Judgment : This civil miscellaneous appeal arises out of the award dated 17.06.2003 in O.P.No.411 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District (for short ‘the Tribunal’). The National Insurance Company Limited - respondent No.3 in the O.P. is the appellant in this appeal. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in this appeal filed the O.P. under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- against the appellant, owner and driver of the vehicle bearing registration No.AP 9U 9480. Upon the finding that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle leading to the death of one Mandala Sekhar, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,89,661/- towards compensation in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are the legal heirs of the deceased. At the hearing, Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the Tribunal committed serious errors in computation of compensation. According to him, as the deceased was a bachelor leaving behind his parents, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% of the future income, instead of deducting only 1/3rd, as held by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(3) Supreme Today 487). The learned counsel also submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding Rs.81,461/- towards medical expenses ignoring the evidence on record to the effect that the employer of the deceased has borne a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. As regards the first contention, it is no doubt, the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (supra) held that where the deceased was a bachelor, it is reasonable to deduct 50% of his future income towards his personal expenses. When the case was decided by the Tribunal, the judgment in Sarla Verma (supra) was not in existence. Be that as it may, the short question is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is liable to be reduced on this ground. A perusal of the material on record shows that the deceased was a poclain driver, who was earning a sum of Rs.2,800/- per month as evident from Ex.A-8 – salary certificate. The deceased was aged twenty years. A perusal of the material on record shows that the deceased was a poclain driver, who was earning a sum of Rs.2,800/- per month as evident from Ex.A-8 – salary certificate. The deceased was aged twenty years. In Sarla Verma (supra), on which the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance, it was held that while computing the income of the deceased, the future prospects of the deceased need to be taken into account. After reviewing its earlier judgments in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Susamma Thomas ( 1994(2) SCC 176 ),Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav ( 1996 (3) SCC 179 )and Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India ( 2003 (3) SCC 148 ), the Supreme Court has found an addition 50% of the actual salary is reasonable if the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years of age and 30% if the deceased was aged between 40 and 50 years. It is not suggested to P.W.1 by the appellant that the deceased did not have a permanent job. Even though the deceased was under a private employment, no presumption can be drawn that such employment is not permanent. On the other hand, considering the age of the deceased, it is reasonable to presume that he would have earned higher salary in future on the strength of his experience had the deceased not died in the accident. I am, therefore, of the opinion that if the addition of 50% is made to the salary of the deceased, the respondents would have been entitled to a far higher compensation even if 50% of the salary of the deceased was deducted instead of 1/3rd towards his personal expenses. In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the award of the Tribunal. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the C.M.A., interim order passed on 29.08.2003 in C.M.P.No.19136 of 2003 as made absolute on 09.01.2004 is vacated and C.M.P.Nos.19136 of 2003 and 648 of 2004 are dismissed as infructuous.