ORDER :

1. This common order shall govern disposal of both M.A. No. 2354/2013 and M.A. No. 2278/2013 as both appeals arise out common award dated 13.08.2013.

2. These appeals by the appellants/claimants (M.A. No. 2354/2013) and Insurance Company (M.A. No. 2278/2013) under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act are arising out of the award dated 13.08.2013 passed by Member, MACT, Dewas district Dewas in Claim Case No. 248/2009 seeking enhancement/reduction of compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimants has submitted that Tribunal has assessed deceased’s income on the lower side. Deceased was appointed on a monthly salary of Rs. 14,603/-. Hence, his monthly income should be determined as Rs. 14,603/- per month. Further, annual bonus of Rs. 55,000/- be also added in the income.

4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that Tribunal has assessed deceased’s income on the higher side. As per deposition of PW-2 Anil Sharma and salary slip Ex.P/17, Deceased’s basic salary was Rs. 8190/- per month. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company, after referring to Para-11 of impugned award, submits that Tribunal has wrongly assessed deceased’s monthly income as Rs. 12,784/- by including other allowances which is not permissible in law. Learned counsel has submitted that only allowances under the head of HRA and education allowances should be added for calculating monthly income and other allowances i.e. washing allowance, conveyance allowance, supervisory allowance, CCA, medical allowance etc. cannot be added for determining monthly income. In this connection learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Indira Srivastava and Others, (2008) 2 SCC 763. It is also urged that as deceased was not in any permanent job and he was in job for less than 9 months, therefore, 50% of the income cannot be added under the head of future prospects, instead only 40% of the income should be added as future prospects. Therefore, Tribunal has wrongly added 50% as future prospects while calculating deceased’s income. Learned counsel after referring to Para-24 of the order passed in the case of Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, AIR 2009 SC 3104 submits that bonus cannot be added for calculating/determining income. In Sarla Verma’s case (supra) bonus has already been taken into consideration while allowing addition under the head of future prospects. Therefore, while calculating/determining income bonus cannot be added separately.

5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused record of the case.

INCOME/SALARY:

6. So far as monthly salary of deceased Chetan Sharma is concerned, from depositions of Smt.Gayatridevi, Anil Sharma and Ex.P/16 (salary certificate) & P/17 (salary slip), it is clearly established that at the time of accident, deceased was working in Eicher Engineering Company as Accounts Officer and he was appointed on above post on 04.04.2008.

7. Break-up of Ex.P/17 (pay slip) is as under:

ECV Dewas - 2009-10

Pay-slip for the month of July, 2009