Hon'ble SINGH, J.—Heard learned counsel for appellant-company. 2. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-company is firstly that the claimants have failed to prove that the death was caused as a result of the injuries suffered in the accident. 3. I find from the record, more particularly, the findings on Issue Nos.1 and 2 that the learned Tribunal after consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence produced before it has come to the conclusion that the deceased met with an accident on 25.10.2006 for which he was admitted to the hospital and remained under treatment and thereafter died as a result of the aforesaid injuries during the course of treatment on 06.01.2007. No specific infirmity was pointed out to suggest why this finding is erroneous and deserves to be set aside. 4. So far as the contention which the learned counsel for the appellant seeks to raise before this Court is concerned that it is not proved that the appellant died as a result of the injuries suffered by him, as has been mentioned above the learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence led has given a finding in favour of the claimants which can not be said to be perverse. 5. In the facts and circumstances, I find no substance in the aforesaid plea of the appellant when the accident is proved and the fact of receiving the injuries is proved. 6. Next submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-company is that the learned Tribunal has erred in allowing the deduction of only 1/4th of the income towards personal expenses as against the settled principles of 1/3rd adopted in the large number of cases by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 7. So far as the aforesaid submission is concerned, even if the plea of the appellant is accepted it cannot be denied that looking to the nature of the employment of the deceased who was in a permanent job being a member of the Police Force of the State he would have been entitled to loss of income on account of future prospectus to the extent of 30% as he was in a permanent job and had at least 15 years of service was left which would have certainly resulted in his salary etc., being increased on account of the revision of the pay scale by the Pay Commission from time to time. Moreover, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corp. and another, reported in 2009(2) ACCD 924 (SC) = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC), looking to the number of dependents which is more than four the deduction of 1/4th income towards personal expenses calls for no interference. 8. The learned Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the aforesaid factors also, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount on account of loss of future prospects of earning. 9. The miscellaneous appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed summarily. 10. The stay application also stands dismissed.