Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:116917 Court No. - 36 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1720 of 2010 Appellant :- Smt. Kamla Devi And Others Respondent :- The New India Insurance Comp. Ltd. And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Rakesh Kumar Porwal Counsel for Respondent :- Prabhakar Tripathi Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J. 1. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Porwal, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Arun Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for The New India Insurance Company and perused the impugned judgment and order. 2. By way of this appeal, the appellant-claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, have approached this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Ist Additional District Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Etawah (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') vide judgment and award dated 15.02.2010 passed in Claim Petition No. 439 of 1994. 3. The factum of the accident having occurred on 07.10.1994 is not in dispute. The appellants are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. It is contended that the deduction towards personal expenses at the rate of 1/3 was erroneous, as the correct deduction ought to have been 1/4, considering the number of dependents. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has taken the deceased's income on the lower side, and has not granted any amount under the head of future prospects. It is also submitted that the award under the heads of non- pecuniary damages is meagre and inadequate. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has supported the award and submitted that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the facts and computed the compensation accordingly. 5. As already stated, the accident occurred on 07.10.1994 and the claimants had filed a claim petition seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,84,000/-. However, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 4,41,500/- only. 6. It is not disputed that the deceased was employed as a plumber and was a skilled worker. Thus, considering the nature of his employment and the period in question, his monthly income of Rs. 3,000/- as assessed is found to be just and reasonable. 7. In view of the law laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% of the established income is to be added towards future prospects as the deceased was below 40 years of age. Accordingly, 40% of Rs. 3,000/-, i.e., Rs. 1,200/-, is to be added, making the monthly income Rs. 4,200/-. Since the deceased had dependents, 1/4th of the income is to be deducted towards personal expenses, in terms of the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. Thus, the monthly loss of dependency comes to Rs. 3,150/-, and the annual loss to Rs. 37,800/-. As the deceased was in the age group of 25–30 years, the applicable multiplier, in view of the decision in Sarla Verma (supra), would be 17. Therefore, the compensation under the head of loss of dependency comes to Rs. 37,800 × 17 = Rs. 6,42,600/-. The appellants shall also be entitled to compensation under the non-pecuniary heads. Taking guidance from Pranay Sethi (supra), the following amounts are awarded: Loss of estate: Rs. 15,000/- Funeral expenses: Rs. 15,000/- Loss of consortium (spouse): Rs. 40,000/- Accordingly, a total of Rs. 70,000/- is awarded under the non- pecuniary heads. Thus, the total compensation payable to the appellants/claimants is computed as under: i. Monthly income of the deceased: Rs. 3,000/- ii. Add: 40% towards future prospects: Rs. 1,200/- iii. Total monthly income: Rs. 4,200/- iv. Deduction of 1/4th for personal expenses: Rs. 1,050/- v. Monthly loss of dependency: Rs. 3,150/- vi. Annual loss of dependency: Rs. 37,800/- vii. Multiplier: 17 viii. Loss of dependency: Rs. 37,800 × 17 = Rs. 6,42,600/- ix. Non-pecuniary damages: Rs. 70,000/- Total Compensation: Rs. 6,42,600 + Rs. 70,000 = Rs. 7,12,600/- 8. The appellants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the enhanced amount, from the date of the accident till the date of actual payment. The amount already deposited by the Insurance Company shall be adjusted from the amount now awarded. 9. No other point was urged at the time of hearing. 10. In view of the above discussion, the appeal succeeds in part and is accordingly partly allowed. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal are modified to the extent indicated above. The respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount, along with interest as directed, within a period of 12 weeks from today. The amount already deposited, if any, shall be duly adjusted. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 Ajeet/RavindraKSingh Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad