The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation in motor accident claims, specifically regarding the calculation of monthly salary, deduction towards personal expenses, and the non-granting of future prospects, based on the legal provisions established in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra).

JUDGMENT

1. Instant appeal has been preferred by the claimants- appellants against the judgment and award dated 22.07.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge No.2), Beawar, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No.197/14 (441/13) whereby an amount of Rs.3,50,700- was awarded as compensation on account of death of Chimman Singh in the accident occurred on 07.10.2013.

2. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues and evaluating the evidence on record and after hearing counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition of the claimants-appellants and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.3,50,700- under various heads in favour of the claimants-appellants.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased was of 64 years at the time of accident and as per the salary certificate produced before the Tribunal his monthly salary was Rs.7976/- per month, but without any basis, the Tribunal has determined the monthly salary of the deceased as Rs.7101/-. Learned counsel further submitted that the salary of the deceased should have been treated and considered as Rs.7976/- per month.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal while passing the award, has erred in deducting 1/2 as personal expenses of the deceased while as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, the deduction towards personal expenses should be 1/4th as the claimants/dependants were five in number. Counsel further submitted that no amount towards future prospects has been awarded and therefore, he prays that recomputation of the award may be done in the present case in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra).

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal while deciding the claim petition of the claimants-appellants has rightly taken into consideration all the factors while calculating the award in this case on the anvil of the evidence produced before it. Thus, the judgment dated 22.07.2016 does not call for any interference by this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that as per Pay Slip (Ex.10A) submitted on record of the Tribunal, the basic salary of the deceased was Rs.3945/- and the dearness allowance was Rs.3156/- and rest of the components i.e. OMA (Office Maintenance Allowance), CADA and FAC are not the components of the salary. The components of the salary would be Gratuity, Provident Fund, State Insurance and LIC etc., so, the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in not calculating the OMA, CADA and FAC while calculating the monthly salary of the deceased.

7. Learned counsel, however, is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants with respect to deduction of 1/2 towards personal expenses, as the same is in contravention of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra).

8. I have considered the submissions made at Bar and gone through the judgment dated 22.07.2016 as well as the other relevant documents available on record.

9. Admittedly, the deceased was 65 years of age at the time of his death and his basic salary was Rs.3945/- and his dearness allowance was Rs.3156/- and rest of the allowances i.e. OMA, CADA and FAC were the allowances of office maintenance conveyance etc., and it cannot be treated as components of salary of the deceased. So, the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in determining the income of the deceased as Rs.7101/- per month.

10. So far as, the contention raised by the counsel for the appellants with respect to deduction of 1/2 towards personal expenses is concerned, there should not be 1/2 deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased as th