JUDGMENT :

Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.

1. Heard R.K. Porwal, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Shashi Kant Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent and perused the judgment and order impugned.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 16.4.1998 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/IVth Additional District Judge, Etawah (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.No.402 of 1995 awarding a sum of Rs.98,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% as compensation.

3. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is not in dispute. The vehicle insured with the respondent - insurance company is not in dispute. The respondent has not challenged the liability imposed on them. The only issue to be decided by this Court is, the quantum of compensation awarded.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side as the deceased -Ramwati is shown to be wife of appellant who has engaged in the vocation as a labour and agriculturist. The deceased left behind her husband and five children and the tribunal has considered her income to be only Rs.500/- per month and granted multiplier of 16. The tribunal has also granted meager amount of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses as the accident occurred on 18.6.1995. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the income of the deceased in the year 1995 as per Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar AIR 2001 SC 3218, can be considered to be Rs.3,000/- per month namely Rs.36,000/- per annum, to which as the deceased was below 35 years of age, 40% should be added, as she was survived by six persons, ¼ should be deducted and the multiplier of 16 should be granted. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that non peculiar damages may be awarded as per the judgment of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050 which has been made applicable retrospectively with 10% increase for every three years.

5. Sri Shashi Kant Srivastava , learned counsel for insurance company has submitted that the income granted by the Tribunal is just and proper. However he could not point out that the future loss which has not been granted has been properly granted. As far as multiplier is concerned, he has left that the same may be decided on the basis of judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 LawSuit (SC). It is submitted by learned counsel for respondent in his oral cross objection that the interest at the rate of 12% granted by the Tribunal is on much higher side and requires to be reduced.

6. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and considered the factual data. This Court finds that the accident occurred on 18.6.1995 causing death of Ramwati who was 35 years of age at the time of accident. The Tribunal has assessed his income to be Rs.500/- per month which according to this Court, in the year of accident, would be at least Rs.1,000/- per month as she was in the vocation of doing labour work and agriculturist. To which as the deceased was in the age bracket of 31-35, 40% of the income will have to be added in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) and the general trend even in earlier 1960 trend in case titled Gobald Motor Service Ltd. and another Vs. R.M.K Veluswami and other, 1962 SCR(1) 929, the addition of 40% can be granted. As far as deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased is concerned, it should be 1/4 looking to the facts of the case. The multiplier applicable would be 16 in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 as the deceased was in the age bracket of 31-35 years.

7. The total compensation payable is recalculated and is computed herein below:

i. Annual Income Rs.12,000/- ( Rs.1,000/- per month)

ii. Percentage