ORDER : 1. Heard the parties. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment/award dated 25.3.2015, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case No. 3 of 2011, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 7,50,000/- to the Claimant/Respondents with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of admission of the claim application i.e. 24.2.2011 till realization, after deducting Rs. 50,000/- paid under Section 140 of the M.V. Act, 1988, within a period of one months from the date of receipt of copy of award, failing which interest @ 12 per annum shall be payable from the date of judgment. 3. Facts of the case in short is that the informant Jaydev Yadav @ Mahto registered an F.I.R. mentioning therein that his brother Naresh Mahto was a labourer in the offending vehicle i.e. tractor and when the vehicle was going from Urriedanda to Barwa Toli at about 7 p.m. on 11.10.2010, got unbalanced as a result of which, Naresh Mahto fell down and was crushed under the wheel of the said tractor resulting into his death. It is further stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month and was aged about 35 years. In the claim application under Section 140 of the M.V. Act, the occupation of the deceased had been mentioned as a Mason/Cultivator while in the claim application filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Acts, the occupation of the deceased had been mentioned as labour/cultivator and the monthly earning was mentioned as Rs. 3,000/- per month. 4. The parties appeared before the Tribunal and were heard. After examining the witnesses and perusing the evidences on record, the learned Tribunal framed the followings issues:- (I) Is the compensation case as framed maintainable? (II) Whether the claimants have valid cause of action? (III) Whether Naresh Mahto died as a result of motor vehicle accident arising out of use of Tractor No. JH-01Z-2359? (IV) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tractor? (V) Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid and effective D.L. and whether there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? (VI) Whether the claimants are entitled to get the amount of compensation as prayed for? If yes, from whom and to what extent? (V) Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid and effective D.L. and whether there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? (VI) Whether the claimants are entitled to get the amount of compensation as prayed for? If yes, from whom and to what extent? (VII) Are, the claimants entitled to get any other relief or reliefs? 5. Mr. G.C. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that though the calculation made by the learned Tribunal cannot be questioned but simultaneously cause of the law laid down in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : 2017 (4) JLJR (SC) 275, the calculated amount as per the future prospect should be 40% which has wrongly been calculated as 50% and as such, liberty may be given to the Insurance Co. to deduct that amount from the compensated amount. Secondly, the conventional heads and other amounts shall be calculated as per the judgment passed in case of Pranay Sethi (supra). As such, amount of conventional head comes to Rs. 70,000/- but the same has not been considered by the Court below and enhanced amount under the said head has been awarded. Learned counsel further argues that the amount of interest is also exorbitant as per the terms and conditions of the Award. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant and justifying the award submits that there is illegality in the impugned award. The award was passed after considering each and every aspects of the matter and the compensation has been awarded and paid in accordance with law. Learned counsel further submits that as the claimants have already received the amount of Rs. 50,000/- as per no fault liability, the said amount shall be deducted from the total compensated amount. Learned counsel submits that it is a beneficial legislation and as such, the case law cited by the learned counsel for the appellant is not at all applicable in the instant case and as such, a direction may be given to the appellant to pay the entire awarded amount as per the terms and conditions of the Award. 7. Learned counsel submits that it is a beneficial legislation and as such, the case law cited by the learned counsel for the appellant is not at all applicable in the instant case and as such, a direction may be given to the appellant to pay the entire awarded amount as per the terms and conditions of the Award. 7. Having heard the parties and from perusal of the order passed by the learned Court below and also from perusal of lower Court records, if appears that the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is totally misconceived. It is a beneficial legislation and as such, compensation which has already been awarded in the year 2015, in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Rajesh and Others vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 54 , cannot be reduced in view the judgment passed in Pranay Sethi (supra). This proposition of law has already been rendered in catena of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and as such, I am not inclined to interfere in the award. The appellant is directed to deposit the amount, if not deposited till date, within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, before the Court below. The claimants are at liberty to withdraw the entire amount in view of the terms and conditions as laid down in the award. 8. Resultantly, this appeal fails and as such, it is dismissed. 9. This order has been passed in particular facts and circumstances of the case and it will not be treated as precedent and the law is open. 10. The Insurance Co. is permitted to withdraw the statutory amount deposited before this Court. 11. As a sequel to the disposal of the present Appeal, pending I.As. if any, also stand disposed of.