JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company. 2. The appeal arises out of a judgment and award dated 02.05.2018 rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Bareilly, in M.A.C.P. No.452 of 2015 (Smt. Rajwati and others v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co.Ltd. and others) partly allowing the claim of the claimants. This appeal has been filed by the claimants/appellants for enhancement of the amount awarded by the tribunal in the impugned judgment. 3. The brief facts of the claimants-appellants before the learned tribunal was that the deceased died of injuries sustained in an accident on 22.08.2015 which was caused entirely by rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle of Tata-407 model bearing registration No.UK-08-CA/3528. The deceased was driving a motorcycle when the offending vehicle collided with him. The offending vehicle was insured by the respondent-insurance company. The claimants are dependant on the deceased. The deceased worked as a vegetable vendor. I. Compensation awarded by the learned tribunal: 4. The learned tribunal in the impugned judgment dated 03.04.2017 awarded compensation which is depicted in a tabulated form hereunder: Sr. No. Heads Amount (in rupees) 1 Monthly Income (A) 3600/- 2 Annual Income (B) (A x 12 = B) 3600 x 12 =43,200/- 3 Future prospects (C) 40% of 43,200/-=17,280/- 4 Annual Income + Future Prospects (B + C = D) 43,200 + 17,280/-=60,480/- 5 Deduction towards Personal Expenses (E) ¼ of 60,480/-= 15,120/- 6 Annual Loss of Dependency (D-E = F) 60,480-15,120/-=45,360/- 6 Multiplier (G) 17 7 Total loss of dependency (F x G = H) 45,360 x 17 =7,71,120/- 8 Compensation (H) 7,71,120/- 9 Conventional Heads: (I) (a) Loss of consortium (b) Loss of love, affection (c) Loss of Estate (d) Funeral expenses 70,000/- 10 Total compensation (H+I = J) 7,71,120/-+ 70,000/-= 8,41,120/- 11 Interest 7.00% 5. Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the appellants contends that the tribunal erred in law by incorrectly determining the income of the deceased and also awarding the amounts under various heads which were at variance with settled authorities in point. 6. Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company contends that the compensation paid was just lawful, valid and requires no alteration. 7. 6. Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company contends that the compensation paid was just lawful, valid and requires no alteration. 7. After advancing their arguments, learned counsel for both the parties agree that only the following questions fall for consideration in this appeal:- A. Whether the learned Tribunal had correctly determined the income of the deceased in the record? B. Whether learned Tribunal correctly computed the compensation under these various heads :- (i) conventional heads, (ii) future prospects, (iii) multiplier, and (iv) interest while computing the compensation? 7.(A) Income of the deceased: 8. The claimants-appellants specifically pleaded that the deceased was a vegetable vendor who earned Rs.600/-to Rs.700/-per day. The appellants-claimants also introduced one witness to establish the income of the deceased. PW1-Rajwati before the learned tribunal testified that her husband worked as a vegetable vendor. The entire family was dependant on his income. Under cross examination the witness stated that the deceased did not maintain any documentation of his business like receipt of sale vouchers, registration with the Nagar Nigam, etc. The credit of PW1-Rajwati remained intact under cross-examination. Her testimony clearly establishes that the deceased was a vegetable vendor and his family was supported by his income. Learned tribunal which had the benefit of observing the demeanor also did not reject the testimony insofar as it relates to the deceased engaged in the business of selling vegetables. 9. Learned tribunal clearly misread the evidence and determined the income by relying on the admission of P.W.1 that the business of the deceased was not documented. 10. The deceased worked in the informal sector of the economy as a vegetable vendor. The activities in this sector are often undocumented. Running account books, or receipt of sale vouchers, registration with Nagar Nigam and the like are not maintained by vegetable vendors. Absence of such documents cannot adversely impact determination of income in such cases. Vegetable vendors require a certain skill in doing business which include identifying vegetables, understanding the market, and giving the right sales pitch. These skills are mostly acquired on the job. The income of the deceased would be examined the light of the skills required to earn a livelihood as a vegetable vendor. The aforesaid considerations were not factored in by the learned tribunal while determining the income of the deceased. These skills are mostly acquired on the job. The income of the deceased would be examined the light of the skills required to earn a livelihood as a vegetable vendor. The aforesaid considerations were not factored in by the learned tribunal while determining the income of the deceased. The income determined by the learned tribunal is accordingly set aside. 11. The minimum wages as notified by the State Government factor in all relevant considerations and is a reliable guide to take the enquiry forward. Considering the perennial need of vegetables, it can be concluded that the deceased had a regular source of employment. The minimum wage as notified by the State Government at the relevant time for skilled labourers is Rs.8,298/-. 12. In the wake of preceding discussion, the total monthly income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.8,500/-per month. 7.(B)(i) Calculation of Conventional Heads: 13. The amount determined under conventional heads in the impugned award is at variance with National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (16) SCC 680 . The conventional heads were fixed in Pranay Sethi (supra) by holding as under: “54. …...The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/-funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/-And Rs. 15,000/- respectively.” 14. The figure under conventional heads determined in Pranay Sethi (supra) shall be applicable to the facts of this case. The award is modified accordingly. 7.(B)(ii) Future Prospects: 15. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/-funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/-And Rs. 15,000/- respectively.” 14. The figure under conventional heads determined in Pranay Sethi (supra) shall be applicable to the facts of this case. The award is modified accordingly. 7.(B)(ii) Future Prospects: 15. The future prospects are liable to be calculated in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998-[(hereinafter referred to as the “UP Rules, 1998)]. Rule 220A-3(i) of the Rules is relevant and is reproduced hereunder: “(3) The future prospects of a deceased, shall be added in the actual salary or minimum wages of the deceased as under— (i) Below 40 years of age : 50% of the salary.” 16. The UP Rules, 1998 came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Urmila Shukla and others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 822. In Urmila Shukla (supra) upon consideration of various judgments including Pranay Sethi (supra) held: “10. The discussion on the point in Pranay Sethi was from the standpoint of arriving at “just compensation” in terms of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 11. If an indicia is made available in the form of a statutory instrument which affords a favourable treatment, the decision in Pranay Sethi cannot be taken to have limited the operation of such statutory provision specially when the validity of the Rules was not put under any challenge. The prescription of 15% in cases where the deceased was in the age bracket of 50-60 years as stated in Pranay Sethi cannot be taken as maxima. In the absence of any governing principle available in the statutory regime, it was only in the form of an indication. If a statutory instrument has devised a formula which affords better or greater benefit, such statutory instrument must be allowed to operate unless the statutory instrument is otherwise found to be invalid.” (emphasis supplied) 17. The Rules of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 were not under consideration before the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) or Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Company and another, 2009 (6) SCC 121 . Future prospects in Pranay Sethi (supra) were determined without noticing the U.P. Rules, 1998. This fact was adverted to in Urmila Shukla (supra): “8. It is submitted by Mr. Future prospects in Pranay Sethi (supra) were determined without noticing the U.P. Rules, 1998. This fact was adverted to in Urmila Shukla (supra): “8. It is submitted by Mr. Rao that the judgment in Pranay Sethi does not show that the attention of the Court was invited to the specific rules such as Rule 3(iii) which contemplates addition of 20% of the salary as against 15% which was stated as a measure in Pranay Sethi. In his submission, since the statutory instrument has been put in place which affords more advantageous treatment, the decision in Pranay Sethi ought not to be considered to limit the application of such statutory Rule.” 18. The U.P. Rules,1998 are statutory in nature and their operation is not stymied by Pranay Sethi (supra). The U. P. Rules, 1998 have the force of law and shall apply with full force in appropriate cases. The U.P. Rules, 1998 are more beneficial for the claimants than the provisions made in Pranay Sethi (supra) for them. The holdings in Pranay Sethi (supra) can not dilute the advantages conferred by U.P. Rules, 1998 upon the eligible beneficiaries. 19. This Court finds that the claimants-appellants are entitled to 50% enhancement in wages towards future prospects, consistent with the UP Rules, 1998. The necessary changes in the award shall be accordingly made. 20. In this wake, this Court finds for the appellants-claimants on the issue of grant of future prospects. 7.(B)(iii) Multiplier: 21. The age of the deceased was 28 years at the time of death. Multiplier of 17 has been correctly applied by the learned Tribunal and is in line with Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma (supra). 7.(iv) Interest: 22. Interest of 7.50% and the manner of payment does not call for interference. However, the claimants-appellants shall not be entitled to interest on the enhanced income determined in this judgment. II. Determination of Compensation to which claimants-respondents are entitled: 23. In the wake of preceding discussion, the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants-appellants is tabulated below: i. Date of Accident -22.08.2015 ii. Date of death -22.08.2015 iii. Name of the deceased -Vijay Raj iv. Age of the deceased -28 years v. Occupation of the deceased -Vegetable Vendor vi. Income of the deceased - Rs.8,500 per month. vii. Name, Age and Relationship of claimants with the deceased Sr. No. Name Age Relation 1 Smt. Raywati 28 Wife 2 Km. Date of death -22.08.2015 iii. Name of the deceased -Vijay Raj iv. Age of the deceased -28 years v. Occupation of the deceased -Vegetable Vendor vi. Income of the deceased - Rs.8,500 per month. vii. Name, Age and Relationship of claimants with the deceased Sr. No. Name Age Relation 1 Smt. Raywati 28 Wife 2 Km. Rsohni 4 Daughter 3 Vishal 2 Son 4 Smt. Nemwati 58 Mother 5 Khyalram 60 Father viii. Computation of Compensation Sr. No. Heads Amount (in Rupees) 1 Monthly Income (A) 8500 2 Annual Income (B) (A x 12 = B) 8500 x 12 = 1,02,000/- 3 Future Prospects (C) 50% of 1,02,000 =51,000/- 4 Annual Income + Future Prospects (B + C = D) 1,02,000 + 51,000/-= 1,53,000/- 5 Deduction towards Personal Expenses (E) ¼ of 1,53,200/-=38,300/- 6 Annual Loss of Dependency (D-E=F) 1,53,000-38,300 =1,14,700/- 7 Multiplier (G) 17 8 Total Loss of Dependency (FxG = H) 17 x 1,14,750 = 19,49,900/- 9 Compensation (H) 19,49,900/- 10 Conventional Heads: (I) (a) Loss of consortium (b) Loss of Love, Affection (c) Loss of Estate (d) Funeral Expenses 70,000/- 11 Total Compensation (H+I = J) 19,49,900/-+ 70,000/-= 20,19,900/- 12 Interest 7.50% III. Conclusion and Directions: 24. The amount of compensation to which the claimants-appellants have thus been found entitled shall be deposited by the corporation within three months before the learned tribunal. Thereafter the learned tribunal shall release the amount to the claimants without delay. The amount already disbursed to the claimants (if any) shall be duly adjusted. 25. The amount of Rs.25,000/-deposited by the appellants-claimants while instituting the appeal shall be forthwith remitted to the learned tribunal. The amount shall be paid to the claimants-appellants as part of the awarded compensation amount. 26. The instant appeal is partly allowed as indicated above.