Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings SL.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS No.

and Registrar’s order with Signatures AO No.430 of 2022 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. Ms. Bhavya Sharma, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

3. This Appeal from Order has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Addl. District Judge, Kotdwar, Pauri, vide award dated

01.10.2022 in M.A.C.T. No. 18 of 2020.

4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 01.08.2020, the husband of appellant No. 1, Pankaj Kumar, was travelling from Haridwar to his home at Shivrajpur, Kotdwar, on a Honda Activa scooter (No. UK 08 AN 7971). At about 7:40 p.m., between Chidiyapur and Samipur on the East Ganga Canal Road, approximately 10 km from Mandawali Police Station, an Eicher truck (No. HR 45C-9669), being driven rashly and negligently towards Haridwar, collided head-on with the deceased’s scooter. The truck driver abandoned the vehicle and fled from the spot. Pankaj Kumar, aged 28 years, died on the scene. He was employed as a Junior Assistant in the Animal Husbandry Department and was earning ₹40,000 per month.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal committed a manifest error in failing to appreciate the established income of the deceased, who was a permanent employee earning ₹40,000 per month. Consequently, the finding of the learned Tribunal regarding the income of the deceased is perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. It is further urged that the Tribunal has not correctly applied the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, particularly with respect to the addition of future prospects and computation of the conventional heads. Since the deceased was 28 years of age, an addition of 50% towards future prospects, and proper application of the principles governing consortium and other conventional heads, ought to have been made.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company vehemently contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just, fair, and reasonable, and is in consonance with the settled principles governing the determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The learned Tribunal has rightly appreciated the material on record while determining the income of the deceased, and this Court finds no illegality or perversity in that finding. However, as regards the issue of loss of consortium and future prospects, considering that the deceased was 28 years of age at the time of the accident, and in view of the dictum of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), the amounts under the conventional heads are liable to be enhanced by 10% every three years, and the addition towards future prospects should be 50% instead of 40%, as applied by the Tribunal.

8. In view of the above principles, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal deserves to be modified to the limited extent indicated hereinbelow.