JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. M. Kato, learned counsel for the appellant and also heard Mr. K. Loya, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.08.2018, passed by the learned Member, MACT, Yupia, in connection with MACT Case No. 21/2016 (YPA). It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and order, the learned Court below has directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 4,62,840/- (Rupees Four Lacs Sixty Two Thousand Eight Hundred Fourty only) inclusive of No Fault Liability with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing till payment. 3. The factual background leading to filing of the present appeal is briefly stated as under:- “On 11.04.2013 at around 9.30 am, the respondent Shri Lishi Talo along with his father Lishi Sera were proceeding towards Hapoli to attend some domestic work by his motor cycle bearing Registration No. Nil. While they were proceeding towards Talo village, suddenly one truck bearing Registration No. 06E/7065 came from the opposite direction in a very high speed and hit the motor cycle, resulting death of Lishi Sera on the spot. The deceased Lishi Sera, left behind his wife, 6 children and his ailing parents. The death was caused due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the truck, belonging to the Officer Commanding 1448 BCC (GREF), C/o 99 APO and after the incident, the driver fled away from the spot with truck and surrendered at the Ziro Police Station. Thereafter, the respondent-Lishi Talo, filed the appeal before the learned Member, MACT, Yupia claiming compensation on account of his deceased father, who was working as casual labourer under Palin Sub-Division, PWD and was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 6500/-(Rupees Six thousand Five Hundred) and at that time he was 45 years of age. Upon the said appeal, MACT Case No. 21/2016 (YPA) was registered and notice was issued to the opposite party and accordingly, the opposite party No. 1/appellant No. 1 herein- Officer Commanding 1448 BCC (GREF), C/o 99 APO, appeared and contested the petition. Thereafter, hearing both the sides, the learned Court below has directed the respondent No. 1 to pay a sum of Rs. Thereafter, hearing both the sides, the learned Court below has directed the respondent No. 1 to pay a sum of Rs. 4, 62, 840/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition i.e., 29.07.2015 till final payment made by the opposite party No. 1”. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellants preferred this appeal against the said judgment and award dated 21.08.2018, on the grounds that:- I. The accident took place due to over speeding of the bike of the deceased. II. The deceased rode the bike without helmet at that point of time. III. The motor cycle driven by the deceased was not registered. IV. There was no fault on the part of the driver of the Truck. V. That the learned Court below has mistakenly awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One lakh), under the head of love and affection; VI. The learned Member MACT, had failed to consider the monthly income of the deceased, and therefore, it is contended to set aside the impugned judgment and award. 5. Mr. M. Kato, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the learned Member, MACT has mistakenly awarded the compensation to the respondent/claimant, as the deceased was driving the bike in over speed and the bike was not registered and there was no fault on the part of the driver of the Truck and that the learned Court below has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head of love and affection, but the same has not been provided in the judgment of the Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . Mr. Kato further submits that the learned Court below also failed to consider the monthly income of the deceased at the time of the accident, and therefore, it is contended to set aside the impugned award. 6. On the other hand, Mr. K. Loya, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that while passing the judgment and award dated 21.08.2018, the learned Court below has committed no illegality or impropriety, requiring any interference of this Court and that the learned Court below had dealt with all the issues raised by the appellant there. Mr. 6. On the other hand, Mr. K. Loya, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that while passing the judgment and award dated 21.08.2018, the learned Court below has committed no illegality or impropriety, requiring any interference of this Court and that the learned Court below had dealt with all the issues raised by the appellant there. Mr. Loya further submits that in the case of Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 , Hon’ble Supreme Court, subsequent to the judgment of Pranay Sethi (Supra), has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head of love and affection. And as such, the point raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is devoid of any substance and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the same with costs. 7. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the case laws referred by the learned counsel of both sides and also the carefully gone through the impugned judgment and award. 8. Having carefully gone through the impugned award of the learned Member, MACT, Yupia, I find that the learned Member has framed as many as 7 issues for determination and thereafter, hearing the parties and considering the evidence so adduced by both the parties, arrived at the finding that:- I. Late Lishi Sera, died as a result of injuries sustained by him in a road accident that took place on dated 11.04.2013, involving his unregistered bike and a Truck bearing Registration No. 06E/7065, and that the offending Truck belongs to the opposite party No.1, and authority of the Union of India, and decided issue No. 1 and 2 affirmatively. II. And, in respect of issue No.3, the learned Member found that there was contributory negligence on both part of the drivers, i.e., the deceased and the driver of the opposite party’s Truck. III. That in respect of issue No.4, the learned Member found that the deceased rode an unregistered, bike but he has a valid driving license and there was no prove of having not worn helmet at the time of incident and that the opposite party has not objected about the age of the deceased and he was 45 years of age at the time of his death. And in respect of issue No.5 the learned Member found that the petitioner had produced two certificates in respect of his income and that the minimum amount, which has been mentioned in the claim petition, has to be taken as the income of the deceased and determined at a sum of Rs. 6500/- per month. IV. That in respect of the issue No. 6, the learned Court below found that the opposite party i.e., the GREF, authorities, has paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the widow of the deceased as one time help on 11.04.2013, and also constructed the Memorial Pillar of the deceased, spending a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- and repaired the bike at the cost of Rs. 10,000/- and that a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- has already been paid by the GREF authority to the family members of the claimant as lump sum compensation and decided the issue No.6 accordingly. V. And thereafter, the learned Court below, while dealing with issue No.7 has held that being the eldest son of the deceased, the claimant is entitled to received the compensation. 9. Thereafter, the learned Member had calculated the pecuniary loss at a sum of Rs. 14,19,600/- and deducted a sum of Rs. 2,83,920/- for his expenses and thereafter, the amount remained was Rs. 11,35,680/- and since, the learned Court below has found that the case was of a contributory negligence and the opposite party is liable to pay 50% of the amount only. Then, the pecuniary loss is assessed at a sum of Rs. 5,67,840/- and admittedly, the claimant has already availed a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- after its deduction and there remains to be paid a sum of Rs. 3,07,840/- with which, the learned Court below added a sum of Rs. 30,000/- being the charge of carrying dead body and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of loss of love and affection and for sufferings and determined the total quantum at a sum of Rs. 4,62,840/-, directing the appellant to pay the same with interest @ 9% p.a. till payment is being made. 10. 30,000/- being the charge of carrying dead body and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of loss of love and affection and for sufferings and determined the total quantum at a sum of Rs. 4,62,840/-, directing the appellant to pay the same with interest @ 9% p.a. till payment is being made. 10. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both sides and also considering the case laws referred by learned counsels of both side and also considering the laws presently holding the field, the compensation which the claimant will be entitled to, is assessed as under:- The deceased was 45 years old at the time of death, factum of which is not disputed by the appellant. At that time, he was serving as Casual Labourer under the Palin Sub-Division of PWD and he received salary @ Rs. 7000/- per months, as per the certificate issued by Asstt. Engineer, Palin Sub-Division. However, the claimant had mentioned in the claim petition that the monthly income of the deceased was 6500/- and therefore, accepted the same for the purpose of calculation. Though Mr. Kato, during argument submits that the leaned Member had failed to consider the income of the deceased, yet, I find that the learned Member had committed no illegality in determining the monthly income of the deceased at Rs,6,500/-, in view of the certificate given by the Asstt. Engineer, PWD, Palin. As he was a casual labourer, his job was not permanent and his salary was fixed. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranoy Sethi (supra), 25% of above has to be added as future prospect with respect to his age, as he was below 45 yrs. old. After addition of 25%, the amount would be Rs.6500 + Rs.1625 = Rs.8125/-. The deceased was married. He left behind his wife and six children and ailing parents to succeed his estate. Therefore, the deduction towards his personal expenses will be one-fifth(1/5) of above, in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarala Verma’s case, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , and after deduction of one fifth, the amount would be Rs.8125 - Rs.1625 = Rs. 6500. Therefore, the deduction towards his personal expenses will be one-fifth(1/5) of above, in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarala Verma’s case, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , and after deduction of one fifth, the amount would be Rs.8125 - Rs.1625 = Rs. 6500. The multiplier applicable here, in this case would be 14, since the deceased was 45 years old at the relevant time, and after application of the multiplier, the loss of dependency will be Rs. 6500 x 12 x 14 = Rs.10,92,000/-. Besides, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranoy Sethi (supra), the claimant will entitle to a sum of Rs. 15,000/-, under the conventional heads i.e. loss of estate, and Rs.15,000/- being the funeral expenses, and also Rs.40,000/- being the consortium. Besides the award under conventional heads has to be increased by 10% and as three years have elapsed after the pronouncement of the said judgment. After addition of the said 10%, the amount under conventional heads i.e. loss of estate will be Rs. 1500+15,000=Rs.16,500/-, and funeral expenses will be Rs. 1500+15,000=16,500/- and loss of consortium will be Rs. 4000+40,000=44,000/-. Besides, in view of the law, laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., reported in 2018 (18) SCC 130 , which is subsequent to the judgment of Pranay Sethi (Supra), a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, has to be added under the head of love and affection. Therefore, no fault can be found with the finding the learned Member while adding a sum of Rs, 1,00,000/-, under the head of love and affection. Besides, following the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bolram Prasad vs. Kunal Saha and Ors. (2014) 1 SCC 384 , we would like to award a sum of Rs. 25,000/- under the head cost of litigation. Thus, the total amount of compensation is assessed at Rs. 12,94,000/- (Rupees twelve lacs ninety four thousand) only, and to our considered opinion, this amount would be the just and proper amount of compensation here in this case. The whole calculation is shown as under. SL. 25,000/- under the head cost of litigation. Thus, the total amount of compensation is assessed at Rs. 12,94,000/- (Rupees twelve lacs ninety four thousand) only, and to our considered opinion, this amount would be the just and proper amount of compensation here in this case. The whole calculation is shown as under. SL. No. HEADS CALCULATIONS (i) Income Rs.6500/- (ii) 25% of (i) above to be added as future prospects, (Pranoy Sethi’s case) Rs.6500+Rs.1625 =Rs.8125/- per month (iii) 1/5rd of (ii) is to be deducted as personal expenses of deceased, Rs.8125 - Rs.1625 = Rs.6500/- (iv) Compensation after multiplier 14 is applied Rs.6500 x 12 x 14 =Rs. 10,92,000/- (v) Loss of estate + 10% (in every three years) Rs.15,000+1500 =Rs.16500/- (vi) Loss of Consortium +10%(in every three years) Rs.40,000+4000 = Rs.44,000/- (vii) Funeral expenses,10% (in every three years) Rs.15,000+1500 =Rs.16500/- (viii) Litigation Expenses Rs.25000/ as per Bolram Prasad’s case. Rs.25,000/- (ix) Loss of love and affection and for suffering Rs. 1,00,000/- TOTAL AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION Rs. 12,94,000/- 11. The learned Member has found that it was a case of contributory negligence and the opposite party is liable to pay 50% of the determined amount only. This finding of the learned Member is not challenged in this appeal. Therefore, after deduction of the 50% amount the claimant will be entitled to Rs.12,94,000 - Rs. 6,47,000 =Rs. 6,47,000/- only. Admittedly, the claimant has already availed a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- from the appellant. And as such, after deduction of the said amount, the respondent will be entitled to Rs.6,47,000 - Rs. 2,60,000 = Rs. 3,87,000/- (Rupees three lakhs eighty seven thousand) only. Accordingly, the appellant is directed to make payment of the same to the respondent within a period of 30 days from today. The amount will carry the same interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. 29.07.2015, in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Upahar Tragedy Victims Association and Ors, (2011) 14 SCC 481 and also in Kalpanaraj vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation: (2014)Acci.C.R.693 (S.C.), and in the event of failing to payment of the same within the stipulated time, then it will carry interest @ 12% per annum. 12. In the result, I find this appeal devoid of merit and accordingly the same stands dismissed. However, the award stands modified to the extent indicated above. 12. In the result, I find this appeal devoid of merit and accordingly the same stands dismissed. However, the award stands modified to the extent indicated above. The parties have to bear their own cost.