JUDGMENT Rajesh Kumar, J. – I.A. No. 9714 of 2017 2. The present case has been filed after delay of 91 days. I.A. no 9714 of 2017 has been filed for condonation of delay. 3. For reason assigned in I.A. No. 9714 of 2017, I.A. is allowed, delay condoned. M.A. No. 721 of 2017 4. The present Appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the order passed on 02.06.2017 by Sri Om Prakash Pandey No.1, Principal District Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Pakur in M.A.C.T. Case No. 40/2014. The only ground taken by the appellant Insurance Company is that the deceased was a self employed person and as such he is not entitled for any future prospects. 5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that recently Hon''ble Apex Court in a judgment passed on 31.10.2017 in S.L.P. (C) No. 25590 of 2014 in case of National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi and ors., has clearly held that even self employed person is entitled for compensation under the head of future prospects as per the age group. Since the deceased was of 23 years of age, he is entitled for 40 % as a future prospect although the Learned Tribunal has granted 50% as future prospect. 6. It is relevant to point out that Tribunal has not granted any compensation under the conventional heads although claimant was entitled for the same as per the mandate of the order of Apex Court as quoted hereinabove. If order of Hon''ble Apex Court is followed, there will be no difference in the quantum of compensation, so no useful purpose will be served in hearing the present case on merit. 7. Since in view of order of Hon''ble Apex Court there is no merit in this case, as issue has already been settled regarding the entitlement of compensation under future prospect even to the self employed person. In view of above discussions, I find no merit in this case. As a result, the present Appeal stands dismissed.