The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of the deceased's income and the determination of compensation based on relevant legal principles and court decisions.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Nigamendra Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company and perused the judgment and order impugned.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants who are the parents of the deceased, challenges the judgment and award dated 22.4.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.4, Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in MACP No.492 of 2006 awarding a sum of Rs.3,92,000/-with interest at the rate of 6% in favour of the claimants for the death of Deepak Sharma.

3. Parents of the deceased were ordered to be paid 1,92,000/-with 6% rate of interest out of the said award. As far as the widow is concerned, she has felt happy with the amount ordered to be paid to her by the Tribunal and, therefore, she has not come up before this Court.

4. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is not in dispute. The Insurance Company has not challenged the liability imposed on them. The only issue to be decided is, the quantum of compensation awarded.

5. At the outset, Sri Nigamendra Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the Income Tax Return Report, the oral testimony of the widow and the payslip have been erroneously not believed by the Tribunal just because there is no seal or signature of the employee. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has not believed photocopy of income tax certificate and the salary slip of the deceased and has held that claimants have failed to proof that the deceased was a salaried person. The Tribunal, according to learned counsel for the appellant, has erred in assessing the income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000/- on the date of accident namely on 1.8.2006.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future loss of income which requires to be added in view of the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050 and that the amount awarded under non-pecuniary heads is very less namely Rs.8000/-which requires enhancement. It is further submitted that the rate of interest should be 12% and not 6% as awarded by the Tribunal.

7. Per contra, Sri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has contended that no evidence which could be taken in evidence were produced by the claimants and, therefore, no fault can be found with the finding of the Tribunal as far as assessment of income is concerned.

8. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the compensation and the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference of this Court.

9. Having heard the counsel for the parties and considered the factual data, this Court found that the accident occurred on 1.8.2006 causing death of Deepak Sharma who was 30 years of age and was survived by his parents and widow. The deceased was working as Sales Executive in Team Lease Services Pvt. Limited. Even if we go by the strict pleadings which the learned Tribunal has gone with.

There are semblance of proof to show that the deceased was an educated person even in the year 2006. In Income Tax Return for the year 2006-07, the deceased had shown his income to be Rs.1,24,186 per annum plus Rs.13,600/- from other sources namely from tuition.

10. Even if we did not consider all these aspects and the fact that the Income Tax Certificate did no have stamp on it, we would oblige to believe two things namely; the deceased was having his own vehicle and was also continuing life insurance policies from Bajaj Allianze, L.I.C & Aviva Life Insurance. These are all facts which can be considered while assessing the income of the deceased.

11. Decision in Mohammed Siddique and another Vs.