The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to consider the deceased's income, future prospects, and personal expenses in assessing the quantum of compensation awarded in motor accident claim cases.

JUDGMENT :

Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajai Tyagi, JJ.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 30.11.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Agra/Additional District Judge, Court No.4, Agra (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.458 of 2009 awarding a sum of Rs.2,59,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% 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 and, therefore, issues decided by the tribunal other then grant of compensation have attained finality. The only issue to be decided is, the quantum of compensation awarded.

4. The brief facts as culled out from the record are that on 25.05.2009 at about 12.00 p.m., deceased Rahul Bansal aged about 20 years along with one Prashant Goyal was going by the Honda Activa Scooter as a pillion rider to his college in a moderate speed on his left side, a truck no.RJ-29/GA-0223 which was being driven ahead of deceased, in a very high speed suddenly applied brake and due to which scooter collided with the truck, the deceased plying along with Prashant Goyal sustained several injuries and died on the same day.

5. It is submitted by Shri Sundeep Agarwal, learned counsel for appellants that the Tribunal refused to consider the Income Tax Returns of the deceased and it is further submitted by Shri Agarwal that young boy who was Student of Engineering may have taken loan that cannot be adversely held against the earning capacity of the deceased. It is not proved by any cogent evidence by the respondents that the evidence of PW-3 is unreliable. It is further submitted that Tribunal has not granted any 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. It is further submitted that amount under non-pecuniary heads which is granted and the interest awarded by the Tribunal are on the lower side and requires enhancement. Learned counsel for appellants submitted that deceased was Student of Engineering and he was also doing part time job and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. It is also submitted that as the deceased was looking after his father and mother, the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased who was bachelor and 20 years of age should be 1/2. The multiplier has to be as per age of deceased, i.e., 20 years and it should have been 18 instead of 14 as awarded by the tribunal. No cogent reasons except that reasonable compensation would be if multiplier of 14 is granted as per age of mother. The tribunal has considered the judgment of Sarla Verma (supra) wherein also it is held that age of deceased be considered. The judgement of Sarla Verma (Supra) has been totally misinterpreted by the learned Judge. The tribunal could have very well even relied on the judgment titled National Insurance Company Ltd v. Shyam Singh and others, 2011 ACJ 1990 SC referred by reiterating Sarla Verma (Supra) which also should have been looked into by the tribunal while deciding the multiplier. The tribunal should not have taken the multiplier of the mother. However, it is now settled legal position that age of the deceased has to be considered. The tribunal has not assessed the future loss of income and it should be 40% of income as per U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 2011 and Pranay Sethi (Supra).

6. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance company, has vehemently submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any enhancement. It is also contended that there is no documentary evidence to show that the income of the deceased was Rs.10,000/- p.m. in the year 2011, i.e., year of accident.

7.