JUDGMENT

Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.

By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 20.12.1995 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/1st Additional District Judge, Agra (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No.69 of 1988 (Smt.Angoori Devi and another v. Sri Baldeo Singh and another) awarding sum of Rs.29,000/- as compensation to the claimant/appellant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition.

2. Heard Mr.Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms.Aarushi Khare, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company.

3. The brief facts of the case are that claimant-appellant filed a Motor Accident Claim Petition before the Tribunal for claiming the compensation under MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 for the death of Shravan Kumar in a road accident with the averments that on 25.01.1988, deceased Shravan Kumar was going from Agra to Firozabad by his bicycle, a truck bearing no. DIL 4829 hit the deceased. In this accident, deceased sustained very serious injuries and died on the way to hospital. The Tribunal considered the income of the deceased as Rs.600/- per month, deducted 1/3rd as personal expenses, applied multiplier of 15 and granted Rs.2,000/- for love and affection. Total compensation granted by the Tribunal is Rs.29,000/- with 12% 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 Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has submitted that the deceased was a businessman and, therefore, his income should be considered as Rs.2,000/- per month. It is further submitted that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi [2014 (4) TAC 673 (SC)], 40% for future prospects be added and the deduction instead of 1/3 should be 1/2. It is next submitted that the multiplier would be 18 instead of 15 as the deceased was only 25 years old and Rs.50,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages be also granted as the mother is the sole recipient.

7. Ms.Aarushi Khare, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, has submitted that there is no proof of income and, therefore, the income considered by the Tribunal requires to be maintained. It is further submitted that even a future loss of income is granted, the deduction should be 1/2 as the widow has remarried now. As far as interest is concerned, Ms. Aarushi Khare has contended that in the year 1988 and when the matter was decided in 1996, the repo rate was not 12% and her oral objection under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC be considered as this Court has to decide just compensation.

8. The income of the deceased can be considered to be Rs.800/-. The deceased will fall within the category of self employed and his age was 25 years at the time of accident, 40% shall be added towards future loss of income and 1/2 shall be deducted for personal expenses as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi [2014 (4) TAC 673 (SC)]. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, multiplier of 18 will be