The main legal point established in the judgment is the correct application of the relevant sections of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the appropriate assessment of compensation and interest based on legal provisions and precedents.

JUDGMENT :

Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.

1. Heard Sri Nigamendra Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Amitanshu Gour, learned Advocate, appearing for Sri S.B.L. Gour, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 20.2.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Bulandshahr (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Case No.246 of 1999 awarding a sum of Rs.2,90,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 6%.

3. It is an admitted position of fact that the accident occurred on 28.5.1999. The claim petition was filed under Sections 163 A, 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). The evidence was led and only in the year 2007 the claimants deleted Section 166 and 140 of the Act which was much after the evidence was recorded. Only heading of section was corrected and nothing was corrected in the body of the claim petition, namely, income of the deceased was Rs.6,000/-per month and the monetary loss claimed was Rs.20,000/- which was beyond the scope of Section 163A of the Act. After the pleadings were over, the evidence was closed and the matter was fixed for arguments, the Tribunal recast the issues and framed five issues. One of them was regarding negligence. Had the Tribunal considered the matter only under Section 163A, there was no question of deciding the issue of negligence. The Tribunal has considered the matter as if it was a matter under Section 166 of the Act and, therefore, once the Tribunal decides the matter under Section 166 and not under Section 163 A of the Act by deciding issue of negligence, it was under an obligation to decide the future loss of income.

4. The accident took place on 28.5.1999. The deceased-Isttyak was 25 years of age at the time of accident. The Tribunal considered his income to be Rs.2400/-per month, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, granted multiplier of 15 on the basis of age of parents and has granted Rs.2,000/- under non pecuniary damages.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased was earning Rs.3300/-per month and the Tribunal has erred in not considering the same. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has not granted any amount under the head of future loss of income. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has granted multiplier of 15 considering the age of the parents of the deceased which is bad and it should be 18 as the deceased was in the age bracket of 21 to 25.

6. It is lastly submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the amount awarded under non-pecuniary heads and interest, awarded by the Tribunal or on the lower side and are required to be enhanced.

7. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the income which has been considered by the Tribunal is just and proper as there was no income proof. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that non grant of future loss of income and multiplier of 15 granted by the Tribunal are just and proper. is just and proper. It is also contended by learned counsel for the respondent that the deceased being bachelor, the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased would be 1/2.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, income of the deceased, even in the year of accident can be considered to be at least Rs.3000/-per month looking the fact that he was mason by profession. As the petition was under Section 163 A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, future prospects cannot be given was the submission of learned counsel for respondent but, in this case, the Tribunal has considered the claim petition as one under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act as originally filed. This is clear from the order passed in 2008 when after evidence was led the Tribunal recast the issues and decided the issue of negligence which it could not do so if it had