The court established that minimum wage serves as the basis for calculating compensation, future prospects must be included, and the appropriate multiplier reflects the deceased's age.

JUDGMENT

Vipin Chandra Dixit, J.

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

2. The present first appeal from order has been filed by the claimants-appellants for enhancement of compensation against the judgment and award dated 16.07.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Court No.14/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur Nagar in M.A.C.P. No.860 of 2010 (Smt. Sabra and others v. Sri. Kallu Singh and another), by which compensation of Rs. 1,52,000/- along with 6% interest has been awarded in favour of claimants-appellants on account of death of Mohd. Hafiz alias Bhura aged about 26 years.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for claimants-appellants that the claimants-appellants had fully proved the income of the deceased as Rs. 12,000/- per month by plying horse cart and there was no evidence in rebuttal by the respondents and the Claims Tribunal has erred in calculating the compensation accepting Rs. 15,000/- per annum as notional income of the deceased. It is further submitted that age of the deceased was 26 years but nothing has been awarded towards future prospects and only Rs. 2,000/- has been awarded for funeral expenses whereas the claimants are entitled for 40% future prospects and Rs. 30,000/- for non-pecuniary damages. Lastly, it is submitted that the Claims Tribunal has also erred in applying the multiplier of 15 on the age of the mother of the deceased whereas the appropriate multiplier would be 17 on the age of the deceased as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Road Transport Corporation reported in 2009 (2) TAC 677.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Insurance Company has not disputed the aforesaid legal position. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company that the deceased was unmarried and as such the deduction towards personal expenses would be ½ and the Claims Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3 in terms of personal expenses of the deceased. It is further submitted that the claimants had failed to prove the income of the deceased by producing cogent evidence and as per Minimum Wages Act at the relevant time minimum wages for unskilled labour was Rs. 3,795/- per month and as such the income cannot be accepted beyond Rs. 3,795/- per month.

5. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Admittedly, the minimum wages fixed by the Government for the period 1.4.2010 to 30.9.2010 was Rs. 3,795/- per month and the accident was occurred on 24.7.2010 and as such the income of the deceased is accepted as Rs. 3,795/- per month. The claimants are also entitled for 40% future prospects and Rs. 30,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages 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. The appropriate multiplier is 17 on the age of the deceased and deduction would be ½ as the deceased was bachelor at the time of accident.

7. The compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is reassessed as follows :-

 8. In view of aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by claimants is hereby partly allowed and award of the Claims Tr