JUDGMENT 1. - These two appeals have been filed against the judgment and award dated 23-5-2012 passed by MACT (Addl. District & Sessions Judge No. 1), Bayana, District Bharatpur in M. A. Claim No. 79/ 2007, in which a sum of Rs. 9,73,000/- has been awarded to the claimants Sint. Manju and others with interest @ 6% per annum. 2. One appeal has been filed by non appellant State of Rajasthan through Police Adhikshak, Ajmer, while second appeal No. 2952/2012 has been filed by claimants Smt. Manju Devi and others for enhancing the amount of award passed by the Tribunal on 23-5-2012. 3. Since both the appeals are arising from the award dated 23-5-2012, hence they are being decided by this common judgment. 4. On 25-11-2006, Constable Har Lal Singh posted at GRP outpost, Bayana was going for service of summons on one witness Narendra Kumar in case of State v. Sher Singh . One person named Sunil, who was known to him met Hari Lal Singh and accompanied on motor cycle. At about 8.30, the motor cycle driver crossed one drain and after crossing it, the motor cycle collided with the wall, due to which the motor cycle driver constable Harlal Singh expired and Sunil also got injury on head and leg and was also fractured. He was carried to the hospital, but the Doctor declared him dead. 5. The legal heirs of the deceased Sunil Kumar filed claim petition before the Tribunal concerned. Thereafter the notices were issued, reply was filed on behalf of the State of Rajasthan, issues were framed, evidence was submitted and after considering all the ,facts and circumstances and due appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal has passed the award dated 25-3-2012. 6. Aggrieved by the award dated 25-3-2012, this appeal has been preferred by the State for quashing and setting aside the award dated 23-5-2012. 7. Legal representatives of Sunil have also filed an appeal for enhancing the award dated 23-5-2012 passed by the learned Tribunal. 8. Learned Advocate Mr. Satish Purohit, has contended that the award dated 23-5-2012 passed by the Tribunal is not passed in accordance with law and the same deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 7. Legal representatives of Sunil have also filed an appeal for enhancing the award dated 23-5-2012 passed by the learned Tribunal. 8. Learned Advocate Mr. Satish Purohit, has contended that the award dated 23-5-2012 passed by the Tribunal is not passed in accordance with law and the same deserves to be quashed and set-aside. He has further contended that the Tribunal has committed serious error in holding that death of the deceased Sunil Kumar was caused by rash and negligent driving of Harlal Singh, Constable and further the Tribunal has disbelieved the AD-1 Manju that she was not the eye witness and her evidence is hearsay evidence. Mr. Purohit has further contended that thus, no presumption can be drawn about the occurring of the accident and causing of death by the accident. He has further contended that no First Information Report has been lodged in this case and neither the witness PW-2 Om Prakash alias Omi has narrated this incident to any person or to police. He has further contended that the report of Section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code cannot be the basis of happening of the accident and causing accident by rash and negligent driving by the motor cycle driver. He has further contended that the issue No. 1, which is about rash and negligent driving by the deceased constable Har Lal Singh is not supported by any evidence and issue No.l deserves to be decided in favour of the appellants and thus, the claim application should have been dismissed by the Judge of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not believed upon the statement of NAW-1 Ghanshyam Sharma and NAW-2 Sukh Ram Meena. He has further contended that the Om Prakash alias Omi is interested witness and Court should not have believed upon the statement of Omi. He has further contended that no one has been produced from the Institution Agrawal Pravasika Sanskrit School, where the deceased working as Teacher. Thus, the basic income of Rs. 5954/- cannot be used as basis for calculation of the income. He has further contended that there is no proof of income of tuition and no fixed income is being earned from tuition. He hays further contended that Rs. 60,000/- has been treated as dependency for calculation of multiplying the loss of income. There is no proof of the annual income of the deceased. He has further contended that there is no proof of income of tuition and no fixed income is being earned from tuition. He hays further contended that Rs. 60,000/- has been treated as dependency for calculation of multiplying the loss of income. There is no proof of the annual income of the deceased. He further contended that 7-8-1974 has been treated as death of birth of deceased, whereas there is no legal proof for the date of birth. In fact at the time of death, the deceased was 35 years and postmortem report makes it clear. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Meena Variyal and others (reported in 2007 ACJ 1284 ) : ( AIR 2007 SC 1609 ) (ii) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gurumallamma and Another (reported in 2009 ACJ 2660 ) : (2009 AIR SCW 7434) (iii) RSRTC v. Smt. Kamla Devi and Others (reported in RLW 2006 (4) Raj 3203) (iv) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ramila Devi and others (reported in 2008 ACJ 2686 ) (v) Ningamma and Another v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ( 2009 (6) UJ 2949 ( AIR 2009 SC 3056 ) 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel Mr. Virendra Agarwal has contended that the amount, which has been awarded by the Tribunal be enhanced looking to the age of the successors of the deceased also as well as the evidence, which has been submitted by the parties before the Tribunal. He has contended that the deceased was 33 years old and he was working as IIIrd Grade Teacher in some Sanskrit School and drawing Rs. 12000/- per month and he was teacher since 1994. He has further contended that the wife of the deceased Sunil Kumar has contended that the deceased was earning Rs. 15000/- per month, as he was appointed as Teacher Grade-III in 1994 in Agarwal Praveshika Sanskrit School and he was further giving private tuitions. He has further contended that he was appointed as Secretary of the school management and there was no occasion for the Tribunal to consider income of the deceased to be only Rs. 10,000/-. 15000/- per month, as he was appointed as Teacher Grade-III in 1994 in Agarwal Praveshika Sanskrit School and he was further giving private tuitions. He has further contended that he was appointed as Secretary of the school management and there was no occasion for the Tribunal to consider income of the deceased to be only Rs. 10,000/-. He has further drew the attention of this Court on the statement of AW-2 Banwari Lal, who was Advocate and he was regularly filing his income tax returns for the last 6 years and Banwari Lal, Advocate has certified the income tax returns and assessment and income tax returns, which have been exhibited by the appellant before the Tribunal, which are exhibited from 19 to 23. Mr. Agarwal has further drew the attention of this Court that Ex. 34, which is the salary certificate which has been duly proved. According to the salary certificate, the annual income of the deceased was Rs. 55080/-. He has further contended that it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. DTC, reported in 2008-09 (Suppl) RAR 1 (SC) ( AIR 2009 SC 3104 ) that where it is proved that deceased was having regular income, then the said aspect is to be taken into consideration while awarding future prospect. He has further contended that the learned Tribunal has not considered the ratio laid down in Sarla Verma's case (supra). Hence, the award of the Tribunal be modified and the same should be enhanced in favour of successor of deceased. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record made available to me. 11. The Tribunal has framed 4 issues and every issue has been considered by the learned Tribunal after due appreciation of evidence, which has been submitted by both the parties. It is also a fact that deceased Sunil Kumar was a teacher since 1994 and his salary certificate was proved by one Advocate Mr. Banwari Lal, which is AW-2. It is also a fact that deceased was going along with Har Lal, who also died and the deceased Sunil Kumar was sitting behind Har Lal Singh and Har Lal Singh was on duty at the time of accident and who went for effecting the service of summons. It is also a fact that procedure of 174 of Cr. It is also a fact that deceased was going along with Har Lal, who also died and the deceased Sunil Kumar was sitting behind Har Lal Singh and Har Lal Singh was on duty at the time of accident and who went for effecting the service of summons. It is also a fact that procedure of 174 of Cr. Procedure Code was also conducted by the concerned authorities. 12. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think it proper to interfere in the impugned award dated 23-5-2012 passed by the Tribunal and both the appeals being bereft of any merit deserves to be dismissed, which stand dismissed accordingly. 13. Stay application also stands dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******