JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Shreesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Pawan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 13.8.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/VIIIth Addl. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P No.700 of 2016 awarding a sum of Rs.42,78,200/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 7%.

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 in the year 2016. The deceased was 48 years of age and was Senior Engineer in Hilman Capital Finance Ltd. The Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased to be Rs.34,000/-per month, added 30% towards future loss of income, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, granted multiplier of 12 and awarded Rs.35,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages. That is how the Tribunal has calculated the compensation to be Rs.42,78,200/- against Rs.1,62,00,000/- as claimed by the claimants-appellants which has aggrieved them.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the income of the deceased was Rs.62,000/-(rounded figure) but the Tribunal has wrongly considered his income to be Rs.34,000/- only. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has brushed aside the Income Tax Returns and the appointment and considered only basic as according to the Tribunal the deceased was in service only for two month and was a probationer. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the decisions in Sangita Arya & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2020 LawSuit (SC) 432, Rukmani Jethani and Others Vs. Gopal Singh and others, 2021 (4) T.A.C. 23 (SC), Vimal Kanwar and Others Vs. Kishore Dan and others, 2013 (3) T.A.C. 6 (S.C.) to buttress his submission that the finding of the Tribunal as far as income is concerned is bad. The Tribunal has calculated the income of the deceased to be Rs.34,000/- on the basis that it was the basic salary. This could not have been done is the submission of learned counsel for the appellants.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the deceased was survived by his widow, one son and parents and, therefore, the deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/4th and not 1/3rd as done by the Tribunal.

7. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the amount awarded under non pecuniary damages is on the lower side and is required to be enhanced in view of the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093 and the later decision of the Apex Court.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has lastly submitted that the interest awarded by Tribunal is on the lower side and it should be as per the repo rate prevailing in those days.

9. As against this, learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company has contended that the income which is asked cannot be granted and at least income tax be deducted from the income. It is further submitted by Sri Pawan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent that deduction towards personal expenses is just and proper and does not call for interference of this Court. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the amount awarded under non pecuniary heads and interest granted by the Tribunal are just and proper and does not call for interference of this Court.

10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the Salary Slip, Form 16 and the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellants, we hold that had the deceased been alive, he would have been earning Rs.62,000/-per month. The deceased was Senior Engineer in Hilman Capital Finance Ltd. His income shown in the pay slip for May 2016 was Rs.60,050/- Form 16AA for the period 1st April 2016 to 9th