Point of Law : In absence of any governing principle available in statutory regime, it was only in form of an indication - If a statutory instrument has devised a formula which affords better or greater benefit, such statutory instrument must be allowed to operate unless statutory instrument is otherwise found to be invalid.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company.

2. The appeal arises out of a judgment and award dated 02.05.2018 rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Bareilly, in M.A.C.P. No.452 of 2015 (Smt. Rajwati and others v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co.Ltd. and others) partly allowing the claim of the claimants. This appeal has been filed by the claimants/appellants for enhancement of the amount awarded by the tribunal in the impugned judgment.

3. The brief facts of the claimants-appellants before the learned tribunal was that the deceased died of injuries sustained in an accident on 22.08.2015 which was caused entirely by rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle of Tata-407 model bearing registration No.UK-08-CA/3528. The deceased was driving a motorcycle when the offending vehicle collided with him. The offending vehicle was insured by the respondent-insurance company. The claimants are dependant on the deceased. The deceased worked as a vegetable vendor.

I. Compensation awarded by the learned tribunal:

4. The learned tribunal in the impugned judgment dated 03.04.2017 awarded compensation which is depicted in a tabulated form hereunder:

5. Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the appellants contends that the tribunal erred in law by incorrectly determining the income of the deceased and also awarding the amounts under various heads which were at variance with settled authorities in point.

6. Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company contends that the compensation paid was just lawful, valid and requires no alteration.

7. After advancing their arguments, learned counsel for both the parties agree that only the following questions fall for consideration in this appeal:-

A. Whether the learned Tribunal had correctly determined the income of the deceased in the record?

B. Whether learned Tribunal correctly computed the compensation under these various heads :-

(i) conventional heads,

(ii) future prospects,

(iii) multiplier, and

(iv) interest while computing the compensation?

7.(A) Income of the deceased:

8. The claimants-appellants specifically pleaded that the deceased was a vegetable vendor who earned Rs.600/-to Rs.700/-per day. The appellants-claimants also introduced one witness to establish the income of the deceased. PW1-Rajwati before the learned tribunal testified that her husband worked as a vegetable vendor. The entire family was dependant on his income. Under cross examination the witness stated that the deceased did not maintain any documentation of his business like receipt of sale vouchers, registration with the Nagar Nigam, etc. The credit of PW1-Rajwati remained intact under cross-examination. Her testimony clearly establishes that the deceased was a vegetable vendor and his family was supported by his income. Learned tribunal whic