The court recalculated the compensation amount based on the deceased's actual salary and future prospects, and set aside the direction to pay and recover from the driver and owner of the vehicle, citing relevant Supreme Court judgments.

JUDGMENT

1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 20.09.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer in Claim Case No. 164/2009, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 12,21,896/- as compensation to the claimants on account of the death of Champa Lal in the accident which occurred on 04.04.2009.Learned Tribunal after hearing the counsel for the parties decided the claim-petition of the claimants vide judgment and award dated 20.09.2012. Aggrieved of the order dated 20.09.2012, the present appeal has been preferred.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal erred while computing the award in the present case as the salary of the deceased Champa Lal was Rs.23,434/- p.m. whereas, the learned Tribunal has taken only Rs.l3,693/-p.m. He, therefore, submits that the compensation amount has been awarded on a much lower side.

4. The next contention of the counsel for the appellant is that no amount on account of future prospects has been awarded in the light of the Judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) SC 5157.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that although the liability to pay compensation has been fastened on the respondent - Insurance Company but there is a direction to pay and recover the same from the driver and owner of the vehicle on account of the fact that the license of the driver of the offending vehicle was not a valid license as it was a Light Motor Vehicle, whereas, the vehicle involved in the accident was a tractor. Learned counsel submits that in view of the Judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2017) 14 SCC 663, it will be the liability of the respondent - Insurance Company to make good the damages to the claimants.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company is not in a position to rebut the arguments and settled position of law canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant.

7. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the material placed before this Court as well as the impugned Judgment and Award dated 20.09.2012.

8. The fact that the deceased Champa Lal was a Bank Employee and as per the salary certificate, he was earning Rs. 23,434/-p.m. (gross income). Thus, the annual income comes to Rs. 2,81,208/-. On this amount, an Income Tax of Rs. 12,480/- is required to be deducted as the same is paid towards the income tax. Thus, this Court feels that an amount of Rs. 2,68,728/- is required to be taken into consideration while computing the award.

9. As far as the age of the deceased Champa Lal is concerned, he was 51 years of age and therefore, for the purpose of future prospects, 15% amount of the annual income is required to be taken into consideration. Thus, the award in the present case is recomputed as under:-

10. In view of the discussions made above, the respondent -Insurance Company is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 11,14,280/- in addition to the amount already awarded by the learned Tribunal, to the appellants-claimants within a period of six weeks from today. The respondent - Insurance Company will be liable to pay the compensation and the direction of the Tribunal to pay and recover is, therefore, quashed and set aside in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra), The enhanc