JUDGMENT :

P. Sam Koshy, J.—These are the two appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act assailing the award dated 19/02/2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kabirdham (Kawardha) (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 26/2015.

2. Vide the said impugned award, the Tribunal in a death case under Section 163-A has awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,74,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of application.

3. So far as the appeal by the Insurance Company i.e., MAC No. 595/2016 is concerned it was contended by the counsel for the Insurance Company that, it is a case where there was no policy issued in favour of the respondent/owner of the offending vehicle and that the Tribunal has wrongly fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company. He further submits that it is a case where the only document which was produced before the Tribunal showing issuance of policy was a proposal form written by the owner, but the same has not been deposited with the Insurance Company nor has the Insurance Company received any premium against the said proposal form nor a policy as such was issued. Even a cover note also was not issued. He further submits that, the finding of the Tribunal is erroneous for the reason that the Tribunal has accepted the proposal form as the cover note policy whereas it was only a proposal form and that too not in the original form which was in the possession of owner. The fact that the original form itself was in the possession of owner shows that, the same has not been deposited with the Insurance Company failing which it would not had been with the possession of the owner and thus prayed for the award to be suitably modified and the liability be shifted upon the owner.

4. The counsel for the respondent/owner however opposing the appeal submits that, the finding of the Tribunal does not seem to be erroneous in as much as it is based upon the evidence which have come on record and therefore the appeal of the Insurance Company deserves to be rejected. He further submits that, if the owner has paid the money for the issuance of policy to the agent of the Insurance Company, even then the Insurance Company would be fully liable to indemnify the owner.

5. However perusal of record show that, the owner has not been able to show as to whom the money was deposited, when was the money deposited and what was the proof of payment of money towards the issuance of policy.

6. So far as the claimants appeal are concerned, the counsel for the claimants submits that, the finding of the Tribunal in fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company seems to be proper, legal and justified. He further submits that, the compensation awarded to the claimants deserves for enhancement in as much as the Tribunal should have taken into account the income under the future prospects while quantifying the compensation. The counsel for Insurance Company raised his objection that in the claim case under Section 163-A, the income under future prospects cannot be added or else the income of the deceased would go beyond Rs. 40,000/- annually and the claim would not be maintainable.

7. As regards the objection of the counsel for the Insurance Company that the future prospects should not be added to the income of the deceased in a proceeding under Section 163-A or else the income of the deceased may rise beyond Rs. 40,000/- this Court is of the opinion that, the schedule under Section 163-A only prescribes that, the annual income of the deceased should not be beyond Rs. 40,000/-. It does not mean that while computing the compensation, the compensation under future prospects cannot be added. Neither it is the mandate of the Act or law that the monthly income of the deceased or the injured as the case may be, to be inclusive of the income under the future prospects. Thus the said ground of the counsel for the Insurance Company is not acceptable and the same stands negated.

8. Having heard the contentions put forth