JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Sudhanshu Kumar appearing for Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Saijan Malhotra for Sri Manish Kumar Nigam, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 21.10.2009 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, (Court No. 4), Firozabad (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No. 136 of 2005 awarding a sum of Rs. 3,32,690/- with interest at the rate of 6% as compensation.

3. The deceased was a business man and the Tribunal has considered his income Rs. 99,808/- per annum which is not in dispute. The Tribunal has not added any amount towards future loss of income of the deceased, who died in the accident which took place in the year 2005 as it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 0 Supreme (SC) 105, will apply with retrospective effect which is disputed by the learned Counsel for the respondents submitting that the addition cannot be made if the matter is prior to Pranay Sethi judgment and after the judgment of Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 ACJ 1298. The judgment in Pranay Sethi clarifies the judgment of General Manager, Kerala, SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 SCC (2) 176, and the earlier judgments. Pranay Sethi (supra) has clarifies what would be slab of compensation to be added for future prospect. Earlier the total amount used to be divided by ½ and then divided by 1/3 should now be the matter has been scrutinised by the judgment of the Apex Court which will apply in full force.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant states that the deceased had more than 6 heirs namely 4 daughters, one son and parents as they would be dependant on the son, who has his own business though it is vehemently objected by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the father cannot be said to be dependant. We are unable to accept the submission that 1/5th could be deducted, the multiplier would be as per judgment of Sarla Verma (supra) and that should be 13 as he was in the age bracket of 45 - 50 years. The Tribunal has not granted any amount under the head of non-pecuniary damages. No reasons are assigned by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has granted no amount to the minor children and the widow. We grant Rs. 1 Lac to all of them. Though the claimants had claimed interest @ 18%, the same cannot be granted.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the income of the deceased should be considered at least Rs. 99,808/- per annum which is not disputed and that 30% should be added as future loss of income of the deceased in view of the decision in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 0 Supreme (SC) 105. It is further submitted that under non-pecuniary heads, the claimants are entitled to at least Rs. 40,000/- each and that the interest at the rate of 18% should be awarded.

6. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that the income of a business man doing the business of bangles cannot be Rs. 99,808/- per annum even in the year of accident. It is also submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference of the Court.

7. On the issue of contributory negligence, we have heard both the learned Advocates.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, 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 neg