1 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:72633 Court No. - 48 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1967 of 2008 Appellant :- Smt. Nisha Srivastava and Others Respondent :- Smt. Kamala Kant Mishra Counsel for Appellant :- Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui Counsel for Respondent :- Archana Singh Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J. 1. Heard Sri Aman Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui, learned counsel for appellants, Ms. Archana Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2/United India Insurance Company Limited and perused the record. No one is present for respondent no.1, who is owner of offending motorcycle. 2. The present first appeal from order has been filed by the claimants-appellants under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation against the judgment and award dated 14.3.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.17, Kanpur Nagar in M.A.C.P. No.369 of 2004 (Smt. Nisha Srivastava and others Vs. Sri Kamla Kant Misra and another), by which the claim petition filed by claimants-appellants was partly allowed and the compensation of Rs.2,95,750/- along with 6% interest has been awarded to the claimants-appellants on account of death of Vineet Kumar Srivastava aged about 22 years, who died in a road accident. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for claimants-appellants that compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is too meager. The income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month was proved by the claimants by producing cogent evidence and there was no evidence in rebuttal by the opposite parties, the Claims Tribunal has erred in disbelieving the income of the deceased and has accepted the notional 2 income of Rs.3,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the age of the deceased was accepted as 24 years at the time of accident but had erred in applying the multiplier of 17 instead of 18. Lastly, it is submitted that nothing has been awarded towards future prospects and only Rs.9,500/- has been awarded for non-pecuniary damages whereas the claimants are entitled for 40% future prospects and Rs.70,000/- for non-pecuniary damages. No other ground has been pressed by learned counsel for the claimants. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2 submits that claimants had failed to prove the income of the deceased. The Claims Tribunal has recorded the finding while deciding the issue nos.5 and 6 that no document regarding registration of shop as well as income has been filed by the claimants. The accident was occurred in the year 2004 and the notional income of Rs.3,000/- per month accepted by the Claims Tribunal is almost just and proper. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has not disputed that multiplier of 18 would be applied and claimants are also entitled for 40% future prospects and Rs.70,000/- for non-pecuniary damages. 6. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The claimants had claimed the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month from the electronic shop. The Claims Tribunal has recorded the finding while deciding the issue of income that no documentary evidence has been produced by the claimants to prove the income of the deceased. The accident was occurred in the year 2004 and the Claims Tribunal has rightly accepted the notional income of Rs.3,000/- per month as provided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Devi & others vs. Mohammad Tabbar & Another reported in 2008 (2) T.A.C. 394 (S.C.). So far as the 3 multiplier and future prospects is concerned, the Claims Tribunal had erred in applying the multiplier of 17 accepting the age of deceased as 24 years whereas the appropriate multiplier would be 18 as provided by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation reported in 2009(2) TAC 677 for the age group of 21-25 years. The claimants are also entitled for 40% future prospects and Rs.70,000/- for non-pecuniary damages 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. The finding of Claims Tribunal in respect of 30% contributory negligence of the deceased has not been challenged by claimants/appellants. 8. In view of above, the judgment and award of Claims Tribunal is modified 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 (1/3) : = Rs.50,400/- - Rs.16,800 = Rs.33,600/- 6. Multiplier applicable (18) : = Rs.33,600/- x 18 = Rs.6,04,800/- 7. Deduction towards contributory negligence (30%) := Rs.6,04,800/- - Rs.1,81,440/- = Rs.4,23,360/- 8. Non-pecuniary damages: = Rs.70,000/- Total : Rs.4,23,360/- + Rs.70,000/- = Rs.4,93,360/- 9. In view of aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by claimants- appellants is hereby partly allowed and award of the Claims Tribunal is modified and compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.2,95,750/- to Rs.4,93,360/-. 4 10. The United India Insurance Company Limited/respondent no.2 is directed to pay enhanced amount of Rs.1,97,610/- along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing claim petition to the claimants-appellants, within two months from today. 11. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 06.05.2025 Kpy Digitally signed by :- KAVLESHWAR PRASAD YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad