JUDGMENT

Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.

By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 22.1.1998 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional District Judge IV, Banda (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No. 267/70 of 1994 (Smt. Kumari and others v. Jugal Kishore Mishra and others) awarding a sum of Rs.1,15,200/- as compensation to the claimants/appellants with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition.

2. Heard earned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record and judgment.

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 Amrish Kumar in a road accident with the averments that on 5.9.1994 at about 7:00 PM, Amrish Kumar-deceased was coming on motorcycle with his sister-in-law, Prema Devi and sister, Smt. Usha Devi, who were pillion riders. When they reached near the Puliya at Telin Talaiya, a bus bearing no. URE 5868 came from Banda side, which was being driven very rashly and negligently by its driver. The bus driver lost the control of the bus and dashed the motorcycle. In this accident, pillion rider sustained very serious injuries and deceased-Amrish Kumar died on the spot.

4. Aggrieved mainly with the compensation awarded, the appellants have 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. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted that the learned Tribunal has not added any amount towards future loss of income, which is bad on facts and has not granted any amount under the head of non pecuniary damages.

7. The accident took place on 5.9.1994. The deceased-Amrish Kumar was aged about 22 years of age at the time of accident and he was an electric rewinding mechanic and used to have coaching classes. The Tribunal considered his income to be Rs.900/- per month, deducted Rs.300/- towards personal expenses of the deceased, granted multiplier of 16 and Rs.2000/- towards on pecuniary damages.

8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased was an electrician by profession and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month, however, the tribunal has considered his income to be Rs.900/- per month which is bad and it should be Rs.1500/-. The Tribunal had not granted any amount towards future loss of income which would be 40%. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the amount awarded under non-pecuniary heads is also on the lower side and is required to be enhanced. It is further stated that the deceased was 22 years of age at the time of accident, hence, the multiplier applicable would be 18. He has relied on the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093 & Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation , (2009) 6 SCC 121 in support of above arguments.

9. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has raised oral cross objection and has contended that the interest at the rate of 10% awarde