Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:66951 Court No. - 48 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1676 of 2003 Appellant :- Khinno Devi And Others. Respondent :- The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And Another. Counsel for Appellant :- A.L. Jaiswal,Sharve Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Santosh Kumar Mishra,Prakash Narayan Dwivedi Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J. List has been revised. Heard Sri Sharve Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company-respondent no.1. No one is present on behalf of respondent no.2, who is owner of the vehicle. This first appeal from order has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 on behalf of the claimants-appellants for enhancement of compensation against the judgment and award dated 13.2.2003 passed by A.D.J, Court No. 3/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Allahabad in M.A.C.P. No. 392 of 2000 (Khinno Devi and others. vs. Sher Bahadur Singh and another), by which compensation of Rs.2,10,000/- along-with 8% interest has been awarded to the claimants-appellants on account of death of Bhola Nishad who died in a road accident on 02.05.2000. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Claim Tribunal has erred in awarding a very meager amount of compensation in favour of claimants- appellants. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that claimants appellants have fully proved the income of the deceased as Rs. 5000/-p.m and Claims Tribunal has erred in accepting Rs. 1200/- as monthly income of the deceased. It is further submitted that nothing has been awarded towards future prospects and only Rs. 18000/- has been awarded for non pecuniary damages, where as the claimants-appellants are entitled for 40% future prospects and Rs. 70,000/- for non pecuniary damages in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017(4) T.A.C. 673. No other ground has been pressed by learned counsel for appellant. On the other hand, learned counsel for Insurance Company-opposite party has not disputed the aforesaid legal argument raised by learned counsel for claimant- appellant. He further submits that Claims Tribunal has also erred in deducting 1/6th amount on account of personal expenses of the deceased, whereas deduction would be 1/5th in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation reported in 2009(2) TAC 677 (S.C.), as the number of dependents are more than 6. It is further submitted that age of the deceased was accepted as 37 years and the Claims Tribunal has errred in applying the multiplier of 16, where as appropriate multiplier would be 15 as per judgment of Sarla Verma (supra) for the age group (36-40years). Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The Claims Tribunal while deciding issue no. 5 has recorded the finding that the claimants-appellants has failed to prove the income of the deceased. The widow of the deceased was appeared as P.W.-1 and has stated in her examination-in-chief that her husband earned Rs. 5000/- p.m. but in her cross-examination she has stated the income of her husband was Rs. 1000-1200/-p.m. The Claims Tribunal in absence of any documentary evidence, on relying the statement of the claimant, who is the widow of the deceased had accepted Rs. 1200/- as monthly income of the deceased. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Jasbir Kaur and others, reported in 2003 ACJ 1800, in which notional income of Rs. 3000/-p.m was accepted by the Hon'ble Apex Court for the accident of 1999. In the present case, the accident was occurred on 02.05.2000 and as such the notional income of the deceased is accepted as Rs. 3000/- p.m. The Claims Tribunal has also erred in applying multiplier of 16 in place of 15 and also erred in deducting 1/6th towards personal expenses in place of 1/5th in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). The Claims Tribunal has also erred in not awarding any amount towards future prospects, whereas the claimants- appellants are entitled for 40% future prospects and Rs. 70,000/- for non pecuniary damages in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Shetty (supra). Considering the rival submissions of learned counsels for the parties, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is reassessed as below:- 1) Monthly income = Rs.3,000/- 2) Annual income = Rs. 3,000/- X 12= Rs.36,000/- 3) Future prospects (40%) = Rs.14,400/- 4) Total annual income = Rs.36,000/- + Rs.14,400/- =Rs.50,400/- 5) Deduction towards personal expenses(1/5th) = Rs.50,400/- - Rs.10,080/- =Rs.40,320/- 6) Multiplier applicable (15) =Rs.40,320/- x 15 = Rs.6 ,04,800/- 7) Non-pecuniary damages =Rs.70,000/- Total = Rs.6,04,800/- + Rs.70,000/- = Rs.6,74,800/- In view of aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by claimants is hereby partly allowed and compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.2,10,000/- to Rs.6,74,800/-. The claimants-appellants are also entitled for 6% interest on the enhanced amount from the date of judgment and award of Claims Tribunal i.e. 13.02.2003. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited/opposite party is directed to deposit the enhanced amount Rs.4,64,800/-, with interest within two months from today before the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The claimants are entitled to withdraw the entire deposited amount without furnishing any surety. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 29.4.2025 PS Digitally signed by :- POOJA SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad