Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 190 (BOM)

Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd v. Manju

2021-01-28

ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI

body2021
JUDGMENT Anuja Prabhudessai , J. - The Appellant Insurance Company has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the M.V. Act") challenging the judgment and Award dated 14/08/2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No. 828/2009.By the impugned judgment and Award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.22,99,125/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till final realization. 2. The Respondent No. 1 is the widow and Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are the children of the deceased Vikram Choudhari, who expired on 05/05/2009 as a result of injuries sustained in a motor vehicular accident involving TATA Specio bearing No. HP-01/ K-0442. The Respondent nos. 1 to 4, who shall be hereinafter referred to as Claimants, had claimed that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. The deceased was a Doctor of 52 years of age and was earning Rs.23,00,000/- per annum. The Claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, claiming total compensation of Rs.1,69,00,000/-. 3. The owner of the offending vehicle as well as the Appellant Insurance Company denied that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said vehicle. They claimed that the claim was exorbitant and imaginary. 4. Upon considering the documentary as well as oral evidence on record the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the TATA Speciao and that the death of Vikram Choudhari Was caused due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The Tribunal relied upon the income tax return at Exh. 53, which was filed prior to the death of the deceased and held that the annual income of the deceased was Rs.2,66,644/- per annum. The Tribunal deducted an amount of Rs.6097/- payable towards Income Tax and upon deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses and applying multiplier of 11, computed loss of dependency at Rs.1,95,375/-. The Tribunal held that as per the dictum of the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) ACJ 1298, addition of an amount towards future prospects is permissible only up to the age of 50 years. The Tribunal held that as per the dictum of the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) ACJ 1298, addition of an amount towards future prospects is permissible only up to the age of 50 years. The Tribunal held that the deceased was 52 years of age and hence, the Tribunal did not add any amount towards future prospects. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.25,000/- each to Claimant Nos. 2 to 4 towards loss of love and affection, Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.25,000/- towards conveyance charges. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.22,99,125/-. This judgment and Award is under challenge in this appeal. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has grossly erred in computing loss of future income on the basis of annual income of Rs. 2,66,644/-. He submits that the compensation awarded on all other conventional heads is exorbitant. He also questions grant of interest from the date of the application under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. He contends that the impugned Award is unsustainable in law and facts and is liable to be quashed. 6. Learned Counsel for the Claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not 'just and reasonable'. He submits that this Court can enhance the compensation even in the absence of the cross-objections. In support of this contention, he has relied upon the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sumitra wd/o Debu Vishwas and ors. in First Appeal No. 1116 of 2015 . He submits that as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and ors, (2018) 3 MhLJ 70, the Claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each towards spousal and parental consortium. He further states that the deceased was a Doctor and would have strived hard to enhance his income. He submits that in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), it is necessary to add an amount equivalent to 10% of the established income towards future prospects. He contends that the compensation awarded on other conventional heads is also meager and the same needs to be enhanced. 7. I have perused the records and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for respective parties. He contends that the compensation awarded on other conventional heads is also meager and the same needs to be enhanced. 7. I have perused the records and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for respective parties. It is to be noted that the factum of the accident is not in dispute. The fact that Vikram Choudhari had expired as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident and that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of TATA Spacio, is also not in dispute. Considering that the challenge in this appeal is restricted to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Reference Court, the primary question for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is 'just compensation'. 8. In the instant case, the claim petition has been decided vide judgment dated 14.08.2015. On the date of the judgment, the legal position as laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (supra) was holing the field. Following the dictum in Sarla Verma (supra), the Tribunal had not add any amount towards future prospects. The Tribunal had also not awarded any compensation towards loss of parental consortium. It is to be noted that the legal position has undergone change with the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 . In Pranay Sethi (supra), the Apex Court has approved the multiplier as well as norms laid down in Sarla Verma (supra) regarding deductions against personal expenses. The Apex Court has also issued guidelines in addition of income towards future prospects and has further quantified amount of Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium, Rs.15,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate. 9. In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd (supra) the Apex Court has held that the 'consortium' is a compendious term which encompasses 'spousal consortium', 'parental consortium' and 'filial consortium. Spousal consortium is granted to the surviving spouse for loss of 'company, security, co-operation, affection and aid of the other in every conjugal relation. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the pre-mature death as a parent for loss of 'parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training'. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the pre-mature death as a parent for loss of 'parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training'. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. The Apex Court has held that the amount of compensation to be awarded for loss of consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under loss of consortium as laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra). 10. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has strenuously argued that the award passed by the Tribunal has to be tested on the basis of the decision in Sarla Verma (supra) which was holding the field. It may be mentioned that in Maj. Genl. A.S. Gauraya & Anr vs S.N. Thakur, (1986) AIR SC 1440 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "there is nothing like any prospective operation alone of the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The law laid down by the Supreme Court applies to all pending proceedings". It is also a settled proposition that the discretion to restrict the operation of a decision prospectively, vests only with the Supreme Court. In Pranay Sethi as well as Magma Gen. Ms. Company (supra) the Apex Court has no where indicated that the judgment would apply prospectively and not retrospectively. This being the case, dictum of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) as well as Magma General Insurance (supra) would apply to all pending proceedings. The appeals being continuation of original proceedings filed before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, the compensation has to be computed on the basis of the law expounded by the Apex Court in the aforestated cases. 11. The evidence on record indicates that the deceased Vikram Choudhari was 52 years of age. He was a Surgeon and was running his own hospital. The Claimants have placed on record income tax returns at Exh. 53 which were filed by the deceased prior to his death, for the assessment year 2007-08. In the said tax return at Exh. 53, the professional income of the deceased was declared as Rs.2,45,685/- and agricultural income is Rs.20,959/-. The total income declared for the assessment year 2007-08 was Rs.2,66,644/-, on which an amount of Rs.6097/- was paid as income tax. 12. In the said tax return at Exh. 53, the professional income of the deceased was declared as Rs.2,45,685/- and agricultural income is Rs.20,959/-. The total income declared for the assessment year 2007-08 was Rs.2,66,644/-, on which an amount of Rs.6097/- was paid as income tax. 12. Considering the annual income of the deceased as Rs.2,66,644/- and upon deducting an amount of Rs. 6097/-, paid towards income tax, the annual income of the deceased can be considered as Rs.2,60,547/-. Considering the age and profession of the deceased and following the dictum of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) an amount of Rs.26054/- being 10% of the established income needs to be added towards future prospects, which works out to Rs.286601/-. The deceased had four dependents and on deducting Rs.71,650/- being 1/4th of the annual income towards personal expenses, the total income works out to Rs.2,14,950/-. The deceased was 52 years of age and applying multiplier of 11, loss of dependency works out to Rs.23,64,450/-. The Claimant No.1 is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium and Claimant Nos. 2 to 4 being minor children of the deceased, are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each towards parental consortium. In addition, the Claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 30,000/- towards funeral expenses and loss of estate. The Claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.25,54,450/- which in my view, is 'just compensation'. 13. The next question is whether this Court can enhance the compensation in the absence of a cross-objection. Shri D.N. Kukday, learned Counsel fort the Appellant Insurance Company has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Ranjana Prakash and ors. vs. Divisional Manager and anr, (2011) 14 SCC 639 to contend that the appellate court cannot enhance the compensation in an appeal filed by the insurer. This issue has been considered by me at the Principle Seat in the case of Kelkar and Kelkar v/s Shripad Narayan Gore and ors. (First Appeal No. 956 of 2002 dated 22.10.2019) wherein it has been observed thus : "23. This issue has been considered by me at the Principle Seat in the case of Kelkar and Kelkar v/s Shripad Narayan Gore and ors. (First Appeal No. 956 of 2002 dated 22.10.2019) wherein it has been observed thus : "23. In Ranjana Prakash (supra), the Claims Tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs.24,12,936/- with interest @ 9% p.a. In an Appeal filed by the Insurance Company, the High Court reduced the compensation to Rs.16,89,055/- by deducting 30% towards income tax, without taking cognizance of the contention of the Claimant that the Tribunal ought to have added 30% towards future prospects and that for this reason, the computation of compensation did not call for any interference. It was on the consideration of the aforesaid contentions that the Apex Court has held thus:- "6. . But where in an appeal filed by the owner/insurer, if the High Court proposes to reduce the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Claimants can certainly defend the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, by pointing out other errors or omissions in the award, which if taken note of, would show that there was no need to reduce the amount awarded as compensation. Therefore, in an appeal by the owner/insurer, the appellant can certainly put forth a contention that if 30% is to be deducted from the income for whatsoever reason, 30% should also be added towards future prospects, so that the compensation awarded is not reduced. The fact that Claimants did not independently challenge the award will not therefore come in the way of their defending the compensation awarded, on other grounds. It would only mean that in an appeal by the owner/insurer, the Claimants will not be entitled to seek enhancement of the compensation by urging any new ground, in the absence of any cross-appeal or cross-objections. 7. This principle also flows from Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure which enables an appellate court to pass any order which ought to have been passed by the trial court and to make such further or other order as the case may require, even if the respondent had not filed any appeal or cross-objections. This power is entrusted to the appellate court to enable it to do complete justice between the parties. This power is entrusted to the appellate court to enable it to do complete justice between the parties. Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code can however be pressed into service to make the award more effective or maintain the award on other grounds or to make the other parties to litigation to share the benefits or the liability, but cannot be invoked to get a larger or higher relief. For example, where the Claimants seeks compensation against the owner and the insurer of the vehicle and the Tribunal makes the award only against the owner, on an appeal by the owner challenging the quantum, the appellate court can make the insurer jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, along with the owner, even though the Claimants had not challenged the nongrant of relief against the insurer. Be that as it may. 8. Where an appeal is filed challenging the quantum of compensation, irrespective of who files the appeal, the appropriate course for the High Court is to examine the facts and by applying the relevant principles, determine the just compensation. If the compensation determined by it is higher than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will allow the appeal, if it is by the Claimants and dismiss the appeal, if it is by the owner/insurer. Similarly, if the compensation determined by the High Court is lesser than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will dismiss any appeal by the Claimants for enhancement, but allow any appeal by owner/insurer for reduction. The High Court cannot obviously increase the compensation in an appeal by owner/insurer for reducing the compensation, nor can it reduce the compensation in an appeal by the Claimants seeking enhancement of compensation." 24. It may be mentioned that a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Nagappa v/s. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 274 MANU/SC/1107/202 : , has held that:- "13. Hence, as stated earlier, it is for the Tribunal to determine just compensation from the evidence which is brought on record despite the fact that Claimant has not precisely stated the amount of damages of compensation which he is entitled to. If evidence on record justifies passing of such award, the claim cannot be rejected solely on the ground that Claimant has restricted his claim... 14. xxx 15. xxx 16. If evidence on record justifies passing of such award, the claim cannot be rejected solely on the ground that Claimant has restricted his claim... 14. xxx 15. xxx 16. From the aforesaid observations it cannot be held that there is a bar for the Claims Tribunal to award the compensation in excess of what is claimed, particularly when the evidence which is brought on record is sufficient to pass such award. In cases where there is no evidence on record, the Court may permit such amendment and allow to raise additional issue and give an opportunity to the parties to produce relevant evidence. 17. xxx 18. xxx 19. xxx 20. xxx 21. For the reasons discussed above, in our view, under the M.V. Act., there is no restriction that Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the Tribunal/Court is to award 'Just' compensation which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. Further, in such cases there is no question of claim becoming time barred or it cannot be contended that by enhancing the claim there would be change of cause of action. It is also to be stated that as provided under sub-section (4) to Section 166, even report submitted to the Claims Tribunal under sub-section (6) of Section 158 can be treated as an application for compensation under the M.V. Act. If required, in appropriate cases, Court may permit amendment to the Claim Petition." 25. In Ramla v/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2019) 2 SCC 192 , MANU/SC/1362/2018 : the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated these principles and has observed that the Motor Vehicle Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation and the Courts are duty bound to award just compensation, which is reasonable on the basis of the evidence produced on record. 26. In Ningamma and anr. V/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710 , MANU/SC/0802/2009 : the Apex Court has observed that:- "34. Undoubtedly, Section 166 of the MVA deals with "just compensation" and even if in the pleadings no specific claim was made under Section 166 of the MVA, in our considered opinion a party should not be deprived from getting "just compensation" in case the Claimant is able to make out a case under any provision of law. Needless to say, the MVA is beneficial and welfare legislation. Needless to say, the MVA is beneficial and welfare legislation. In fact, the court is dutybound and entitled to award "just compensation" irrespective of the fact whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the Claimant or not. " 27. In A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. by its General Manager and anr. V/s. M. Ramadevi and ors., (2008) 1 TAC 714 , MANU/SC/7008/2008 : while considering the question whether the High Court could have enhanced the compensation in the absence of an appeal by the Claimant, reiterated the principles in Nagappa (supra) that under Motor Vehicles Act there is no restriction that the Tribunal Court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the Tribunal Court is to award 'just compensation' which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. 28. In Jitendra Khimshankar (supra), the Tribunal had considered the income of the deceased as Rs.1,500/- per month and awarded compensation of Rs.2,24,000/-. In an appeal filed by the insurance company, the High Court assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.1,350/- per month and reduced the compensation to Rs.2,09,400/-. The Apex Court observed that the deceased would have earned not less than Rs.3,000/- per month. Though the Apex Court had enhanced the compensation in exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, it would be advantageous to refer to the observations made by the Apex Court in paragraph 12 of the judgment, which read thus:- "12. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,24,000/- as against the same, Claimants have not filed any appeal. As against the award passed by the tribunal when the Claimants have not filed any appeal, the question arises whether the income of the deceased could be increased and compensation could be enhanced. In terms of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the courts/tribunals are to pass awards determining the amount of compensation as to be fair and reasonable and accepted by the legal standards. The power of the courts in awarding reasonable compensation was emphasized by this Court in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh & Ors.[3], Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Mohd. Nasir & Anr.[4], and Ningamma & Anr. vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd.[5]. The power of the courts in awarding reasonable compensation was emphasized by this Court in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh & Ors.[3], Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Mohd. Nasir & Anr.[4], and Ningamma & Anr. vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd.[5]. As against the award passed by the tribunal even though the Claimants have not filed any appeal, as it is obligatory on the part of courts/tribunals to award just and reasonable compensation, it is appropriate to increase the compensation." 29. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s. Vaishali Harish Devare and ors. in First Appeal No.1068 of 2012, the Division Bench of this Court has held that:- "16 ..The claim petition filed under section 166 of the said Act is not in the nature of a suit. Under section 168 of the said Act, the Tribunal is duty bound to hold an inquiry to determine the amount of compensation which appears to be just. Thus, the concept of just compensation has been incorporated in section 168 of the said Act. It is well settled that the Tribunal constituted under the said Act is not bound by the strict rules of the evidence. As we have stated earlier, the claim petition under section 166 is not a suit. While deciding the claim petition, the Tribunal is under an obligation to determine just compensation payable to the Claimants. This appeal being the continuation of the claim petition, even this Court is under an obligation to determine the just compensation payable to the Claimants. Even if there is no cross appeal or cross - objection preferred by the Claimants, the exercise of determining the just compensation will have to be carried out. After carrying out the said exercise if it is found that the Claimants are entitled to more amount than what is granted under the impugned Judgment and Award, in absence of appeal or cross objection, this Court may not enhance the compensation amount payable. Therefore, while deciding this appeal, an adjudication is required to be made whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is a just compensation. Such adjudication can be made even without taking recourse to Rule 33 of Order XLI of the said Code." 30. Similar view has been taken by the Single Judge of this Court in The State of Maharashtra (Through the Collector of Nashik) and ors. v/s. Smt. Kamaladevi Kailashchandra Kaushal and ors. Such adjudication can be made even without taking recourse to Rule 33 of Order XLI of the said Code." 30. Similar view has been taken by the Single Judge of this Court in The State of Maharashtra (Through the Collector of Nashik) and ors. v/s. Smt. Kamaladevi Kailashchandra Kaushal and ors. in First Appeal No.103 of 2017 and in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v/s. Smt. Seema Sudam Auti and ors,2017 5 ALL(MR) 552, MANU/MH.1138/2017 : 31. It is thus well settled that while dealing with Claim Petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, which is a benevolent provision, the Tribunal / Court is not bound by the pleadings or strict rules of evidence. Under Section 168 of the M.V. Act, the Tribunal / Court is under a statutory obligation to determine 'just compensation' without succumbing to the niceties or technicalities of the matter. In computing just compensation, the emphasis is on justice oriented approach, by the Tribunal as well as the Appellate Court. Keeping in mind, the object of the Act and the principles laid down by the three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Nagappa (supra) and the above referred decision, it is clear that there is no embargo for the Claims Tribunal or the Court to award compensation in excess of what is claimed. Since, it is a statutory obligation of the Court to do complete justice to the parties and award just compensation, there is no restriction to enhance the compensation in appropriate case even in the absence of cross appeal or cross objection. 14. Similar view has been taken in Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. vs Sumitra Wd/O. Debu Vishwa in First Appeal No. 1116 of 2015 as well as in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Kunti Binod Pande and ors. in First Appeal (St.) No. 5735/2016. In the case of Cholamandalam (supra), learned Single Judge of this Court (R.D. Dhanuka,J.), after considering the above referred judgments has held thus : "37. In so far as the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Ranjana Prakash & Ors. v/s. Divisional Manager and Anr. Vs. Kunti Binod Pande and ors. in First Appeal (St.) No. 5735/2016. In the case of Cholamandalam (supra), learned Single Judge of this Court (R.D. Dhanuka,J.), after considering the above referred judgments has held thus : "37. In so far as the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Ranjana Prakash & Ors. v/s. Divisional Manager and Anr. (supra) is concenred, the said judgment has been interpreted by this Court in various judgments already referred to aforesaid and after considering the later judgment of the Supreme Court, it is held by this Court that filing of substantive appeal or cross-objection by the Claimant for seeking enhancement of the claims is not necessary. The principles of law laid down by the later judgment of Supreme Court and this Court in largenumber of judgments referred to aforesaid, apply to the facts of this case." 15. As stated earlier, a statutory duty has been cast on the Tribunal to award 'just compensation'. The appeal being continuation of original proceedings, the Appellate Court is also bound by the statutory mandate to determine 'just compensation' notwithstanding the quantum of compensation claimed by the Claimants. This is the power confered on the Court under Order XLI 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure to do complete justice to the parties. Hence, it is reiterated that there is no restriction to enhance the compensation in appropriate cases even in the absence of crossappeal or cross-objection. 16. Learned Counsel for the Appellant contents that the Claimants are not entitled for interest on future income. It is pertinent to note that Section 171 of the M.V. Act provides that where a Tribunal allows the claim for compensation, such Tribunal may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation, simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date, not earlier than the date of making the claim as it may specify in this behalf. In this regard, it would be advantageous to refer to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Rupesh Rashmikant Shah v. Union of India,2019 5 ABR 497. In this regard, it would be advantageous to refer to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Rupesh Rashmikant Shah v. Union of India,2019 5 ABR 497. The question before the Division Bench of this Court was whether the Income Tax Department was justified in taking away 30% of the interest on the compensation which was determined by the Claims Tribunal nearly about 36 years after the accident, while considering the nature of interest payable under Section 171 of the M.V. Act, the Division Bench of this Court has referred to the decisions of the Apex court in Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2001) 2 SCC 9 and Dharampal v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, (2008) 12 SCC 208 and held thus : "47.It can, thus, be seen that in the case of fatal accident cases, the Courts award compensation for loss of dependency benefit, loss of estate, loss of consortium in case of a spouse, loss of love and affection for the family members and funeral charges. In injury cases, generally, the compensation is computed under the heads of actual loss of income, future loss of income, pain, shock and suffering, loss of enjoyment of amenities of life, medical -treatment past and future, miscellaneous heads such as attendant charges, special diet, transportation, etc. The multiplier method is found to be most appropriate for computing loss of dependency benefits in fatal and future loss of income in injury cases. 48. From the above judgments, it can further be seen that be it a fatal case or an injury case, compensation includes future loss. In case of fatal accidents, it is awarded under the head of loss of dependency benefits. In case of injury cases, such future loss may either be in the form of loss of future income or even for future medical treatment and other expenditure. However, the computation of such future loss is on the basis of the income of the deceased or the injured on the death or accident. This is adjusted by a reasonable future rise in income. The concept of taking into account full possible rise in income is not accepted. However, the computation of such future loss is on the basis of the income of the deceased or the injured on the death or accident. This is adjusted by a reasonable future rise in income. The concept of taking into account full possible rise in income is not accepted. For example, in case of a salaried person, particularly in government service, by the time a Claim Petition or Appeal is decided, there is hard evidence of the implementation of pay revisions and consequential rise in salary of other employees of the same cadre as that of the deceased. However, the Courts have rejected the request for awarding compensation on the basis of such future predictions. To the multiplicand so determined multiplier is applied to ascertain future loss. The method of multiplier takes into account various factors and imponderables of life and, therefore, the multiplier is not equivalent to the full length of the remainder of the expected life of the deceased. The multiplier theory proceeds on the basis that with interest that may be earned on the compensation and a portion drawn from the capital, should be equivalent to what the deceased would have contributed to his family. At the end of the period, the capital should be completely utilised. It is, therefore, that while awarding compensation, though the Claims Tribunal awards future loss in praesenti, interest is awarded for the period between filing of the Claim Petition till passing of the award and, therefore, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Abati Bezbaruah ( AIR 2003 SC 1817 ) (supra) and Dharampal ( AIR 2008 SC 2312 ) (supra), such interest is considered to be part of compensation, and accretion to the compensation since the same is awarded for the compensation which is ascertained with reference to an earlier date i.e., the date of accident. At the same time, courts have not approved granting interest on future expenditure." 17. Under the circumstances, the contention that the Claimants are not entitled for interest on future income is also devoid of merits. Hence, the following order : (a) The appeal is dismissed. (b) The Claimants are held to be entitled for total compensation of Rs.25,54,450/- inclusive of no fault liability with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the application till realization. Hence, the following order : (a) The appeal is dismissed. (b) The Claimants are held to be entitled for total compensation of Rs.25,54,450/- inclusive of no fault liability with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the application till realization. (c) The Appellant to deposit the balance amount along with proportionate interest within a period of two months. (d)The Claimants shall pay differential amount of court fees, if any, in view of additional amount of compensation allowed by this judgment before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal within two weeks from the date of computation of such additional court fees. (e) The Claimants are entitled to withdraw the said amount along with accrued interest in equal proportion.