& Ors., (2008) 2 SCC 763, has declared that the gross income of the deceased has to be taken into consideration. So, I find that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of deceased on the basis of gross income. 10. So far as addition of 50% towards f' utureprospects' is concerned, I find that the evidence on record is lacking as regards deceased being in permanent employment. It has come in evidence of Pankaj Gael (PW-2), a witness from the Company where deceased was employed, that no employment letter was issued to deceased. Therefore, addition of 40% instead of 50% towards f' uture prospects' has to be made. 11. Regarding deduction of expenses' of deceased, I find that since the:amount of pension received by father of deceased is not forthcoming,!jtherefpre,V:d^ of 1/4"^ towards 'personal expenses' of deceased.ds; justifi^^ So far as 'non-pecuniary damages' are concerned, I fmd that ihwieA^;of Supreme Court's decision in Pranay Sethi (supra), compehsattbn grapt^^^^ under the head of 'loss of consortium' is required feduciedf^^d.xis as such reduced from ?1,50,000/- to ?40,000/-. Similarly, thCiVcpmp granted under the head of 'loss of estate' is reduced from ?50,000/- to ^15,000/-. The f' uneral expenses' are also 'feduced:h:omv^:5^ to ?15,000/-. Since no compensation under the head of 'love and affection' is payable in view of Supreme Court's decision in Pranay Sethi (supra), therefore, compensation of ?1,50,000/- granted under this head is disallowed. The compensation granted under the head of 'loss of financial dependency' is reassessed at ^36,95,520/- [i.e. f 2,19,972/- (annual income) + T 87,988/- (addition of 40yo towards future prospects) X 16 (multiplier) X 3/f^ (dependency)].
