The court established that proper income assessment and application of the correct multiplier are essential for determining just compensation in motor accident claims.

JUDGMENT

Vipin Chandra Dixit, J.

Heard Sri. Vidya Kant Shukla, learned counsel for appellants, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2 Insurance Company and perused the record. No one is present on behalf of respondent nos.1 & 3.

2. This first appeal from order has been filed by the appellants-claimants for enhancement of compensation against the judgment and award dated 16.11.2015 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.5/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur Nagar in M.A.C.P. No.422 of 2013 (Smt. Rekha Verma and another v. Smt. Mithlesh Kumari and others), by which compensation of Rs. 2,62,000/- along with 7% interest has been awarded in favour of appellants-claimants and the entire liability has been fixed upon the respondent no.2 Insurance Company.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that claimants had fully proved that the deceased was engaged as Mason (Rajmistri) and had earned Rs. 300/- per day. The claimant-appellant no.1, who is wife of deceased was appeared as P.W.-1 before the Claims Tribunal and has stated in her statement that her husband was a Mason having income of Rs. 300/- per day and the Claims Tribunal has erred in disbelieving the evidence of P.W.-1 and has accepted the notional income of Rs. 3,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Laxmidhar Nayak and others v. Jugal Kishore Behera and others reported in 2018 (1) SCC 746, in which Hon'ble Apex Court has accepted the income of house wife aged about 42 years as Rs. 150/- per day equal to Rs. 4,500/- per month. It is further submitted that the age of the deceased was 40 years at the time of accident and the Claims Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 14 whereas Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Road Transport Corporation reported in 2009(2) TAC 677 (S.C.), has provided the multiplier of 15 for the age group of 36-40 years. It is further submitted that nothing has been awarded towards future prospects whereas the claimants are entitled to 25% future prospects in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017(4) T.A.C. 673 (S.C.). It is further submitted that the Claims Tribunal has committed gross illegality in deducting 1/2 towards personal expenses on the ground that the claimant-appellant no.1, who is legally wedded wife of deceased was living separately whereas there is no evidence before the Claims Tribunal that divorce between the parties has taken place and at the time of accident the claimant-appellant no.1 is legally wedded wife of deceased and as such the deduction should be 1/3 in view of law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). The claimants-appellants are also entitle for Rs. 70,000/- for non-pecuniary damages in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) whereas only Rs. 5,000/- has been awarded for funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 Insurance Company has not disputed the aforesaid legal position.

5. Considered the rival submission of learned counsel for the parties. The compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is reassessed as follows:-

6. Accordingly, the appeal filed by claimants is hereby partly allowed and the awar