JUDGMENT 1. - Since all the aforesaid two appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 20-3-2009 passed by MACT, Shahpura, hence the arguments have been heard together and they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 12-11-2007 when the deceased Prakash was travelling in Truck No. RJ-32G-2939 in the capacity of Khallasi, then the driver of the said vehicle drove the same rashly and negligently and turned down the vehicle, as a result of which the deceased Prakash died at the spot. 3. First Information Report was lodged. Claim petition was filed on account of death of Prakash. Thereafter notices were issued, written statement was filed, issues were framed, evidence was submitted and after hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned award, vide which Rs. 7,23,000/- have been awarded in favour of claimants. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the Insurance Company has filed the appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded in the aforesaid claim petition, while claimants have filed another appeal for enhancement of quantum of compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the impugned judgment and award is contrary to the provisions of the Act, the pleadings of the parties, the facts and circumstances as well as the law applicable. He has further contended that the learned Tribunal illegally assessed Rs. 4500/- per month to be the income of the deceased without being any cogent and convincing evidence. He has further contended that the learned Tribunal has awarded interest @ 7% per annum, whereas as per the latest judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, interest cannot be awarded more than 6% per annum. Hence, the impugned award needs to be set aside and the claim petition be dismissed. 6. E converso, the learned counsel for the claimants contended that the deceased was earning Rs. 6000/- per month, but the learned Tribunal assessed Rs. 4500/- per month to be the income of the deceased. The income of the deceased was very well proved by oral as well as documentary evidence, despite that the income of the deceased has been assessed at a lower side. He has further contended that the learned Tribunal has not awarded a single penny towards the loss of future prospectus. 4500/- per month to be the income of the deceased. The income of the deceased was very well proved by oral as well as documentary evidence, despite that the income of the deceased has been assessed at a lower side. He has further contended that the learned Tribunal has not awarded a single penny towards the loss of future prospectus. The learned Tribunal has committed further error by deducting ⅓rd of the amount from the income of the deceased. Hence, the impugned award needs modification and the claim amount deserves to be enhanced. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also the evidence emerging on record and on perusal of the impugned award, I do not think it proper to interfere in the impugned award dated 20-3-2009 passed by the learned Tribunal. Hence, both the aforesaid appeals fail and the same being bereft of any merit deserve to be dismissed, which stand dismissed accordingly. 9. Consequent upon the dismissal of appeal, the stay application, filed herewith, does not survive and the same also stands dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******