The court established that compensation for death in a motor accident must consider proper income assessment, future prospects, and appropriate deductions based on dependents, leading to an enhanced award.

JUDGMENT

Vipin Chandra Dixit, J.

Heard Sri. Achintya Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. Anubhav Sinha, Advocate holding brief of Sri. Amaresh Sinha, learned counsel for the Insurance Company-respondent no.1. Perused the record.

2. This first appeal from order has been filed by the appellantsclaimants against the judgment and award dated 21.3.1997 passed by VIII Additional District Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur Nagar in M.A.C.P. No.201 of 1995 (Smt. Premwati & others v. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and two others) awarding compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- alongwith 12% interest to the claimants on account of death of Ram Kishor Pandey.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Claim Tribunal has erred in calculating the compensation accepting the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 2,000/-, whereas Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Devi & Others v. Mohammad Tabbar & Another reported in 2008 (2) T.A.C. 394 (S.C.) has provided notional income as Rs. 3,000/- per month. The Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount in terms of future prospects whereas the claimants are entitled for 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. It is further submitted that Claim Tribunal has also erred in deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses whereas there are six dependents and as such, deduction should be 1/4th in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Road Transport Corporation reported in 2009(2) TAC 677 (S.C.). Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for appellants that the age of deceased was 46 years and the Claims Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 7' whereas it should be 13' in view of Table provided in the case of Sarla Verma(supra). The Claims Tribunal has also erred in awarding only Rs. 20,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages whereas the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 70,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages as per judgment of Pranay Sethi(supra).

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for Insurance Company-opposite party has not disputed the aforesaid legal position.

5. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsels for the parties, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is reassessed as below:-

1) Monthly income = Rs. 3,000/-

2) Annual income = Rs. 3,000/- X 12 + Rs. 36,000/-

3) Future prospects (25%) = Rs. 9,000/-

4) Total annual income = Rs. 36,000/- + Rs. 9,000/- =Rs. 45,000/-

5) Deduction towards

personal expenses(1/4th) = Rs. 45,000/- - Rs. 11,250/- =Rs. 33,750/-

6) Multiplier applicable (13) =Rs. 33750/- x 13 = Rs. 4,38,750/-

7) Non-pecuniary damages =Rs. 70,000/-

8) Medical Expenses = Rs. 15,000/-

Total = Rs. 4,38,750/- + Rs. 70,000/- + Rs. 15,000/- = Rs. 5,23,750/-

6. In view of aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by claimants is hereby partly allowed and award of the Claims Tribunal is modified and compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs. 5,23,750/-. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited/opposite party is directed to deposit enhanced amount Rs. 3,23,750/- along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of award of Claims Tribunal i.e. 21.3.1997, within two months from today before the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The claimants are entitled to withdraw the entire deposited amount without furnishing any surety.

7. No order as to costs.