These two appeals arise out of judgment and award dated 14.05.2012 in M.V.C.No.60/2012 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – IX, Bellary (‘Tribunal’ for short). Insurer has filed M.F.A. No.24620/2012 challenging the quantum. Claimants have filed M.F.A. No.24380/2012 for enhancement.

2. One Shailesh succumbed to injuries sustained in a road traffic accident which occurred on 19.11.2011 involving an offending Tractor Trailer and the motorcycle which the victim was riding.

3. Claimants presented the instant petition for compensation. During trial, three witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimants and 23 exhibits were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no witness was examined. Insurance policy was marked by consent. After framing relevant issues and considering material on record, Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.47,20,116/- with 6% interest. Both Insurer and claimants are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation. Hence, these appeals.

4. Heard Sri Lakshmikant Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri S.K. Kayakamath, learned counsel for the insurer.

5. Sri S.K. Kayakamath submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded is disproportionately high. The evidence brought on record by the claimants does not conclusively establish the earning capacity. Deceased Shailesh was on probation and not a permanent employee. Tribunal erred in construing conveyance allowance as a part of salary. Adverting to Ex.P7, he submitted that Tribunal has deducted only components, namely, Income Tax and Professional Tax and taken the earning capacity of the deceased as Rs.34,431/- per month. According to him, the payment made to the deceased under the heads Conveyance Allowance, Medical Reimbursement, Fixed Production Incentive and Special Allowance ought to have been deducted while computing the net earning capacity. Assailing the award with above submissions, he prayed for allowing the appeal filed by the insurer and to dismiss the appeal filed by the claimants.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants contended that the salary of deceased was in fact revised with effect from 01.04.2011 as is evidenced by Ex.P20, a communication dated 12.05.2011 issued by the employer. Therefore, according to him, Tribunal erred in accepting Ex.P7 and considering the gross salary as only Rs.37,054/-. So far as the deductions are concerned, he contended that except Income Tax and Professional Tax, all other components reflecting in the salary slip are part and parcel of remuneration to which deceased was entitled. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have noted the revision in pay while computing compensation. He further contended that deceased was an young Engineer aged 29 years, holding a B.E. degree and had a promising career. Consequently, loss of future prospects also ought to have been added by the Tribunal. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing his appeal by enhancing compensation and to dismiss insurer’s appeal.

7. Occurrence of accident and liability of insurer are not in dispute. Thus, only the aspect of quantifying ‘just compensation’ remains for consideration.

8. Ex.P7 is the pay slip of the deceased issued by the employer. It shows that he was earning Rs.37,054/-. Rs.7,611/- have been deducted under various heads. Net pay is indicated as Rs.29,443/-.

9. The intention of the legislature in enacting Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 among other things is to ensure that victim in a road traffic accident is awarded a ‘just compensation’. Learned counsel for the insurer has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Indira Srivastava and others, (2008) 2 SCC 763 in support of his appeal. We have carefully perused the said judgment. Hon’ble Supreme Court after adverting to several judgments which included judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court, Madras High Court and Andra Pradesh High Court held tha