(1.) Anoop Kumar Dhand, J 1.Invokingthe jurisdiction contained under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988'), the claimants - appellants have submitted this appeal against the judgment and award dtd. 20/8/2007 passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track No.3, Jaipur, District Jaipur [for short 'the learned Tribunal'] in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 308/2007 (323/2006), whereby an amount of Rs.4,84,000.00 has been awarded as compensation on account of death of Ummed Singh @ Vimed Singh in an accident which occurred on 21/9/2005.
(2.) The learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence available on record and hearing counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition of the appellants-claimants awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.4,84,000.00 under various heads in favour of the appellants-claimants.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that the deceased was 30 years of age at the time of accident, he was working as Solar Technician and getting a salary of Rs.8,500.00 per month, but the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000.00 per month. Counsel for the appellants further submits that in the light of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation: (2009) 6 SCC 121, the deduction towards dependency should have been calculated as one-fifth. Counsel further submits that no amount towards future prospects has been awarded by the learned Tribunal in the light of the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. : (2017) 16 SCC 680. Counsel for the appellants-claimants, therefore, prays that re-computation of the award in the present case may be done in the light of judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra).