JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms Anubha Gupta assisting Sri N.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company. None has appeared for the owner.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 09.04.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.13, Aligarh (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C. No. 415 of 2005.

3. Brief facts as culled out from the record are that on 25.06.2005 at 12:10 p.m in front of Sugar Mill Sheikhpur, Furkan Ahmad was going to Badaun by his C.D. Don Delux motor-cycle by his side then only a bus bearing No. U.P 24/4925 coming from Budaun dashed with the motor-cycle of Furkan Ahmad. As a result of which Furkan Ahmad died on the spot.

4. The deceased was 39 years 11 months and 25 days of age at the time of accident. He was an agriculturist and was having vocation of advocacy and was earning Rs.8,000/-from his agricultural land and Rs. 62,000/p.a from his advocacy profession. He was survived by his mother, widow and three minor children aged 9, 6 and 3 years. The Tribunal has considered his income to be Rs. 62,000/-p.a, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, granted multiplier of 16, granted Rs.5,000/-towards consortium , granted Rs. 2,000/-towards funeral expenses and ultimately assessed the total compensation to be Rs.7,53,667/-.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the deceased Furkan Ahmad was 39 years 11 months and 25 days was an advocate by profession. His income tax report shows that his annual income was Rs. 62,000/-per annum for which no enhancement is claimed by the learned counsel for the appellant but the learned counsel for the appellant contends that he was below the age of 50 years and as he was himself employed professional even in the year 2005, the tribunal should have added 40% to his income which is erroneous as it has not added any amount. He has further submitted that he was survived by his mother, wife and three minor children aged 9,6 and 3 years and therefore, the deduction as per the judgements of Sarla Verma and Pranay Shetty and even in those days should be 1/4th and not 1/3rd. It is submitted by him that amount of non pecuniary of Rs. 7,000/-requires to be enhanced.

6. As against this, Ms Anubha Gupta, advocate assisting Sri N.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company contends that in the year of accident and when the judgement was pronounced this principle of future loss of income was not there and according to the counsel the multiplier adopted of 16, it should be of 15 and that deduction of 1/3rd from personal expenses is just and proper. It is submitted that the appeal was dismissed in the year 2015 and there is a huge delay of six years in filing restoration application and that should also be considered by this Court while considering quotient of interest as insurance company is not at fault.

7. It is submitted by Ms Anubha Gupta, advocate assisting Sri N.K. Srivastava that the quantum of compensation and the interest awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, income considered by tribunal is Rs. 70,000/-per annum, his income was Rs. 62,000/-p.a was his professional income as per the documents and the I.T return of 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 and his agricultural land. Let us consider the negligence from the perspective of the law laid down.

9. The term negligence means failure to exercise care towards others which a reasonable and prudent person would in a circumstance or taking action which such a reasonable person would not. Negligence can be both intentional or accidental which is normally accidental. More particularly, it connotes reckless driving and the injured must always prove that the either side is negligent. If the injury rather death is caused by something