JUDGMENT

1. The appeal under Sec. 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation, being aggrieved by award dtd. 27/1/2010 passed by the Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Morena in Claim Case No.162/2008, whereby, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4, 99, 500.00 in all towards compensation for the death of deceased Dhruvsingh alias Banti Sikarwar to the appellants/claimants. Appellant No. 1 is wife of deceased, appellants No. 2 and 3 are children of deceased and appellant No. 4 is father of deceased. However, liability for payment of amount of compensation was fixed over the respondents jointly and severally.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that deceased- Dhruvsingh alias Banti Sikarwar being 29 years old hale and hearty, industrious and responsible youngster was the husband of appellant/claimant No.1 Uma Devi, father of the appellant No.2 and 3 and son of appellant No. 4 who was running a hotel and was earning Rs.7, 500.00 per month. All the appellants/claimants are his legal heirs who were completely dependent upon him.

3. On the fateful day i.e. 8/5/2008, Dhruvsingh was driving the motorcycle and Pradeep Singh was a pillion rider on the motorcycle were going towards New Housing Board Colony from Berial Chauraha by their side in a normal speed. As soon as the said vehicle came the house of Mr. Radhacharan Sharma, Advocate at Morena, all of a sudden, respondent No.2 drove his vehicle Tata Sumo Victa bearing Registration No. H.R.37/B-3893 from the side of Berial Chauraha rashly and negligently and dashed against the said motorcycle, on account of which, Dhruv Singh alias Banti and Pradeep sustained grievous injury on different parts of the body. Both were taken to the hospital at Morena wherefrom deceased was referred to J.A. Hospital Gwalior and from where his family members took him to Sahara Hospital, Gwalior for better treatment and during treatment he scummed to the injuries on 18/5/2008.

4. On the date of incident, said Tata Sumo Victa was of the ownership of respondent No.1 insured with respondent No.3 and driven by respondent No.2 (who was the employee of respondent No.1), rashly and negligently and caused accident in question, due to which, Dhruv Singh died. Therefore, as per facts and allegations all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation on account of death having been occurred due to the said accident.

5. An application under Sec. 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was preferred for claims before the Claims Tribunal claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.39, 60, 000.00. After notices and statement of parties and going trhough the record, the tribunal by allowing the claim preferred by the appellants/claimants in part awarded them an amount of Rs.4, 99, 500.00 breakup of which is as under:-

6. According to submissions of the appellants/complainants, deceased- Dhruv Singh was running a Hotel and he was earning Rs.7, 500.00 per month, therefore, the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of deceased at Rs.3, 000.00 per month. Whereas, from the rent receipts Ex. P-159 to 183 it is clear that deceased was running his hotel in two shops and was paying rent of Rs.800.00 for each shop. Meaning thereby, he was paying rent of Rs.1, 600.00 for both the shops per month and from this fact it can be assumed that he was earning more than Rs.7, 500.00 per month.

7. It is also submitted by counsel for the appellants that no sum has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal under the head future prospects, whereas, deceased was only 29 years of age at the time of death and therefore, in light of decision of Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, 50% of monthly salary to be awarded towards future prospects.

8. Further, the amount awarded by the trial Court to the appellants/claimants under the head of funeral expenses, loss of estate is also on the l