Future prospects must be awarded even for non-earning deceased to ensure just compensation under Section 168.

On May 30, 2015, Nanjundaswamy (the deceased) was struck by a Mahindra Bolero (KA-12-N-8992) driven in a rash and negligent manner.

He succumbed to his injuries on June 12, 2015.

His parents filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The Tribunal awarded ₹9,40,943/- with 9% interest, holding the Insurance Company liable.

The Insurance Company appealed (MFA 2193/2018) challenging the vehicle's involvement and the deduction for personal expenses, while seeking to produce additional evidence (Case Diary/Sheet).

The claimants appealed (MFA 3926/2018) seeking enhancement for future prospects.

Whether additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC should be permitted?

Whether the insured vehicle was involved in the accident?

Whether the Tribunal erred in applying a 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses and failing to award future prospects for a non-salaried deceased?

Whether the 9% interest rate was excessive?

The Court applied Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC, as interpreted in *Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin*, which mandates that additional evidence is an exception permitted only if the appellate court cannot pronounce judgment on the existing record.

Substantive compensation was governed by *National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi*, establishing that for a bachelor, the deduction for personal expenses must be 50% (1/2).

Furthermore, the court relied on *Meena Pawaia v. Ashraf Ali*, which extended the benefit of "future prospects" to deceased individuals who were not formally employed or had no static income at the time of death.

Interest rates were guided by *Dharampal v. U.P. SRTC* and *Erudhaya Priya v. State Express Transport Corp. Ltd.*

The Court dismissed the application for additional documents, noting that the existing record (charge sheet and FIR) was sufficient to conclude the matter.

Regarding the vehicle's involvement, the Court held that the Insurance Company failed to prove fraud; the charge sheet (Ex. P9) and the Company’s own filed case diary (Ex. R3) clearly identified the offending vehicle.

On quantum, the Court found the Tribunal’s 1/3rd deduction incorrect as the deceased was a bachelor; per *Pranay Sethi*, a 50% deduction was applied.

However, following *Meena Pawaia*, the Court corrected the omission of future prospects, awarding a 25% addition to the income, noting that human income is dynamic and not static.

The Court upheld the 9% interest on the original award as a valid exercise of discretionary power given the claimants' age and dependency.

The compensation was reassessed from ₹9,40,943/- to ₹11,98,943/- (an enhancement of ₹2,58,000/-).

The Court ordered that the enhanced portion shall carry interest at 6% p.a., while the original award’s interest remained undisturbed.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within eight weeks.