IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C)No..........9213/2025)

VIJAY DEVI & ORS. … APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS PRAMOD & ORS. … RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 12^th December 2022, passed in First Appeal from Order No.802 of 2022 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Signature Not Verified which, in turn, was preferred against the order dated 16^th May Digitally signed by JAGDISH KUMAR Date: 2025.06.03 Reason:

2009 in MACP No.20 of 2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Firozabad.

3. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on the intervening night of 8^th October 2007, the deceased, namely, Bharti alias Satish Chand, aged 35 years, along with his friend, was returning to his village in the offending vehicle bearing registration No.UP-83L-9118. At about 5:00 a.m., upon reaching the vicinity of the Sarai Jeel and Maniyamau Villages, the driver of the same offending vehicle, in a rash and negligent manner, collided with a stationary tractor which was parked at the roadside. As a result of the incident, the deceased sustained severe injuries and died on the spot.

4. In connection with this incident, Case Crime No.293/2007 was registered at PS Ekdil, District Etawah, under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A, 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle.

5. A claim petition was filed on behalf of the claimant- appellants (the legal representatives of the deceased) under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, before the Tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.15,70,000/-, stating therein that the deceased used to earn Rs. 5,000/- per month, by working in the field of animal husbandry.

6. The Tribunal vide its order dated 16^th May 2009, awarded an amount of Rs.3,88,000/- to the claimant-appellants along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition. The Tribunal, considering the evidence on record, determined the income of the deceased to be Rs. 3,000/- per month. A deduction of 1/3^rd of the income of the deceased was made towards living expenses, and a multiplier of 15 was applied. Respondent No.3 - Insurance Company was held liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimant-appellants.

7. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant-appellants filed an appeal before the High Court seeking an enhancement of the compensation amount. It is urged that the Tribunal erred in not considering the deceased's income of Rs. 5,000/- and further that the multiplier of 15 was wrongly applied, whereas it should have been 17.

8. The High Court, vide the impugned judgement, partly allowed the appeal and enhanced the compensation amount to the tune of 40% under the heads of future prospects. The Court further awarded Rs.70,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages. The Court deducted 1/4^th of the amount from the income of the deceased towards personal expenses by considering the number of dependents of the deceased, considering the settled law laid down in National Insurance Company v. Praney Sethi, [(2017) 16 SCC 680] Thereafter, the High Court directed the Tribunal to draw up a revised award, in view of the observations made.

9. Dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the High Court, the claimant-appellants are now before us. The point of challenge taken is that the Courts below erred in computing the deceased's monthly income at Rs. 3,000/-, instead of Rs. 5,000/-. Further, the High Court failed to grant a 10% increase towards unconventional heads, as the aforesaid amount should be increased every 3 years.

10. We have heard the learned counse