The main legal point established in the judgment is the application and interpretation of key provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly in calculating the claim amount for a motor accident, including considerations for income, future prospects, income tax liability, and age multiplier.

1. - The instant appeal is directed against the award dated 21.2.2011 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Addl. District Judge), Beawar, in Claim Case No. 2/2009.

2. The brief facts noticed are that on 23.10.2008 one Narendra Singh, who is claimed to be a Teacher in the Education Department of the State of Rajasthan, was coming to his home from Bhim on his motorcycle bearing no.RJ06 SE 0534, when he reached near Kukarkheda on the highway, a truck bearing no. HR38 J 6207, coming from behind in a high speed which was being driven by Ved Prakash, respondent no.1, in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle of Narendra Singh while trying to overtake him, as a result of which Narendra Singh received severe and grievous injuries to which he succumbed at the spot. Claim to the extent of Rs. 1,18,55,000/- was filed. Prior to the filing of the claim petition, FIR was lodged and charge-sheet was filed against the driver of offending vehicle Ved Prakash, and the Tribunal after analysing the material and evidence on record, 2 allowed the claim to the extent of Rs. 31,72,564/-.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed the accident and other factors particularly in view of the fact that the vehicle was duly insured and all material facts and finding of fact has been found noticed by the Tribunal, however, he assailed the amount allowed at Rs. 31,72,564/- to be highly excessive and unjust and raised that (1) the income was not properly taken into consideration inasmuch as his gross salary was taken into consideration when several deductions were there and only net salary ought to have been taken into consideration, (2) the future prospects taken into consideration by the Tribunal at 30% over the gross salary, is also not in accordance with the provisions of law and ought not to have been taken into consideration, (3) the income tax reduced by the Tribunal at Rs. 16000/- is on estimate basis and as per exact working, the income tax liability calculates at Rs. 18,700/- based on the actual income tax calculation as per the Income Tax Act, and is required to be reduced by Rs. 18,700/-, (4) it was admitted that the age of the deceased was around 47 years and multiplier ought to have been 13, whereas the age of deceased has been adopted, without any basis, merely on the basis of the post-mortem report at 45, and multiplier of 14 has been applied which is contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 , (5) the other amounts allowed on account of loss of love and affection and other conventional heads, is also excessive and deserves to be reduced 3 suitably.

4. Elaborating the points, he contended that there is no question of taking into consideration the gross income as the base, as only net salary which was being carried at home ought to have been taken into consideration. With reference to future prospects, counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shashikala & Others v. Gangalakshmamma 2015 ACJ 1239 , has noticed that there is divergence of opinion amongst various Benches of the Hon'ble Apex Court and vide judgment dated 13.3.2015 referred the matter in the case of self-employed or fixed wages for placing the matter before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders towards constitution of a suitable Larger Bench to decide the issue. He thus contended that several judgments are there where in the case like this, the persons who are self-employed but without permanency of income or regularity of income, future prospect is not required to be allowed, and also argued that the points raised hereinbefore needs consideration and the claim deserves to be reduced accordingly.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the claim allowed is just and proper and is not required to be interfered with, and contended that all factors have been taken