JUDGMENT

Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.

Heard Sri B.R. Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri A.K. Shukla, learned counsel for respondents.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgement and order dated 7.11.1997 passed by M.A.C.T/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Mainpuri (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in M.A.C.P. No. 167 of 1996. The accident is not in dispute. His death by the accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is not in dispute. The only issue to be decided is, the quantum of compensation awarded.

3. Brief facts as culled out from the record are that on 05.03.1996 deceased Jagdish Singh was travelling in Tempo no. U.T.M. 9478. At about 10:00 A.M infront of Shankar cold storage Bewar on G.T. road the said tempo collided with truck no. H.R. 26/6368 resulting in the death of many persons including Sahab Singh. It is alleged that truck no. H.R. 26/6368 was being driven very rashly and negligently by its driver as a result of which accident occurred.

4. The deceased Jagdish Singh was 36 years of age was earning Rs. 2000/- p.m from agricultural and animal husbandary and his legal heirs consist of his father, mother, widow and two minor sons. The tribunal considered the income of the deceased Rs. 1500/-p.m to which the deduction was 1/3rd, 20% was deducted as lum sum compensation was granted and at the end applied multiplier of 12 and granted Rs. 1,19,200/- with 12% interest.

5. It is submitted by Sri B.R. Singh, learned counsel for the appellants that according to the oral statement of the widow of deceased income of the deceased was Rs. 2000/- p.m to which 40% be added as per the judgment of Gobald Motor Services Ltd. and another v. R.M.K.Veluswami and other, 1962, SCR(1) 929 which had presidential values even in those days, the deduction of 20% lum sum has been deprecated by the Supreme Court time and again, the deduction of 1/3rd is not assailed, multiplier of 15 and non pecuniary damages be granted as per the judgment of the Apex Court National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093 or as per the rules applied in U.P and the interest of 12% is maintained. It is further submitted by Sri B.R.Singh, learned counsel for the appellants that no amount under the head of future loss of income has been granted.

6. Per contra, As against this, it is submitted by Sri A.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents that in absence of any proof except the certificate there is no error which calls for any interference, however, Sri A.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent could not point out as to non grant of future prospects and that multiplier of 15 be applied.

7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the judgment and order impugned, this Court feels that his income can be considered to be Rs. 1500/- per month. To which as the deceased was 30 years at the time of accident, 40% of the income would have to be added as future loss of income to the deceased, deduction would have to be of 1/3rd as there are two minor children, a mother and a widow, multiplier of 16 as deceased was 36 years of age and Rs. 70,000/- + Rs. 50,000/- each for two minor children. The oral objection of Sri A.K.Shukla, learned counsel is accepted.

8. Further, this Court feels that the quantum/compensation requires to be recalculated. Hence, the total compensation payable to the appellants is computed herein below:

i. Income : Rs. 1500/-

ii. Percentage towards future prospects : 40% namely Rs. 600/-

iii. Total income : Rs. 1500 + 600 = Rs. 2100/-

iv. Income after deduction of 1/3rd : Rs. 1400/-

v. Annual loss : Rs. 3266 x