Court No. - 33 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3764 of 2010 Appellant :- Smt. Meera Singh And Others Respondent :- The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui Counsel for Respondent :- Smt. Archana Singh Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J. Smt. Archana Singh, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 1. As per office report dated 03.12.2021, notice issued to respondent no. 2 by registered post has not returned back after service. In view of above, the service upon respondent no. 2 is deemed to be sufficient. Heard Sri Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the claimants-appellants and Ms. Manjima Singh, Advocate holding brief of Smt. Archana Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 1. This first appeal form order has been filed against the judgment and award dated 21.09.2010, passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 15/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur Nagar, in M.A.C.P. No. 499 of 2006 (Smt. Meera Singh and others vs. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. and another), whereby the claimants-appellants have been awarded total compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,96,750/-. It is submitted by learned counsel for the claimants-appellant that the Claims Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased ignoring the fact that there were six dependents on the income of the deceased and the appropriate deduction is 1/4th in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma vs. D.T.C. reported in 2009 (2) T.A.C. 677 (S.C.) It is further submitted that nothing has been awarded towards future prospect, whereas, the claimants are also entitled for 40% future prospects in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (4) T.A.C. 673 and the claimants are also entitled for Rs. 70,000/- towards non pecuniary damages. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 Insurance Company has submitted that the Claims Tribunal has awarded the just and reasonable compensation to the claimants and no ground for enhancement is made out but she has not disputed the aforesaid legal position. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has laid down certain guidelines for calculating just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. Relevant paragraph 61 is reproduced hereunder:- "61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions: (i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench. (ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent. (iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. (iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. (v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore. (vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment. (vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. (viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years." Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the present first appeal from order is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is reassessed as follows :- 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 (1/4) : Rs. 50,400/- - Rs. 12,600/- = Rs. 37,800/- 6. Multiplier applicable (16) : Rs. 37,800/- x 16 = Rs. 6,04,800/- 7. Non-pecuniary damages : Rs. 70,000/- Total : Rs. 6,04,800/- + Rs. 70,000/- = Rs. 6,74,800/- The Appeal is hereby partly allowed and award of the Claims Tribunal is modified and compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 1,96,750/- to Rs. 6,74,800/-. The claimants-appellants are also entitled for interest at the rate of 6% on the enhanced amount from the date of filing claim petition. The respondent no. 1 namely The New India Assurance Company Ltd. is directed to pay enhanced amount a well as interest to the claimants within two months from today. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 4.12.2021 sailesh