JUDGMENT :

Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.

1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Siddharth Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 14.12.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 16, Agra (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No. 563 of 2008 awarding a sum of Rs. 3,69,500/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 6% from date of filing of the claim petition.

3. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is also not in dispute. The only issue to be decided is the quantum of compensation awarded.

4. The accident took place on 6.5.2008. The deceased, as per the claimants, was 33 years of age at the time of accident but the Tribunal has considered his age to be 40 to 45 years. The Tribunal considered his income to be Rs. 3,000/- per month, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, granted multiplier of 15, awarded Rs. 9,500/- towards non pecuniary damages and has calculated the total compensation to be Rs. 3,69,500/-

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month as Plant Operator in PNC Construction Company Ltd. Agra, however, the Tribunal has assessed his income to be Rs. 3,000/- which is bad and it should be 12,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future loss of income which should be granted in view of the decision of the Apex Court National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased was 33 years of age at the time of accident but the Tribunal has considered his age to be 40 years and granted multiplier of 15 which is bad and the multiplier should be 16 in view of the decision in Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 Law Suit (SC).

7. It is lastly submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the amount under non pecuniary heads and the interest awarded by the Tribunal are on the lower side and are required to be enhanced.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company has submitted that the income of the deceased as considered by the Tribunal is just and proper as income which was claimed was not proved by oral and documentary evidence. It is further submitted that the age of the deceased has rightly been considered as the documentary proof filed in this regard was not certified and the post-mortem report showed his age to be 40 years, therefore, the same has been considered by the Tribunal.

9. Hence, multiplier of 15 granted by the Tribunal is just and proper is the submission of learned counsel for the respondent.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased to be Rs. 3,000/- which is nothing else but perversity shown by the Tribunal in such a beneficial piece of legislation. The learned Tribunal has disbelieved the evidence of PW-3 and the documentary evidence at page 41 G which is the order of deployment of staff dated 18.1.2006. The deceased was appointed as plant operator and his monthly salary was Rs. 7,500/-. There cannot be any doubt once documents are produced and proved by the authority concerned who have appointed the deceased and where he was serving. In the documentary evidence at page 24 G dated 30.6.2008, it has been specifically mentioned that his last drawn salary was Rs. 12,000/- per month and, therefore, we are unable to accept the submission of Sri Jaiswal that the Tribunal was right in returning the finding on income holding that claimant did not produce any document to show that his income was Rs. 12,