Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.

The instant appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and award dated 18.3.2010 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) & Judge, MACT, Sikar ('the Tribunal' for short hereinafter) wherein following award has been passed:

"izkFkhZx.k ;g izfrdj ;kfpdk fo:) vizkFkhZx.k fuf.kZr djrs gq, iapkV fuEu izdkj ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd %&

1- izkFkhZx.k vizkFkhZx.k ls :0 16]59]868@& izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSa ftlesa ls vUrfje izfrdj ds :0 50 gtkj dk lek;kstu djus ds ckn izkFkhZx.k :0 16]09]868@& izfrdj izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSaA

2- izkFkhZx.k :0 16]09]868@& ij izkFkZuk i= nk;jk fnukad ls rkolwyh 6-25 izfr'kr okf"kZd lk/kkj.k nj ls C;kt ,ao ,d gtkj :i;s ;kfpdk O;; ds Hkh izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSaA

3- izfrdj jkf'k e; C;kt izkIr gksus ij izkFkhZ;k la0 1 ikoZrhnsoh dks cpr [kkrs ds ek/;e ls nks yk[k :i;s rFkk rhu rhu lky ls uohuhd`r gksus okyh vof/k ds lkof/k tek [kkrs ds ek/;e ls ukS yk[k :i;s dk Hkqxrku fd;k tkosA izkFkhZ la[;k 3 vpZuk dks cpr [kkrs ds ek/;e ls :0 50 gtkj ,oa ikap o"khZ; lkof/k tek [kkrs ds ek/;e ls ,d yk[k :i;s dk Hkqxrku fd;k tkosA izkFkhZ la0 4 o 5 dze'k% Hkhaokjke o Jherh ukjk;.kh nsoh dks cpr [kkrs ds ek/;e ls ,d ,d yk[k :i;s rFkk :0 80]434@& ikap o"khZ; lkof/k tek [kkrs ds ek/;e ls Hkqxrku fd;s tkosA lHkh izkFkhZx.k dks C;kt dh jkf'k dk Hkqxrku muds lkof/k tek [kkrs ds ek/;e ls izfrdj ds vuqikr ds vuq:i Hkqxrku fd;k tkosA

4- izkFkhZx.k dks mDr tek jkf'k ij dksbZ vfxze o _.k ns; ugha gksxkA vko';drk gksus ij izkFkhZx.k tek jkf'k ckcr iqu% vkns'k izkIr djus ds fy, vf/kd`r gSaA^^

2. Brief facts of the case are that with regard to the accident involved, a claim petition was filed on behalf of the claimants claiming compensation as mentioned therein.

3. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. Reply to the claim petition was filed and the learned Tribunal framed the issues. After hearing all the parties, the learned Tribunal passed the aforesaid impugned judgment & award.

4. Against the impugned judgment and award, the appellants preferred the instant appeal for the relief as prayed for in it.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the learned Tribunal has contended that at the time of the death, the income of the deceased has been considered to be Rs. 15,604/- on the basis of the fact that even though at the time of the death the actual salary drawn by him was Rs. 11,168/- per month but because of the revision of the salary on the basis of sixth pay commission made effective from a date prior to the date of the accident, his salary was considered to be Rs. 15,604/- p.m. Even if the decision of the learned tribunal is considered to be correct, the learned tribunal has failed to deduct the amount of income tax from the amount of the salary as a person is entitled to salary after deduction of the amount of the income tax payable by him. In the instant case, the amount of salary being Rs. 15,604/- p.m or say Rs. 1,87,248/-, the amount of income tax deductible on this amount becomes Rs. 12,750/- and thus the learned Tribunal ought to have considered his total earning to be Rs. 1,74,908/- only and the dependency amount being 2/3 of this earning becomes Rs. 1,16,332/- per annum only instead of Rs. 1,24,836 as considered by the learned tribunal. Counsel has further submitted that the claimants are entitled for compensation on the basis of the actual loss sustained by them. Hence impugned award deserves to be quashed and set aside.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of appellants and requested for maintaining/setting aside of judgment and award.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and award. I am in agreement with the observations made by the learned Tribunal in its judgment and award, the relevant portion of which is reproduced as under:

^^23- izkFkhZx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us ;g Hkh dgk fd ;fn gjQwy flag dh nq?kZVuk esa e`R;q ugha gks