The main legal point established in the judgment is that provident fund contribution should not be deducted from the deceased's salary while computing compensation, and 50% of the actual income should be added to the deceased's income towards future prospects. Additionally, interest should be awarded from the date of the application.

JUDGMENT

Anuja Prabhudessai, J. - This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "M.V. Act") challenging the judgment and award dated 18/10/2013 passed by Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in M.A.C.P No.686/2008.

2. The Appellants, who shall be hereinafter referred to as the Claimants, had filed an application under Section 166 of the M.V. Act in view of death of Anantrao Jade in a motor vehicular accident on 29/06/2018. The case of the Claimants was that while deceased - Anantrao Jade was proceeding to Borujwada from Saoner by his motor cycle bearing Registration No.MH-40-H-6797, a trax bearing Registration No.MP-28-A-1971 dashed his motor cycle, as a result, he sustained fatal injuries. The Claimants alleged that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said offending vehicle.

3. It was stated that the deceased was 35 years of age and was working in Western Coalfields and earning monthly salary of Rs.12,432. The Claimants being the widow and the minor children of the deceased claimed total compensation of Rs.17,50,000/- from the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 being the insurer and insured of the offending vehicle.

4. The Respondent No.1 - Insurance Company contested the petition mainly on the ground of contributory negligence. The Respondent No.1 - Insurance Company also claimed that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence and, therefore, denied its liability of indemnifying the insured on the ground of breach of terms and conditions of the policy.

5. The Claims Tribunal upon considering oral and documentary evidence on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.17,79,000/- inclusive of compensation paid under no fault liability with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the order till the date of payment.

6. The judgment is assailed mainly on the ground that the Tribunal has not considered future prospects. Learned Counsel for the Claimants also submits that the Tribunal was not justified in awarding interest from the date of the order.

7. Shri Kukday, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 - Insurance Company claims that the compensation has been awarded as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, which was holding field as on the date of Award. He has relied upon the decisions of learned Single Judge of this Court in First Appeal No.1279/2018 and in First Appeal No.124/2019, to contend that the Claimants are not entitled for future prospects as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. He has also relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gaurish Transport & Another Vs. Pedro Salvador & Others,19881 ACC 180, to contend that the claimants are not entitled for interest on loss of earning and loss of future earning from the date of the application.

8. It is not dispute that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle and further that the death of Anantrao Jade was caused due to the injuries sustained in the accident. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was 32 years of age and was working as a Belt Operator in Western Coalfields, Saoner. The Claimants had produced the salary certificate at Exh.45 to prove that he was earning salary of Rs.12,432/- per month.

9. A perusal of the impugned judgment indicates that apart from deducting an amount of Rs.175/- paid towards income tax, the Tribunal has also deducted an amount of Rs.250/- towards provident fund, while computing the loss of dependency. It is to be noted that under the Provision of the Provident Funds Act, 1925 an employee, either in the private sector or public sector is required to compulsorily contribute certain amount towards provident fund. The amount along with interest accr