JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant New India Assurance Company Ltd., Pali has filed this appeal through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Officer - I, Jodhpur and challenged the award dated 07.02.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - I, Jodhpur in MAC Case No.71/2009 and further prayed that order dated 18.11.2010 passed by the learned Tribunal dismissing the application filed by the appellant company under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act may be quashed and set aside. 2. As per facts of the case, deceased Raja Ram was going from village Mogra to Rohit on motor-cycle bearing registration No.RJ-22-SB-7698 on 15.11.2008 in the night at about 9.30 P.M. when the deceased was hit by vehicle RJ-22-T-0167 which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver respondent Moti Singh and, due to the said accident, Raja Ram died. 3. After his death, respondent-claimants filed claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur. Said claim case was registered as MAC Case No.71/09. In the claim petition, it is submitted by the claimants that claimant No.1 Smt. Vidu @ Vidhya, wife of the deceased, is 34 years of age, sons Dungarchand, Kishan Lal, Nemichand and Babulal are 14, 12, 10 and 8 years old, mother Heeradevi is 70 years old and all these persons were dependent upon deceased Raja Ram. 4. As per pleadings of the claim petition, late Raja Ram acquired Diploma in Mechanical Engineering with first class and his date of birth was 05.06.1970 which is exhibited on the bassis of Ex.-16 and Ex.-15 respectively. To prove the income of the deceased Ex.-14, certificate issued by the Zila Parishad Pali under NAREGA Scheme was placed on record, in which, income of the deceased was shown as Rs. 10,000/-. Learned Tribunal after taking into consideration the fact that deceased Raja Ram died in the accident due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.RJ- 22-T-0167 which was being driven by respondent No.7 Moti Singh and said vehicle was insured with the appellant insurance company, therefore, the appellant insurance company is liable for payment of compensation. 5. Learned Tribunal while taking into consideration Rs. 10,000/- per month as income of the deceased and, 50% of the annual income being Rs. 60,000/- as future loss of income, finally computed the income of the deceased at Rs. 5. Learned Tribunal while taking into consideration Rs. 10,000/- per month as income of the deceased and, 50% of the annual income being Rs. 60,000/- as future loss of income, finally computed the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,80,000/- because he was possessing Diploma in Mechanical Engineering; and, while deducting amount from the annual income towards expenses incurred on himself, reckoned up the annual dependency and awarded compensation under this head to the tune of Rs. 20,25,000/- while applying multiplier of 15. Amount of Rs. 20,000/- was awarded to claimant No.1 towards loss of her marital life and Rs. 25,000/- was awarded to 4 minor children for loss of love and affection. The Tribunal allowed Rs. 15,000/- for cremation and other last rites; Rs. 3,000/- for loss of property and Rs. 1,000/- for transportation; in all, total amount of Rs. 20,89,000/- was awarded in favour of the claimants vide the impugned award dated 07.02.2011, which is under challenge. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant insurance company vehemently argued that learned Tribunal has not properly adjudicated the matter and applied the case of Sarla Verma in right perspective. Further it is pointed out that learned Claims Tribunal has wrongly assessed the future loss as Rs. 60,000/- per annum because in fact the other plea taken by the insurance company was not taken into account, therefore, the award impugned deserves to be quashed. 7. Learned counsel for the insurance company further vehemently argued that the deceased was employed on contract basis on Rs. 10,000/- per month in NAREGA Scheme of the Central Government, therefore, the assessment of future loss of income is not based upon legal proposition because the appointment of the deceased was made on fixed emoluments and it is nowhere stated that appointment can be extended or salary can be revised in future, therefore, the finding of the Tribunal with regard to future loss of income is totally erroneous and contrary to the judgment of Sarla Verma's case.( AIR 2009 SC 3104 ) . 8. Further, it is submitted that a gross error has been committed by the Tribunal while rejecting the application filed by the appellant under Section 17 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The driver of the vehicle failed to contest the claim case effectively, therefore, the claimants' witnesses have not been effectively cross-examined and no evidence was led in defence. 8. Further, it is submitted that a gross error has been committed by the Tribunal while rejecting the application filed by the appellant under Section 17 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The driver of the vehicle failed to contest the claim case effectively, therefore, the claimants' witnesses have not been effectively cross-examined and no evidence was led in defence. Therefore, the award impugned suffers from illegality. Learned counsel for the appellant insurance company further argued that in view of the fact that question of maintainability of appeal in absence of permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been referred to larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, the impugned award may be quashed and set aside. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I have applied my mind towards arguments and perused the award impugned. 10. Admittedly, deceased Raja Ram was 28 years of age on the day on which he died because his date of birth is 05.06.1970 and accident took place on 15.11.2008. It is also proved by the claimants by leading documentary evidence that late Raja Raj was possessing Diploma in Mechanical Engineering with first class and was working as Junior Technical Assistant under the appointment orders of Zila Parishad, Pali; meaning thereby, the date on which Raja Ram died he was getting Rs. 10,000/- per month. However, the appellant insurance company has raised dispute that his appointment was on contractual basis. In my opinion, the Parliament has enacted the Act and granted right of employment to the citizens, therefore, if any appointment is made under the said Act even on contract basis at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month, it cannot be said that in future the deceased cannot get further employment and cannot get more salary. A young man of 28 years died in an accident due to rash and negligent driving and left behind him four minor sons, his wife and mother, then, obviously the Claims Tribunal was to take into account entire facts and evidence placed on record for the purpose of assessment of compensation. 11. In this case, the finding of the learned Claims Tribunal with regard to calculating Rs. 60,000/- per annum for future loss of income cannot be termed illegal because the deceased was possessing Diploma in Mechanical Engineering with first class, therefore, the finding does not require any interference. 12. 11. In this case, the finding of the learned Claims Tribunal with regard to calculating Rs. 60,000/- per annum for future loss of income cannot be termed illegal because the deceased was possessing Diploma in Mechanical Engineering with first class, therefore, the finding does not require any interference. 12. With regard to contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that application filed under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act was wrongly rejected by the Tribunal, in my opinion, this ground is also not tenable because the owner of the vehicle appeared before the Tribunal and filed reply; meaning thereby, when the counsel for the driver and owner of the vehicle were present before the Tribunal and they filed reply and contested the claim and the award has not been passed in absence of the driver or owner of the vehicle, therefore, it cannot be said that any error has been committed by the learned Tribunal while rejecting the application filed under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 13. After taking into consideration the entire facts and evidence on record it is obvious that the finding of the learned Tribunal is based on sound reasons, therefore, no case is made out for interference in the judgment/award dated 07.02.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur in MAC Case No.71/2009. In this view of the matter, there is no force in this appeal. 14. Hence, this miscellaneous appeal is accordingly dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******