JUDGMENT : Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. The claimant in MACC No. 306 of 1991 is the appellant in this appeal. She is aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Burdwan dated 28th June, 1994. The claimant filed an application for compensation in the Claims Tribunal on 22nd July, 1991. She claimed fault liability compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. She filed the application as wife of one Mahindar Yadav saying that she was filing it for self and also on behalf of Mahindar's two minor daughters. 2. Case stated in the application for compensation was this. On 8th May, 1991 Mahindar was working as a Khalasi in a truck No. BPA-9451. While the truck was on its way to a sand quarry at Jamalpur, due to rash and negligent driving thereof by its driver, he fell down. On way to hospital he died. He was 40 and earning Rs. 900 per month. At that date a policy issued by the Insurance Company in relation to the use of the truck was in force. The owner of the truck and the Insurance Company both became liable to pay Rs. 1,00,000 compensation. 3. The Insurance Company contested the claim by filing a written statement. There is nothing to show that the owner of the vehicle contested the claim. In proof of the case the victim's wife, the first claimant, testified as PW1 and the victim's niece (Kishori), an eye-witness to the accident, testified as PW2. The Insurance Company did not give any evidence. 4. The Claims Tribunal held as follows. Evidence given by the claimant proved that the accident killing the victim happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver; that from the lorry the victim used to earn Rs. 900 per month; and that at the date of death he was 40. Multiplier of 15 would apply. One-third should be deducted for personal expenses. Rs. 1,05,000 should be paid deducting Rs. 25,000 for uncertainties of life. 5. Mr. Bartik appearing for the claimant has submitted as follows. The claimant is entitled to a 30% addition to the victim's income on account of future prospects. The Claims Tribunal made a wrong calculation. It wrongly deducted Rs. 25,000 citing uncertainties of life. It ought to have granted Rs. 9,500 general damages and interest on the amount of compensation. 6. Mr. Bartik appearing for the claimant has submitted as follows. The claimant is entitled to a 30% addition to the victim's income on account of future prospects. The Claims Tribunal made a wrong calculation. It wrongly deducted Rs. 25,000 citing uncertainties of life. It ought to have granted Rs. 9,500 general damages and interest on the amount of compensation. 6. Mr. Das appearing for the Insurance Company has submitted as follows: "Rs. 25,000 deduction citing uncertainties of life was wrong. The determined compensation was Rs. 1.08 lakh, not Rs. 1.05 lakh, as wrongly calculated by the Claims Tribunal. The claimant was entitled to Rs. 9,500 general damages and interest. Future prospects principle was not applicable, because in June, 1994 when the award was passed the principle stated for the first time in Sarla Verma was not in existence. In view of the principles stated in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad, Vs. Karunakar, etc., (1993) 4 SCC 727 , the future prospect principle stated by the Supreme Court subsequently cannot apply to the case decided before the principle came into existence. In any case, there was no pleading, no evidence and no prayer concerning future prospect and even no ground has been taken in the memo of appeal." 7. On future prospects Mr. Banik has relied on Reshma Kumari and Others Vs. Madan Mohan and Another, (2013) 9 SCC 65 , Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 54 and Sanjay Verma Vs. Haryana Roadways, (2014) 3 SCC 210 . 8. Mr. Das has also submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the liability of the Insurance Company could not and cannot exceed the limit specified in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Mr. Banik has submitted that the owners are liable to pay the balance. 9. The Claims Tribunal granted the following compensation: Rs. 900 (the victim's monthly income) - Rs. 300 (one-third for the victim's personal expenses) = Rs. 600 x 12 = Rs. 7,200 (the victim's annual income) x 15 (the chosen multiplier) = Rs. 1,08,000 (the Claims Tribunal wrongly mentioned this as Rs. 1,05,000). 10. From Rs. 1,05,000 the Claims Tribunal deducted Rs. 25,000 citing uncertainties of life. It did not grant general damages and interest. These mistakes and errors are not in issue, because Mr. 600 x 12 = Rs. 7,200 (the victim's annual income) x 15 (the chosen multiplier) = Rs. 1,08,000 (the Claims Tribunal wrongly mentioned this as Rs. 1,05,000). 10. From Rs. 1,05,000 the Claims Tribunal deducted Rs. 25,000 citing uncertainties of life. It did not grant general damages and interest. These mistakes and errors are not in issue, because Mr. Das has clearly conceded that these things ought not to have been there. Mr. Das has contested only two issues: future prospects, and liability limit of the Insurance Company. 11. As to future prospects, we are unable to agree with Mr. Das that since the principle was stated by the Supreme Court after June, 1994 when the award was passed by the Claims Tribunal, the principle cannot be applied to the case. Karunakar's decision, in our opinion, is not applicable to this case. 12. In Karunakar the question was whether the disciplinary authority was under any obligation to supply copy of the inquiry report to the charged employee and give him opportunity of making representation against the findings of the Inquiry Officer. It was held that the disciplinary authority was under such an obligation. The Supreme Court said that the law laid down by it would apply prospectively. This was done for ensuring that the things done in the departmental inquiry according to the law existing at the relevant date were not re-opened. 13. Here there is no question of unsettling any settled thing. The claim case filed in the Claims Tribunal is still continuing in this appeal before this Court. It is only that the Claims Tribunal, the original Forum, has given its decision. What compensation, if any, should be ordered is still under consideration. Hence, if the principle stated in 2009 is applied, it cannot be said that it has been given a retrospective effect. Besides, it was clearly stated in para 40 of Reshma Kumari report that the propositions stated therein (future prospects one of them) would apply to all pending matters. 14. As to pleading, evidence, prayer, and ground, we do not think that any one of them is relevant for deciding the question of future prospects addition. In view of the decision in Rajesh future prospects addition is a must and the basis for the addition is nothing except the victim's age. 14. As to pleading, evidence, prayer, and ground, we do not think that any one of them is relevant for deciding the question of future prospects addition. In view of the decision in Rajesh future prospects addition is a must and the basis for the addition is nothing except the victim's age. The future prospects principle has been recently explained by the Supreme Court in Sanjay Verma. 15. In view of the law clearly stated, we are of the opinion that absence of pleading, evidence, prayer, ground, etc. does not disentitle a successful claimant to an addition on account of future prospects according to the principle stated in Rajesh and Sanjay Verma. We are, therefore, of the view that the appellant is justified in claiming 30% addition on account of future prospects. 16. As to the limit of the liability of the Insurance Company, Mr. Banik has very clearly submitted that he is not seeking an order directing the Insurance Company to pay in excess of its liability fixed by the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. He has submitted that the amount in excess of the liability of the Insurance Company is payable by the owners choosing not contest the case, though entered appearance on 17th June, 2006. 17. In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the appellant is entitled to the following compensation: "Rs. 900 (the victim's monthly income) + Rs. 270 (30% of the income to be added on account of future prospects) = Rs. 1170 (the victim's monthly income for computation of compensation) - Rs. 390 (one-third of Rs. 1170 towards the victim's personal and living expenses) = Rs. 780 x 12 (months) = Rs. 9,360 (the victim's determined annual income) x 15 (the applicable multiplier) = Rs. 1,40,400 + Rs. 9,500 (general damages) = Rs. 1,49,900. 18. The liability of the Insurance Company limited under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is Rs. 82,876.50 + Rs. 2,500 (funeral expenses) = Rs. 85,376.50 (rounded up to Rs. 86,000). This means that out of Rs. 1,49,900 the Insurance Company is liable to pay Rs. 86,000, and the owners Rs. 63,900. 19. The Insurance Company has already paid Rs. 25,000. Hence, the amount payable by it is Rs. 86,000 - Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 61,000. 82,876.50 + Rs. 2,500 (funeral expenses) = Rs. 85,376.50 (rounded up to Rs. 86,000). This means that out of Rs. 1,49,900 the Insurance Company is liable to pay Rs. 86,000, and the owners Rs. 63,900. 19. The Insurance Company has already paid Rs. 25,000. Hence, the amount payable by it is Rs. 86,000 - Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 61,000. In view of the decision of this Court dated 29th January, 2014 in FMA No. 1346 of 2013, Smt. Niva Devi v. The New India Assurance Company Limited & Anr., the claimant is entitled to 12% p.a. interest from 22nd July, 1991 till the payment dates. For these reasons, we allow the appeal and order as follows. The award of the Claims Tribunal is modified substituting Rs. 1,49,900 for Rs. 1,05,000 compensation. The Insurance Company and the owners shall pay according to their respective shares with 12% p.a. interest from 22nd July, 1991 till the respective payment dates, within four weeks from the date this order is served. No costs. Certified xerox.