JUDGMENT

Jaspreet Singh, J.

Heard Shri Anchal Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel, who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent No.3.

2. The record indicates that this Court by means of the order dated 03.07.2023 had required the Registrar of this Court to serve a copy of the order dated 03.07.2023 on the respondent No.3 - Company, because despite the service, none had appeared which was causing the delay in disposal of the appeal which is pending since 2010. In furtherance thereof, Shri Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel has put in appearance along with Shri Prashant Gaur, Legal Executive of the respondent No.3.

3. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

4. The instant appeal has been preferred under section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 seeking enhancement of the award dated 06.09.2010 passed by the MACT/Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Gonda in Claim Petition No.62/2008 wherein in a death case, a sum of Rs.4,17,500/- alongwith 6% interest has been awarded in favour of the appellants-claimants.

5. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Tribunal has not appropriately considered the income of the deceased which was stated to be Rs.5,000/- per month rather the Tribunal has erred in adopting the notional income of Rs.3,000/- per month.

6. It is further submitted that the deduction has also been made incorrectly towards personal expenses as there were six dependents, the deduction should have been of 1/4 rather the deduction made by the Tribunal is 1/3 which is also erroneous. No provision for future prospects have been made nor adequate compensation has been granted for non-conventional heads towards consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. It is thus, urged that the amount as awarded by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate, hence, the appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants has also pointed out that the Tribunal while apportioning the awarded sum has only awarded 50,000/- to the widow of the deceased whereas the remaining sum has been distributed amongst the children. It is urged that this aspect also require reconsideration.

8. Shri Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 on the other hand submitted that though the appellants had stated that the deceased was earning of Rs.5,000/- per month from the business, but there was no adequate and cogent evidence to establish the aforesaid fact. In the aforesaid circumstances, there was no option but to treat the case as of notional income and the Tribunal has adequately taken a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month which is most proper and requires no interference. However, he could not dispute the fact that insofar as the future prospects and consortium and other non-conventional heads are concerned, the amount awarded is quite inadequate and contrary to the settled principles as laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC Page 680. However, he has pointed out that that insofar as the multiplier which has been adopted by the Tribunal is concerned, considering the age of the deceased as 35 years, the multiplier appropriate is 16, but the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 17 which has also enhanced the compensation and barring the grant of compensation towards non-conventional heads, there is not much difference for grant of compensation and accordingly this Court may not interfere in this matte