IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. J U D G M E N T S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.1072/2000. Vidya Kanwar & Others Versus. Ram Prasad and Others. --- S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of the M.A.C.T. Act, against the award dated 25.5.1999 passed by the Judge, M.A.C.T. Kotputali, District Jaipur in Claim No 298/98 (Smt.Vidya Kanwar & Others Vs.Ram Prasad & Others) by which the Tribunal awarded claim of Rs.3,70,00/-. Date of Judgment ::: 13th March,2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.S.CHAUDHARI. Mr.Vinay Mathur for the appellants. Mr.Virendra Agarwal for respondent No.3. By the Court : This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the award dated 25.5.1999 ..2.. passed by Judge, MACT, Kotp-utali, District Jaipur in Claim No.298/98 (Vidya Kanwar & Others Vs. Ram Prasd & Others) by which the tribunal awarded claim of Rs.3,70,00/-. The brief facts of the case are that deceased Hanuman Singh husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellants No.2 & 3 and son of appellant No.4 was driving Bus No.RJ- 28-P-0 104 owned by Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC) on 26.3.96 and the said bus was going from Baran to Delhi. Before Paota respondent No.1 parked his Tanker No.RJ-14-G-1620 in the middle of the road without any parking light, without any boundary of stones near the truck and in such circumstances, bus driven by Hanuman Singh collided with Tanker which resulted in the death of Hanuman Singh. ..3.. Respondent No.2 is the owner of the Tanker and it was insured by respondent No.3. Accident occurred on account of negligence of respondent No.1, hence, appellants claimed compensation. Name of respondent No.1 was deleted, respondent No.2 did not appear and respondent No.3 filed reply and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. After recording the evidence, learned tribunal awarded Rs.3,70,000/- against which this appeal has been filed. Though the name of respondent No.1 was deleted from the claim petition even then he was made party in the appeal, but after service he did not appear. Presence of respondent No.2 was dispensed with. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No.3 and perused the record. ..4.. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that as the age of deceased was 42 years, learned tribunal should have applied multiplier of 15 instead of 14. He further submitted that while awarding compensation, future prospects should have been considered and salary should have been deemed to be double of the existing salary, whereas the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the future prospects of salary cannot be taken into account while applying multiplier and further submitted that one-third income should have been deducted instead of 0ne- fourth as expenses to be incurred on deceased and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. P.W.3 Smt.Vidya Kanwar wife of deceased has stated in her statements that at the time of death of Hanuman Singh he was 42 years old. She has proved certificate Ex.1 issued ..5.. by the employer of RSRTC in which date of birth of deceased has been shown as 1.4.1954. Accident took place on 26.3.1996 and thus it become clear that deceased was 42 years old at the time of accident. Second Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act provides guidelines regarding multiplier and this Schedule has been adopted by Apex Court in many cases, hence at the age of 42 multiplier of 15 should have been applied by Tribunal instead of 14. As far income of deceased is concerned, A.W.3 Vidya Kanwar has proved salary certificate Ex.1 issued by Employer RSRTC. As per this certificate deceased was getting Rs.2,654/- as salary excluding H.R.A and washing allowance. The learned Tribunal has assessed deceased's income at Rs.2700/- per month, Hon'ble apex Court has held in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Indira Srivastava & Ors.,reported in MACD 2008 (SC) 58 that the ..6.. amount which are to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks should be included for computation of his monthly income. In the case in hand, no HRA and washing allowance has been proved, but he must be getting such allowances, in such circumstances, his salary can be assessed to be Rs.3000/- per month including HRA and washing allowance. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that looking to the age of the deceased, future prospects regarding rise in salary should have been considered by the Tribunal as V & VI Pay Commission has increased salary. Deceased's salary should be taken as double in comparison to what was he getting at the time of his death. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that if Second Schedule is to be applied for computing compensation, ..7.. future prospects cannot be taken into consideration. He placed reliance on National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Vinod Chaudhary and Others, reported in 2007 ACJ 390 (Raj) in which it was held that increase in income of the deceased on account of future prospects cannot be taken into consideration while computing compensation by multiplier system based on Second Schedule. I agree with this view and in such circumstances, learned Tribunal has rightly not considered future prospects and deceased's salary is to be assessed at Rs.3000/- per month. Learned Tribunal has deducted Rs.700/- out of his assessed income of Rs.2700/- whereas as per Schedule one-third income is to be deducted in consideration of expenses which the deceased would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive. As ..8.. per above discussion, deceased's income was Rs.3000/- per month and if one-third is deducted, dependency of family can be assessed to Rs.2000/- per month. In such circumstances, appellants are entitled to get compensation 2000 x 12 x 15=3,60,000 + Rs.9,500/- on account of general damages as provided in Second Schedule. Learned Tribunal has granted Rs.34,000/- in the head of 'general damages' which could not have been awarded if “Second Schedule is followed. In such circumstances, appellants are entitled to get compensation Rs.3,69,500/- whereas Tribunal has already awarded compensation of Rs.3,70,000/-. Consequently, in the light of the above discussion, the appellants are not entitled to any enhancement of compensation. The appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed. (K.S.Chaudhari)J. k.