1/4 and not 1/3. The multiplier has to be as per the age of deceased.

6. 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.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the factual data, this Court found that the accident occurred on 13.7.2016 causing death of Markanday Misra who was 33 years of age and left behind him, widow, two minor children and parents. The learned Judge has deducted the amount deducting allowance in the judgments of Sunil Sharma and others Bachitar Singh and others, 2011 (3) TAC 629 and Raghuveer Singh Matolya and others v. Hari Singh Malviya and others, IV (2009) ACC 933 (SC), the learned tribunal has misinterpreted the said decisions, the reproduction of paras 11, 7 & 8 quoted by learned tribunal but has misread the same. The reliance on Rule 220 but unfortunately he has misread the rule while granting only 20% of the future loss which is error which is apparent on the face of the record and Shri Sharve Singh has rightly placed reliance on the recent Judgment of the Apex Court titled New India Insurance Company Limited Vs Urmila Shukla and others in Civil Appeal No. 4634 of 2021 decided on 6th August, 2021 so as to contend that this error may be given even if the respondent wants to settle the dispute. The deductions made by the learned tribunal is bad. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.14,124/-per month adding 20% of income. This could not have been done in view of the judgment of Vimal Kanwar and others v. Kishor Dan and others, 2013 (3) AC 6