Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:79449 Court No. - 48 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2904 of 2006 Appellant :- The New India Assurance Company Limited Respondent :- Smt. Rajni And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Manish Kumar Nigam Counsel for Respondent :- Manju Pandey Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J. 1. Heard Sri Aditya Singh Parihar, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Manju Pandey, learned counsel for claimant- respondent nos. 1 to 5. No one is present on behalf of respondent nos. 6 and 7. 2. This first appeal from order under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed on behalf of Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 01.09.2006 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Court No. 19/ Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Bulandshahar in M.A.C.P. No.386 of 2003 (Smt. Rajni and others vs. Kumod Kumar Agrawal and others), by which, compensation of Rs. 6,55,000/- alongwith 6% interest has been awarded on account of death of Ram Kishan aged about 25 years. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that compensation awarded to the claimants is highly excessive and without any justification. The claimants have failed to prove the income of the deceased as Rs. 4500/- per month. The incident was occurred in the year 2003 and in absence of any authentic evidence the income has wrongly been accepted as Rs. 4,500/-. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of claimants-respondents submits that the deceased was doing the tailoring work and had earned Rs. 4,500/- per month. The income was proved by the claimant by producing oral evidence. It is further submitted that nothing has been awarded towards future prospect. The Claims Tribunal has also erred in deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased ignoring the fact that there were five dependents on the income of the deceased and deduction would be 1/4. The compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is almost just and proper. 4. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. As per claim petition the deceased was doing tailoring work in the shop of Yogendra Singh, who used to pay Rs. 4,500/- per month. Yogendra Singh was appeared as PW-3 to prove the income of the deceased. It is admitted by PW-3 in his cross examination that his own income is Rs. 2,800/- to Rs. 3,300/- per month. From the evidence of PW-3, it is quite impossible that he used to pay Rs. 4,500/- per month to the deceased. The Claims Tribunal has erred in accepting Rs. 4,500/- as monthly income of the deceased. Since the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects and deduction towards personal expenses has wrongly been applied as 1/3rd in place of 1/4, the overall assessment of compensation is just and proper. 6. Considering the entire aspect of the matter, the compensation awarded by Claims Tribunal cannot said to be excessive in any manner. The compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is almost just and proper. No case for interference is made out. 6. In view of above, the first appeal from order is dismissed. 7. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Order Date :- 14.5.2025/Ruhi H. Digitally signed by :- RUHI HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad