JUDGMENT

Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.

By way of this appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment and decree dated 20.1.1997 and 11.2.1997 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / 1st Additional District Judge, Mau (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No.34 of 1992 (Beili and others v. Dharam Raj Singh and another) awarding sum of Rs.72,000/- as compensation to the claimants/appellants with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition.

2. Heard Mr.Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Anubhav Sinha, learned counsel for the Insurance Company

3. The brief facts of the case are that claimants-appellants filed a Motor Accident Claim Petition before the Tribunal for claiming the compensation under MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 for the death of Gyani Prasad Nishad in a road accident with the averments that on 25.03.1992, deceased was going Mau by his bicycle, a bus bearing No. UP-65/9990 hit the deceased. In this accident, deceased sustained very serious injuries and died on the spot. The Tribunal considered the income of the deceased as Rs.1,200/- per month, deducted 1/2 as personal expenses, applied multiplier of 10. Total compensation granted by the Tribunal is Rs.72,000/- with 9% rate of interest.

4. Aggrieved mainly with the compensation awarded, the appellant preferred this appeal.

5. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence has attained finality as neither the Insurance Company nor the owner of the vehicle has disputed the same even in oral submissions. The driver of the said vehicle was having valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident is also a decided fact. The vehicle being insured and there being no breach of policy condition is a finding, which has attained finality. The only issue to be decided is the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

6. Shri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has submitted that the deceased was a skilled-labour and, therefore, his income should be considered as Rs.3,000/- per month. It is further submitted that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) TAC 673 (SC)], 40% for future prospects be added and the deduction instead of 1/2 should be 1/5. It is next submitted that the multiplier would be 14 instead of 10 as the deceased was 45 years old and Rs.70,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages be also granted.

7. Shri Anubhav Sinha, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, vehemently submitted that in the year 1992, as far as State of UP is concerned, the Motor Vehicles Rules were being followed as there is no question of adding the amount under the head of future loss of income and the multiplier is as per schedule. It is further argued that the income has been considered by the Tribunal as it was not proved that the income of the deceased was Rs.3,000/- per month.

8. The income of the deceased can be considered to be Rs.3,000/-. The deceased will fall within the category of self employed and his age was 45 years at the time of accident, 40% shall be added towards future loss of income and 1/5 shall be deducted for personal expenses as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi [2014 (4) TAC 637 (SC)]. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, multiplier of 14 will be admissible in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt.Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2009 (2) TAC 677 (SC)].

9. As far as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, the Tribunal has no