JUDGMENT : ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J. 1. Both the misc. appeals arise out of a common judgment, hence same are being decided together. In Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2709/2013 2. Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 15.07.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MAC Case No. 25/2010 whereby claim petition filed by the claimants-respondents was partly allowed and a sum of Rs. 14,25,775/- was awarded as compensation. 3. Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the appellant is not liable to make payment of compensation to the claimant-respondent for the reason that the vehicle in question was insured under an ‘Act Only’ Policy and as per the terms and conditions of the policy and also as per the endorsement of IMT Nos. 47 and 40, the premium of 2WC Employees i.e. Rs. 50/- was taken. 4. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that in the claim petition the claimants-respondents themselves have mentioned that the deceased Ram Singh was working as a Helper Technician upon the crane, while in the FIR, this status was not mentioned. 5. Counsel further submitted that perusal of the ITR Ex.16, indicates that the deceased Ram Singh was a salaried person working with M/s Speedline Motors Pvt. Ltd. hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to make the payment of compensation as no premium was taken. 6. In this regard, he further submitted that bare perusal of the Insurance Policy indicates that this policy covers IMT endorsements No. 47 and 40 and as per IMT endorsement No. 40, the legal liability to pay is confined to driver/conductor and/cleaner employed in connection with the operation of motor vehicle. So, the Tribunal has committed gross illegality in fastening liability upon the Insurance Company to make the payment of compensation to the claimants-respondents. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 6 i.e. owner of the vehicle submitted that the insurance policy i.e. Ex.NA-1 is a comprehensive policy and it covers the liability of the Insurance Company to make payment of compensation for the death of helper technician. He further submitted that in the reply, it was specifically mentioned that the deceased was working as a Helper Technician on the crane, belonging to respondent No. 6. He further submitted that in the reply, it was specifically mentioned that the deceased was working as a Helper Technician on the crane, belonging to respondent No. 6. And, the term Helper Technician is also covered in the IMT endorsement No. 40 and the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in fastening liability upon the Insurance Company to make the payment of compensation to the claimant-respondents. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No. 6 further submitted that as per Section 2dd of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act of 1923’) the word employee means a person who is a person recruited as driver, helper, mechanic, cleaner or in any other capacity in connection with the motor vehicle. 9. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that amendment in Section 2dd (II)(C) was made by the way of substitution by Act of 45 of 2009 and the same came into force w.e.f. 18.01.2010, while the accident was occurred on 20.12.2008, hence, the amendment to Section 2dd (II)(C) is not having any retrospective application in the present case. 10. Learned counsel for the claimants-respondents also opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the Insurance Company, but not in a position to controvert the submissions made by counsel for the Insurance Company. 11. Heard. Considered the arguments of both sides. 12. Bare perusal of the Insurance Policy (Ex.NA-1) clearly indicates that this policy was an ‘Act Only’ Policy and the premium of 2WC Employees was taken and as per the IMT Endorsement, it covers the liability of the Insurance Company to the extent of the endorsement Nos. 47 and 40. IMT No. 40 deals with the legal liability to pay the driver and/conductor and or cleaner employed in connection with the operation of motor vehicle. 13. From a bare perusal of the IMT No. 40, it is clear that the liability is confined to driver and/conductor and or cleaner, who are employed in connection with operation of motor vehicle. 14. Here in the instant case, this is not the case of the claimants-respondents that the deceased was working in the capacity of driver and/conductor and or cleaner of the vehicle belonged to respondent No. 6. 15. 14. Here in the instant case, this is not the case of the claimants-respondents that the deceased was working in the capacity of driver and/conductor and or cleaner of the vehicle belonged to respondent No. 6. 15. In the claim petition, the claimants-respondents have mentioned the status of the deceased as Helper Technician working with the owner of the vehicle i.e. respondent No. 6, but perusal of the Income Tax Returns submitted by the claimants-respondents shows that the status of the deceased was mentioned as a salaried person working with M/s Speedline Motors Pvt. Ltd. So, the claimants themselves have nowhere stated that the deceased was working as a Helper Technician. There is conflicting versions of the claimants and the respondent No. 6 about the status of the deceased. 16. Be that it as may, in any case the status of the deceased was not mentioned that he was working in the capacity of the driver and/conductor and or cleaner employed in connection with the operation of the motor vehicle. 17. So far as, the contention raised by counsel for respondent No. 6 with regard to Amendment of Section 2 of the Act of 1923 is concerned, the same came into force w.e.f. 18.01.2010 and the accident was occurred on 20.12.2008 and the legislature has not made this amendment applicable with retrospective effect, hence, the Tribunal has committed an error in not accepting the contentions put forth by counsel for the Insurance Company. 18. So, the findings recorded on issue No. 3 is modified with a direction to the Insurance Company to make the payment of compensation to the claimants-respondents and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 19. With the above observations, the appeal stands disposed of. In Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1267/2014 20. Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants (parents of the deceased Ram Singh) against the judgment and award dated 15.07.2013 passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in MAC Case No. 25/2010 whereby an amount of Rs. 14,25,775/- was awarded as compensation on account of death of Ram Singh in an accident which occurred on 20.12.2008. 21. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues and evaluating the evidence on record and after hearing counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition of the claimants and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,25,775/- in favour of the claimants. 14,25,775/- was awarded as compensation on account of death of Ram Singh in an accident which occurred on 20.12.2008. 21. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues and evaluating the evidence on record and after hearing counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition of the claimants and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,25,775/- in favour of the claimants. 22. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that after death of the deceased, respondent No. 4 Pushp Kanwar has remarried, hence, she was not entitled to get any amount of compensation. He further submits that the age of the deceased was 25 years, but without any basis, the Tribunal has determined his age as 27 years. 23. Learned counsel further submits that no amount towards future prospects has been awarded in the light of the judgment Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, AIR 2017 SC 5157 . Learned counsel therefore, prayed that re-computation of the award in the present case may be done in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 24. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents Insurance Company and owner of the vehicle opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the appellant and submitted that the income of the deceased has already been assessed at the higher side, hence, no interference is required. 25. Counsel for the respondents jointly submit that the respondent No. 5 Prahlad Singh was brother of the deceased and in any case, he cannot be treated as a dependant upon the deceased, but the Tribunal has lost sight of this fact and by treating him a dependant on deceased, made 1/4th deduction towards personal expenses, while the 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses should have been made from the income of the deceased. 26. Learned counsel for the respondents, however are not in a position to controvert the submissions with regard to not awarding future prospects to the claimants. 27. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4/claimant No. 1 Smt. Pushp Kanwar submits that the claim petition was filed immediately after death of her husband and if at all she is remarried, this will not affect her right of getting compensation. 28. 27. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4/claimant No. 1 Smt. Pushp Kanwar submits that the claim petition was filed immediately after death of her husband and if at all she is remarried, this will not affect her right of getting compensation. 28. Counsel for respondent No. 4 further supported the contentions raised by counsel for the appellant that amount towards future prospects has been awarded by the Tribunal without any valid reason. 29. I have considered the submissions made at Bar and gone through the judgment dated 15.07.2013 as well as the other relevant documents available on record. 30. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was mentioned as 27 years in the post mortem report and the claimants have not submitted any documentary evidence in support of their contentions with regard to the age of deceased. Hence, no illegality has been committed by the Tribunal while determining the age of deceased as 27 years. 31. So far as, the contentions raised by the respondents with regard to the income of the deceased is concerned, the same has been determined on the basis of ITRs submitted by the claimants and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. The Tribunal was not correct in deducting 1/4th amount towards personal expenses of the deceased as the respondent No. 5 cannot be treated as dependant on the deceased as he is brother of the deceased. Hence, 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses should have been made while calculating the award. Further, the amount under the head of future prospects as 40% is required to be added in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 32. So far as the contention with regard to grant of enhanced compensation to the wife of the deceased is concerned, she has now been remarried and she has not submitted any appeal for enhancement, hence, she is not entitled to get any amount in the enhanced compensation. 33. Thus, the award is recomputed as under: Income of deceased as assessed by the Tribunal Rs. 1,10,100 x 17 = 18,71,700/- Add 40 % towards future prospects Rs. 18,71,700/- + 7,48,680/- = 26,20,380/- Less 1/3rd towards personal expenses Rs. 26,20,380/- - Rs. 8,73,460/- = Rs. 17,46,920/- Total Compensation towards loss of income Rs. 17,46,920/- Loss of income as assessed by the Tribunal Rs. 14,03,775/- Less amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 1,10,100 x 17 = 18,71,700/- Add 40 % towards future prospects Rs. 18,71,700/- + 7,48,680/- = 26,20,380/- Less 1/3rd towards personal expenses Rs. 26,20,380/- - Rs. 8,73,460/- = Rs. 17,46,920/- Total Compensation towards loss of income Rs. 17,46,920/- Loss of income as assessed by the Tribunal Rs. 14,03,775/- Less amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 17,46,920/- - 14,03,775/- = Rs. 3,43,145/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs. 3,43,145/- 34. In view of the above, the appellants would be entitled to get a further sum of Rs. 3,43,145/-. Insurance company is directed to pay additional amount of Rs. 3,43,145/- within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The enhanced amount shall carry 6% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till the actual payment is made. It is made clear that the Insurance Company would be at liberty to recover the enhanced amount from the owner of the vehicle i.e. respondent No. 2. 35. The learned Tribunal shall disburse Rs. 50,000/- in the Joint Saving Bank Account of the appellants and the balance amount of the enhanced compensation be invested in any Nationalised Bank for a period of three years and interest accrued on the deposit shall be paid to the appellant-claimant on monthly basis. 36. Consequently, the appeal is disposed of in the above terms. 37. All pending applications stand disposed of. 38. Record of the Tribunal be sent back forthwith. 39. Registry is directed to place a copy of this judgment in the connected matter.