JUDGMENT

Saral Srivastava, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present appeal has been filed against the award dated 07.12.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Agra in MACP No.699 of 2006, whereby the tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.89,500/- alongwith 6% interest for the death of one Ajaypal Singh in an accident on 18.07.2006 with truck No.UP14R/2927.

3. Challenging the award, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the accident had taken place between Moped Hero Puch No.UP80J/7500 driven by one Ajaypal Singh and truck No.UP14R/2927. It is submitted that it was a specific case of the claimant-appellant that while the deceased was proceeding to cross the crossing, he was hit by truck No.UP14R/2927 driven by its driver rashly and negligently. It is also submitted that widow and son of the deceased were also riding on Moped and suffered injuries in the accident. It is submitted that widow and son of the deceased Smt. Rajesh Devi and Amit were produced as witnesses who deposed categorically that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of truck and no evidence in rebuttal to the testimony of PW1 and PW 2 was produced by the respondents to rebut the testimony of PW 1 and PW 2 that the deceased was also negligent in the accident. It is further submitted that the tribunal in concluding that the deceased was also negligent in the accident placed reliance upon the site plan of the accident. It is submitted that the site plan of the accident cannot be relied upon without the same having been proved in accordance with law to conclude the negligence of the deceased in the accident more so, when the witnesses appeared before the tribunal and deposed that the accident was result of negligence of driver of truck and there was no evidence rebutting the testimony of PW 1 and PW 2. Accordingly, it is submitted that the finding of the tribunal on the issue of negligence holding 50% negligence of the deceased is not sustainable.

4. It is submitted that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is not adequate. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants has submited that the accident had taken place on 18.07.2006 and the tribunal has erred in computing the compensation treating the income of the deceased to be Rs.15,000 per annum. Accordingly, it is submitted that tribunal should have taken Rs.36,000/- per annum as income of the deceased for computing the compensation in view of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Devi and Others v. Mohammad Tabbar and Another , 2008 AICC 915 (SC) . It is further submitted that no amount towards future prospect has been awarded by the tribunal whereas, considering the age of the deceased, the claimants/appellants are entitled to 40% towards future prospect in view of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others 2017 (16) SCC 680. It is submitted that Rs.9,500/- towards non-pecuniary damages awarded by the tribunal is on lower side whereas claimants/appellants are entitled to Rs.70,000/- in view of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Lastly, it is contended that there were four dependants upon the deceased, therefore, considering the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others 2009 (6) SCC 121, the tribunal should have deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased instead of 1/3rd.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the tribunal has given elaborate reasons in placing reliance upon the s