Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:90663 Court No. - 2 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 403 of 2014 Appellant :- Smt. Savitri @ Pooja And 3 Others Respondent :- Raj Babu And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Vidya Kant Shukla Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. 1. Despite service of notice, nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents, therefore, the appeal is being proceeded ex parte. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 3. The present appeal has been filed against the award dated 18.12.2013 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur Nagar in MACP No.1192 of 2011, whereby the the tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.3,91,000/- alongwith 6% interest from the date of institution of claim petition for the death of one Ajay Kumar in an accident on 14.10.2011 with truck No.UP71B/4070. 4. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants has submitted that the accident had taken place on 14.10.2011 and the tribunal has erred in computing the compensation treating the income of the deceased to be Rs.36,000 per annum. It is a common knowledge that in the year 2011, even the income of a Sales Incharge was Rs.5000/- per month i.e. Rs.60,000/- per annum. Accordingly, it is submitted that tribunal should have taken Rs.60,000/- per annum as income of the deceased for computing the compensation. It is further submitted that no amount towards future prospect has been awarded by the tribunal whereas, considering the age of the deceased, the claimants/appellants are entitled to 40% towards future prospect in view of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others 2017 (16) SCC 680. It is submitted that Rs.7000/- towards non-pecuniary damages awarded by the tribunal is on lower side whereas claimants/appellants are entitled to Rs.70,000/- in view of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). It is further submitted that that there were four dependents upon the deceased, therefore, considering the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others 2009 (6) SCC 121, tribunal should have deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased instead of 1/3rd. It is submitted that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is not adequate. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. 6. The accident is stated to have taken place in the year 2011. It is a common knowledge that in the year 2011, even the income of a Sales Incharge was Rs.5000/- per month i.e. Rs.60,000/- per annum. Considering the said fact, this Court holds that the compensation should be computed by taking the income of the deceased to be Rs.60,000/- per annum in place of Rs.36,000/-. 7. The submission of learned counsel for the claimants/appellants in respect of future prospect has also got force in view of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and thus, following the aforesaid judgement of Apex Court, claimants/appellants are entitled to 40% towards future prospect considering the age of the deceased and further non-pecuniary damages awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.7000/- to Rs.70,000/-. 8. It is also established on record that there were four dependants upon the deceased, therefore, in view of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), 1/4th should have been deducted by the Tribunal towards personal expenses of the deceased. 9. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of claim petition till the date of award. 10. For the reasons given above, the appeal is partly allowed and award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent as indicated above. Insurance company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation to the appellants/claimants within a period of three months. There shall be no order as to cost. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 SSharma Digitally signed by :- SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad