The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of relevant legal precedents to determine the quantum of compensation, future loss of income, and the rate of interest in motor accident claims cases.

JUDGMENT :

Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.

1. Heard Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri N.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent assisted by Ms. Anubha Gutpa, learned Advocate and perused the record.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 30.7.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Banda (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P No.114/70 of 2012 awarding a sum of Rs.5,52,210/-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 2012. The deceased was 38 years of age and was qualified to be a teacher, he was B.A., B.Ed and was doing Vishist B.T.C. Training and was having agricultural land. Despite all these qualifications, the Tribunal has considered his income only Rs.3000/-per month, which according to Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for the appellant should be at least Rs.10,000/-per month. The Tribunal has given reasoning that the appellants have not proved the income of the deceased by cogent evidence. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has not added any amount under the head of future loss of income which should be either 40% or 50% looking to the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093 or in view of Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules.

5. 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 as the deceased was survived by three minor children who have lost their father during their childhood and the parents who were dependent on the deceased and has lost their son at a very young age.

6. 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.

7. As against this, learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company has contended that the income which has not been proved cannot be granted. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the deceased was 38 years of age and, therefore, multiplier of 16 could not have been granted and it should be 15 in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 LawSuit (SC).

8. It is further submitted by Sri N.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent assisted by Ms. Anubha Gupta, learned Advocate, that the accident is of the year 2012 whereas the judgment of the Tribunal is prior to the decision in Pranay Sethi (Supra) and, therefore, non addition of future loss of income is just and proper ad the deceased was self employed.

9. In response to the above objection, Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for the respondent has again submitted that the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) can be applied retrospectively in case the appeal is pending.

10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in the instant case, there are four aspects which will have to be looked into namely, the potential of earning of the deceased, he was B.A., B.Ed., he was doing Vishist B.T.C. Training and he could have become teacher in any of the government school or private institution. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Apex Court Smt. Meena Pawaia & others Vs. Ashraf Ali and others 2021 0 Supreme (SC) 694, we consider his income to be Rs.10,000/- per month.

11. The submission of Sri N.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent that non grant of future loss of income is just and proper cannot be countenanced as the decisi