JUDGMENT

Saral Srivastava, J.

Heard Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri K.S. Amist and Sri A.C. Nigam, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants/appellants for enhancement of compensation against the judgement and award dated 23.10.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.12, Allahabad in M.A.C.P. No.627 of 2001.

3. Challenging the said award, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in holding the income of the deceased to be Rs.2400/- per month. It is submitted that even if, there was no evidence led by the claimants/appellants in respect to the correct income of the deceased, the Tribunal considering the date of accident ought to have taken Rs.3000/- per month as notional income in view of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Devi and Others v. Mohammad Tabbar and Another , 2008 AICC 915 (SC) .

4. It is further contended that no amount towards future prospect has been awarded by the Tribunal, whereas considering the age of the deceased i.e., 30 years, 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 further submitted that a very meagre amount of Rs.7,000/- has been awarded towards non-pecuniary damages, whereas the claimants/ appellants are entitled to Rs.70,000/- towards the aforesaid heads in view of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Lastly, it is contended that there were six dependents 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, Tribunal should have deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased instead of 1/3rd.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper as there was no proof of income of the deceased and hence, the same does not call for interference by this Court in the appeal.

6. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.

7. The submission of learned counsel for the claimants/appellants with regard to the income of the deceased has got force, therefore, this Court holds that the compensation shall be computed by taking the income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000/- per month, i.e. Rs.36,000/- per annum in place of Rs.2400/- per month in view of in view of the judgement of Laxmi Devi (supra).

8. The submission of learned counsel for the claimants/appellants in respect of future prospect and grant of non-pecuniary expenses has got force in view of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and thus, following the aforesaid judgement of Apex Court, claimants/appellants are entitled to 40% towards future prospect considering the age of the deceased, and further non-pecuniary damages awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.7,000/- to Rs.70,000/-.

9. The submission of learned counsel for the claimants/appellants with regard to deduction of 1/4 towards personal expenses of the deceased in view of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) has got substance. Thus, it is provided that 1/4 should be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased instead of 1/3 from the income of the deceased for computation of compensation.

10. The enhanced amount of award shall carry 6% interest from the date of the award till the date of its payment.

11. For the reasons given above, the appeal is partly allowed and award of the Tribunal is modified to