HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1020 of 2026 Court No. - 39 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1. 2. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 20.01.2026 passed by the learned Tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 395 of 2017 (Umesh Chandra and another vs. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and another), whereby compensation has been awarded on account of the death of Smt. Ramvati in a road motor accident. 3. The claim petition was instituted under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs. 33,90,000/- along with interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant has contended that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is not in consonance with the settled principles of law. It has been argued that relevant factors concerning the deceased were not properly appreciated and adequate interest has not been awarded. 5. It is not in dispute that the deceased was a housewife. The learned Tribunal has considered the age, income, multiplier, and future prospects while determining the compensation. 6. The age of the deceased has been assessed by the learned Tribunal as 50 years. Though no conclusive documentary evidence has been brought on record to establish the exact age, the Tribunal has determined the same on the basis of available material. In the facts and circumstances of the case, such assessment does not warrant interference. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Amrit Shanker Dubey Counsel for Respondent(s) : Umesh Chandra And Another .....Appellant(s) Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation And Another .....Respondent(s) 7. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (SMT) & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another; (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, the multiplier applicable to the age group of 50 years is 13, which has rightly been applied by the learned Tribunal. 8. As regards the income of the deceased, it has been alleged that she was earning approximately Rs. 15,000/- per month through agricultural activities and cattle rearing. However, no cogent or documentary evidence has been adduced in support thereof. 9. In the absence of proof of income, the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on the basis of minimum wages applicable to an unskilled labourer. The said approach is in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manusha Sreekumar vs The United India Insurance Co.Ltd.; (2022) 17 SCC 321 decided on 17 October, 2022 (Civil Appeal No. 7593 of 2022) wherein it is held in paragraph 21 ... "This Court in Chandra v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav, has aptly held that in the absence of a salary certificate, the minimum wages notification along with some amount of guesswork that is not completely detached from reality shall act as a yardstick to determine the income of the deceased." 10. Accordingly, the income of the deceased has been taken as Rs. 7,400/- per month, as per the applicable notification under the Minimum Wages Act for the relevant period (01.10.2017 to 31.03.2018). The deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses has also been rightly made. 11. The learned Tribunal has further awarded compensation under conventional heads, namely loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses, in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi; (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680. 12. So far as future prospects are concerned, the addition of 10% is in accordance with the law laid down in Pranay Sethi (Supra) for self- employed persons within the age bracket of 40 to 50 years. 13. With regard to the issue of interest on future prospects, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal has rightly held that interest is not payable on the component of future prospects, as the same represents income yet to accrue. The said view is in consonance with the principles of just compensation and has also been followed by this Court (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad) , ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Seema Devi and FAFO No. 1020 of 2026 2 others, decided on 24.06.2024. 14. The learned Tribunal, in terms of Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 (as amended up to 2020), has awarded interest at the rate of 7% per annum as simple interest. The learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on the basis of the Minimum Wages Act and has awarded compensation accordingly. It has further held that interest is not payable on the amount representing future prospects, as the same is yet to be earned. Therefore, denial of interest on future prospects appears to be in consonance with the principles of just compensation and equity. 15. In view of all the aforesaid facts, reasons, circumstances, and provisions of law, there is neither any illegality nor irregularity in the impugned award dated 20.01.2026 passed by the learned Tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 395 of 2017 (Umesh Chandra and another vs. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and another). The appeal lacks merit and is not liable to be admitted. 16. Accordingly, the FAFO is dismissed. April 24, 2026 M. Tarik FAFO No. 1020 of 2026 3 (Abdul Shahid,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD TARIK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad