HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1133 of 2010 Court No. - 50 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard Shri Deepak Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Arvind Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Present appeal has been filed challenging the award dated 01.02.2010 passed in M.A.C. No.182 of 2008. Respondents have also filed a cross objection for enhancement of the compensation. 3. The facts, in brief, are that the deceased Sudeep Gupta was going on his four wheeler WagonR when he met with an accident with Tata Sumo Vehicle No.HP 18A 0344 which was being driven rashly and negligently which resulted in the death of the deceased on 21.02.2008. Subsequently, the claimants claiming to be family members namely wife, children, mother and father of the deceased filed a claim petition alleging that the deceased was aged about 33 years at the time of death and was a contractor. While claiming compensation it was argued that for the assessment year 2007 - 08 the income tax return of the deceased was filed showing an income of Rs.2,25,231/- annually. The Tribunal accepted the said income and after making deduction of 1/5th assessed the financial loss and applying the multiplier of '17' awarded the compensation. 4. Contention of learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company is that the compensation is highly excessive and thus, liable to be set aside, whereas counsel for the respondents argues that the future prospects and the grant of non-pecuniary damages as decided by the Supreme Court in Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Amit Manohar Counsel for Respondent(s) : Rajesh Rai, Yogendra Pal Singh National Insurance Company .....Appellant(s) Smt. Shivani Gupta And Others .....Respondent(s) the cases of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.; 2017 (4) T.A.C. 673 (S.C.); Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.; Civil Appeal No.3483 of 2008 decided on 15.04.2009 and Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and Ors.; (2018) 18 SCC 130, have not been granted and the award should be modified. 5. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, while awarding the compensation the annual income of the deceased was Rs.2,25,231/- as per the income tax returns. No evidence could be shown that the acceptance of annual income was in any way erroneous, as such, the income of the deceased has rightly been held at Rs.2,25,231/-. The Tribunal has, however, erred in not including the future prospects on the said income and non-grant of non-pecuniary damages. 6. In view thereof, the impugned award dated 01.02.2010 is modified and the amount awarded shall re-work as under: Sl. No. Head Compensation awarded 1. Annual income of the deceased Rs.2,25,231 2. Adding 40% towards future prospects in the light of the judgement in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) Rs.2,25,231 x 40% = Rs.90,092 3. Net yearly income Rs.3,15,323 4. Deducting 1/5th towards personal expenses Rs.3,15,323 x 1/5 = Rs.63,064/- After deduction: Rs.3,15,323 - Rs.63,064 = Rs.2,52,259/- 5. Applying multiplier of '16' Rs.2,52,259 x 16 = Rs.40,36,144/- Amount under conventional heads: Rs.18,500 + 6. FAFO No. 1133 of 2010 2 (i) loss of estate Rs.18,500/- (ii) funeral expenses Rs.18,500/- as per Pranay Sethi's case (supra) (iii) loss of consortium Rs.48,500/- per person (Rs.48,500 x 5) as per Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra) Rs.18,500 + Rs.2,42,500 = Rs.2,79,500/- 7. Total amount of compensation (Sr.No.5 + Sr.No.6) Rs.40,36,144 + Rs.2,79,500/- Rs. 43,15,644/- 7. The amount as recorded above shall be paid within a period of three months from today alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of claim till actual payment/realisation and the amount already paid as compensation shall be deducted from the aforesaid amount to be paid to the claimants. 8. Any amount deposited before this Court shall be remitted to the Tribunal to be paid to the claimants. 9. The amount shall be paid through RTGS by the Tribunal directly in the account of the claimants. In case, the bank account contains the details of anybody other than the family members of the claimants, the amount shall not be deposited in that account and the claimants would be required to open a bank account either singly or jointly with family members only, as has been held by the Supreme Court in Para 9 of Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.7 of 2024 [In Re: Compensation amounts deposited with Motor Accident Claims Tribunals and Labour Courts]; 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 455 and in Para 17.1 of Parminder Singh v. Honey Goyal and Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 318. 10. The apportionment of the compensation is to the following effect: (i) 50% to claimant no.1; (ii) 25% each to claimant nos.2 & 3; FAFO No. 1133 of 2010 3 (iii) claimant nos.4 & 5 would be entitled to loss of consortium only which is quantified at Rs.48,500/- per person. 11. Present appeal as well as cross objection stands disposed off in above terms. 12. Lower Court Records, if received, shall be remitted to the Court concerned. May 12, 2026 nishant FAFO No. 1133 of 2010 4 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad