JUDGMENT : Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. The present Appeal from Order has been preferred by the Insurance Company (appellant herein), i.e. the opposite party No. 1, in M.A.C.P. No. 85 of 2016, Khushi Jha and another Vs. The New India Assurance Company Limited. The claimants therein, who are the parents of the deceased, had filed a claim petition, by invoking the provisions, contained under Sections 166/140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming grant of compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/-, on account of death, which had been caused to their son late Mr. Krishn Kumar Jha. 2. The factual backdrop of the claim petition, was that the deceased Krishn Kumar Jha, while he was travelling on his Motorcycle on 28.12.2015, from Jaspur to Kashipur, when he reached near about village Missarwala, a Truck bearing Registration No. U.P.-93T-5666, which was being negligently driven by the driver of the said vehicle of which, the owner of the said vehicle, was the opposite party No. 2 i.e. Rafeeq Raza, had met with an accident due to which, the deceased was seriously injured and had died on the spot. 3. It was contended by the claimants, that on the date of the death of their son, the corpus of the deceased was taken to the mortuary and a post-mortem was conducted, on the corpus and an FIR, being FIR No. 178 of 2015, was also registered against the owner of the offending vehicle for his alleged involvement of the offending vehicle belonging to him, in the commission of the offences under Section 279 and 304A. 4. The claimants have come up with the case that on the date of the accident, the deceased was 26 years old and he was profitably engaged with M/s Galwalia Ispat Limited, which was the subsidiary unit of KVS Group of Industries and was drawing a salary of about Rs. 15000/- per month. 4. The claimants have come up with the case that on the date of the accident, the deceased was 26 years old and he was profitably engaged with M/s Galwalia Ispat Limited, which was the subsidiary unit of KVS Group of Industries and was drawing a salary of about Rs. 15000/- per month. It was further contended by the parents (claimants) of the deceased, that owing to their age and the relationship, which they have catered with the deceased, they were exclusively dependent upon the income of their deceased son and due to his death, the aged claimants, who were then about 70 and 68 years of age respectively, had submitted that they would be entitled for the award of a suitable compensation, taking into consideration the future prospects of the service benefits or enhancement in the salary, which their son could have procured if he had not met with the sad demise, which had chanced on 28.12.2015. 5. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had issued notices to the appellant herein, and to the owner of the offending vehicle. The appellant, in response to their claim raised, in the claim petition, based on the salary which had been projected therein, had filed their written statement by way of paper No. 29 (kha). The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has specifically observed, that apart from filing of the written statement, it was stated that either the claimants or the owner of the offending vehicle, no information of the accident having been committed by the offending vehicle was ever imparted to the Insurance Company, which was mandatory under Section 158(6) of the Act. 6. The owner of the offending vehicle, while giving response to the pleading of the claim petition had submitted that in view of the provisions contained under Section 64B of the Insurance Ac, 1938, the liability of the payment the award has had to be harnessed upon the owner of the offending vehicle and that the insurance company would not be liable. But, owing to the insurance policy, which was placed on record, the driving license which the driver of the offending vehicle, had as on the date of the accident and considering other documentary evidences, it is not in dispute, that on the date of the accident, the offending vehicle was being validly insured with the appellant and was being plied by the driver, who had a valid license, the registration certificate and the permit, as well as the fitness certificate of the offending vehicle were valid and hence there was no contravention to the terms of the policy of insurance of the vehicle, which was insured with the appellant. 7. The owner of the offending vehicle i.e. Truck No. U.P.-93T-5666, in support of his defence has placed on record the registration certificate, the insurance cover note, the pleadings to the effect that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was safely plied by the driver of the vehicle, who was the holder of a valid driving license of the insured vehicle as the insurance subsisted and was valid for the period from 03.12.2015 to 12.12.2016. 8. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the following issues were framed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which are extracted hereunder:- **1- D;k fnukad 28-12-2015 dks le; djhc 11%45 cts jkf= LFkku ogn xzke feLljokyk ds ikl vUrxZr Fkkuk {ks= dq.Mk ftyk m/ke flag uxj esa okgu Vªd la0 ;w-ih-&93Vh&5666 ds pkyd }kjk okgu dks rsth o ykijokgh ls pykdj d`".k dqekj >k dks VDdj ekj nh] ftlls d`".k dqekj >k dks xaHkhj pksVsa vk;ha] ftl dkj.k mldh ekSds ij gh e`R;q gks x;h\ 2- D;k nq?kZVuk ds le; okgu Vªd la0 ;w-ih-&93Vh&5666 ds pkyd ds ikl oS/k ,oa ÁHkkoh MªkbZfoax ykbZlsal Fkk\ 3- D;k nq?kZVuk ds le; okgu Vªd la0 ;w-ih-&93Vh&5666 dk chek oS/k Fkk\ ;fn gka rks ÁHkko\ 4- vuqrks"k\ 9. The claimants in support of their contention had appeared in the witness box and had recorded their statements as CW1 Khushi Jha, CW2 Harish Singh and CW3 Pradeep Kumar. Besides they had also placed reliance on the documentary evidence submitted by way of list paper No. 7(ga) i.e. copy of the First Information Report paper no. 8(ga), post-mortem report paper No. 9(ga) and educational qualification testimonials, the family register, as well as the registration of the vehicle, which was being plied by the late son of the claimants. 10. Besides they had also placed reliance on the documentary evidence submitted by way of list paper No. 7(ga) i.e. copy of the First Information Report paper no. 8(ga), post-mortem report paper No. 9(ga) and educational qualification testimonials, the family register, as well as the registration of the vehicle, which was being plied by the late son of the claimants. 10. Apart from that, they have also placed on record various other documents by way of paper No. 48(ga)1 i.e. appointment letter, paper No. 48(ga)2, i.e. salary register paper No. 48(ga)4-5, the attendance register and other documents, for example, the charge sheet and the post-mortem report. 11. What is important is that the appellants herein, in support of their contention; apart from the pleadings, which they have raised in their written statement i.e. paper No. 29 (kha), have not produced any other documentary or oral evidences to the contrary, in support of their defence to the claim which was raised by the respondents. Accordingly, while answering to the issues framed by the learned Motor Accident Clams Tribunal, after the assessment of documentary evidences, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, on appreciating the evidence and the documents, particularly, the findings, which has been recorded in para 14, it has observed that the deceased was travelling on his motorcycle bearing registration No. UK 06S-3538 and while he was travelling, he was hit from the rear side of the Truck due to which he suffered from some serious injuries and succumbed to it. 12. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has observed that though the appellant has cross examined the witnesses of the claimant but they have factually not denied the case as put up by the claimant in the claim petition. And accordingly, while replying to the issue No. 1, pertaining to the negligence, it was concluded that the Truck in question was being driven in rash and negligent manner, which has resulted into the death of late Mr. Krishn Kumar Jha, due to the injuries which were suffered by him during the accident. 13. So far as the substance of issue No. 2 is concerned, which pertained, as to whether on the date of accident, the vehicle was being plied under a valid license or not. Krishn Kumar Jha, due to the injuries which were suffered by him during the accident. 13. So far as the substance of issue No. 2 is concerned, which pertained, as to whether on the date of accident, the vehicle was being plied under a valid license or not. In support of this contention, the document, which was produced by the owner of the offending vehicle were i.e. registration certificate, fitness certificate and the insurance cover note, they were not controverted by any of the parties to the proceedings and no evidence to the contrary, was ever produced by the appellant before the Court below, hence, the inference drawn, while deciding issue No. 2, was that the offending vehicle was being driven with a valid and effective documents and hence the liability was to be harnessed upon the insurance company with whom the vehicle was validly insured on the date of the accident and the validity of the insurance of the said vehicle was determined, while deciding issue No. 3, holding it to be effective w.e.f. 03.02.2012 to 02.12.2015. 14. On the basis of the findings which had been recorded on issue Nos. 1, 2 & 3, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and particularly in view of the findings, which have been recorded in para 21 of the impugned judgment, to be read in correlation with the findings which had been recorded in para 23, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion, that on the appreciation of the contents of the appointment letter, which was placed on record, the salary which was assessed as to be Rs. 15,000/- per month and the offer of appointment, which was extended to the deceased and placed and proved on record by paper No. 47(ga), the appointment letter itself, the salary register, they all had led to an unflinching inference, that it was rather a full time employment and as per the entries, which were made in the salary register i.e. paper No. 48(ga), it was found, that the total salary which was drawn in hand by the deceased was Rs. 14,500/-. 15. 14,500/-. 15. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, while deciding issue No. 4, for the purposes of determining the adequacy of compensation had rightly observed, that since the deceased was appointed as a supervisor and that on the date of the accident, he was performing his outside duties relating to the affairs of the factory, in discharge of his official duties, in which he was employed and owing to the responsibility and the services which he had to discharge, he was also made admissible to be paid with Rs. 7500/- as basic pay, HRA of Rs. 2250/-, travelling allowance of Rs. 800/-, dress allowance of Rs. 500/- and special allowance of Rs. 3450/-, which has been determined as to be a total amount of Rs. 14500/-. In fact, the rationale adopted and the findings which had been recorded in para 21, in the absence of there being any evidence to the contrary pleaded or proved by the Insurance Company i.e. appellant herein, the conclusion drawn by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on appreciation of the documents of the employer and arriving to a conclusion that the salary drawn by the deceased was Rs. 14,500/-, do not suffer from any apparent vices, which could called for any interference. 16. Apart from it, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had also considered the impact, that as on the date of the accident i.e. 28.12.2015, the deceased was of 25 years 8 months and 11 days old and thus the age was determined as to be approximately about 26 years and since he was unmarried, determination of compensation was made as per the ratio of the judgment reported in 2012 (3) ACCD 1137 (SC), Amrit Bhanushali Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd and others, applying the multiplier on the basis of age of the deceased. 17. If the basis computation of the compensation by the Tribunal is taken into consideration, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal after applying the principles, which has been laid down in Sarla Verma’s case as reported in 2009 (2) SCCD 924 (SC), Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others, has rightly applied the multiplier of 17 and determined the annual income as to be Rs.1,74,000/- and after applying the multiplier of 17; after making the deductions, had assessed the compensation which would be payable of Rs.14,79,000/-. Delhi Transport Corporation and others, has rightly applied the multiplier of 17 and determined the annual income as to be Rs.1,74,000/- and after applying the multiplier of 17; after making the deductions, had assessed the compensation which would be payable of Rs.14,79,000/-. But, since the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was less than 40 years, the amount payable towards the future prospects was assessed @ 40 percent to the tune of Rs.5,91,600/- and accordingly, the total compensation which was determined by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to be payable as to be Rs.21,00,600/- which would be payable to the claimants in equal amount along with the interest, which was levied @ 9 percent. 18. Surprisingly, for the first time, before this appellate Court, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, had argued the issue from the following prospective:- ‘That on the scrutinisation of the letter of appointment which had been made by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, treating the deceased to be a regular employee is a misnormer because the employee who is appointed on a probation according to his interpretation, he cannot treated as to be a regular employee for the purposes of determination of the income accruing to him and more particularly, when he was working on a probation was and drawing the salary of Rs. 14,500/- per month and the accident has chanced before the expiry of the period of probation’. 19. In order to answer the above arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is constrained, to deviate from the principal issue, engaged in the appeal, which is to be discussed in the present judgment while extracting certain basic principles of administrative and service laws. 20. If a person is appointed on a probation, this Court is of the view, that, that itself gives an inference that the appointment made of an individual, on a probation is always against a permanent substantive vacancy and a probation is only a connotation, which has to be utilised by an employer for the purposes of a break even period for assessing the work competency of the employee and it is a test period for the employee thus appointed by the employer, before he is put in the regular cadre of the employment. 21. 21. Apart from it, the very fact that the deceased was appointed on a probation, as it has been answered above, since he was a recipient of all the regular perks, admissible to the post i.e. HRA, travelling allowance, dress allowance etc. rationally, once again, the same inference would flow, that these perks would not be made payable to a person, who was not appointed as a regular employee. Hence, this argument which has been raised for the first time by the appellants counsel before this Court is not acceptable by this Court. 22. This argument is further not acceptable by this Court, for the reason being that the determination of the status of an employment, or the financial benefit which would be accruing to the deceased employee, would always entail an appreciation of evidence. Unfortunately, the findings, which had been recorded against the appellant, in fact, it was never even endeavoured by the appellant to lead any evidence to the contrary before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, to establish the fact that the nature of appointment of the deceased, was other than that of a regular employee, except for the pleadings raised in the written statement. 23. Under the basic principles of Civil Law, exclusive pleadings without the same being substantiated by any documentary evidence, particularly when it relates to a monetary benefit accruing to a deceased, when it is not discharged by the Insurance Company, he cannot at an appellate stage for the first time take a stand to the contrary, which he has otherwise failed to discharge, when he had vehemently participated in the proceedings before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, and not even that if at all this argument of the appellant’s counsel was to be accepted, he even at the appellate stage has not moved any application invoking Order 14 Rule 4/5 or even under Order 41 Rule 25, for getting any additional issue framed, from the said perspective as argued today by the appellant, in order to get an answer on the issue, which the learned counsel for the appellant has attempted to harp upon, hence this argument too is not acceptable by this Court. 24. 24. The second limb of argument, as extended by the learned counsel for the appellant, is that the determination of future prospects, as it has been made by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in the findings, which has been recorded in para 27 of the judgment by determining it @ 40 percent is on a higher side. 25. This Court is of the view that even this aspect, that the determination of future prospect has to be made in the context of the net salary and not on the basis of the gross salary, which has been drawn by the deceased after the inclusion of the perks, is not acceptable by this Court in the light of the judgment, as rendered by the Division Bench of this Court, reported in 2007 (1) UD 380 , Smt. Sushila and others Vs. Mustfa and others, wherein, in the said case, while interpreting the implications of Section 165 to be read with Section 166, the Court has assessed and concluded that for the purposes of assessment of compensation, the basic salary and the allowances payable on it, are required to be taken into consideration. The relevant para 14 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:- “14. In view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Asha and others Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another reported in 2004 ACJ 448 , for the purposes of assessment of the of the compensation, the Basic Salary and Dearness Allowance, alone, are to be taken into consideration. The total of Basic Pay and Dearness Allowance comes to Rs.8,634,34/- (Rs.5500+Rs. 3134.34). The amount, when rounded off, comes to Rs.8,500/- per month and Rs.1,02,000/- per annum. We, therefore, propose to compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.8,500/- per month and Rs.1,02,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.1,02,000/- as the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ annual dependency is assessed at Rs.68,000/-.” 26. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has also made reference to a judgment, of the Hon’ble Apex Court, as reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 , National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.1,02,000/- as the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants’ annual dependency is assessed at Rs.68,000/-.” 26. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has also made reference to a judgment, of the Hon’ble Apex Court, as reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 , National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, particularly, the parameters, which have been discussed and laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court, as laid down in para 59 of the said judgment, which postulates, that while determining the income; an addition of 50 percent of the actual salary in the income of the deceased, by way of future prospects could be taken into consideration, where an employee is on a “permanent job” and falls between the age slab of 40 to 50 years. In that eventuality, he has to be paid 30 percent towards the purposes of future prospect and if he falls within the age slab of 50 to 60 years, it is 15 percent of the amount, which has to be determined towards the future prospects. Admittedly and factually too in the case at hand, the deceased was under a permanent employment and was of an age lesser than the first bracket provided in para 59.3 of the said judgment of Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) and in that eventuality, when he falls to be of a lesser age of 26 years, as on the date when he met with an accident, this Court is of the view that there has had to be a corresponding rationale increase in the percentage of amount to be paid towards the future prospects, to be determined apart from 30 percent, which has been determined for the age slab of 40 to 50 years and the grant of future prospects @ 40 percent by the Tribunal as per the observations made in para 27 of the impugned award, is absolutely just and proper. Para 59 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:- 59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:- 59.1 The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:- 59.1 The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench. 59.2 As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent. 59.3 While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 59.4 In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. 59.5 For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore. 59.6 The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment. 59.7 The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. 59.8 Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.” 27. 59.7 The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. 59.8 Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.” 27. The learned counsel for the respondent had made reference to yet another judgment, as it has been rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2914 of 2019, Treveni Kodkany and others Vs. Air India Limited and others, as decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 03.03.2020, and particularly, he has made reference to para 9 of the said judgment, which is extracted hereunder:- “9. Both the sides have prefaced their submissions by relying on the principles which have been evolved by the Court in determining compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, where an accident has resulted in death. The table which we have reproduced in the earlier part of the judgment would indicate that the total CTC per annum, on account of the employment of the deceased, to his employer was AED 4,82,395. This comprises CA 2914/2019 of the basic pay, house rent allowance, transport allowance, telephone allowance, LTA, medical aid and gratuity. The ion which has been made by the employer in the salary of the deceased is, in our view, no reason to make any deductions from the total CTC of AED 4,82,395. The consolidated amount is the amount annually borne by the employer on account of the employment of the deceased. Hence, we are unable to accept the reasons which weighed with the NCDRC in making a deduction of AED 30,000 from the total CTC. Similarly and for the same reason, we are unable to accept the submission of Air India that the transport allowance should be excluded. The bifurcation of the salary into diverse heads may be made by the employer for a variety of reasons. However, in a claim for compensation arising out of the death of the employee, the income has to be assessed on the basis of the entitlement of the employee. We, therefore, proceed for the purpose of computation on the basis of the annual income of AED 4,82,395.” 28. However, in a claim for compensation arising out of the death of the employee, the income has to be assessed on the basis of the entitlement of the employee. We, therefore, proceed for the purpose of computation on the basis of the annual income of AED 4,82,395.” 28. In fact, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the said judgment, had laid down the principles that while denying to accept the argument as extended by employer, that the bifurcation of the salary under the diversified head of financial benefit, being paid to an employee, who had met with an accident, the same has had to be taken into consideration on the basis of the entitlement of an employee and hence the determination of compensation made by the Tribunal falls to be well within the ambit of the ratio, which has been laid down by the Constitution Bench’s judgment of Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), as well as that of the judgment of Treveni Kodkany’s case (supra). 29. The learned counsel for the appellant, in support of his contention has made reference to a judgment which had been rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4634 of 2021, New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Urmila Shukla and others, wherein a challenge was given to the judgment rendered by the Allahabad High Court and the parameters of determination of compensation, which was the subject matter of scrutiny in order to bring it within the ambit of Rule 220A of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998, which he contends that the same would be applicable in the light of the provisions contained under Section 35 of the Reorganisation Act. Accordingly, he submits that if the future prospects has to be taken into consideration and the methods, which have to be applied there cannot be a clean sweep in the determination of compensation beyond the ambit of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act, and in that eventuality, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the said case had dealt with the observations which were made by the Constitution Bench’s judgment in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) particularly, that as observed in para 57 of the said case, wherein the test for determining the compensation, in fact, it happen to be an inbuilt mechanism, which has to be rationally interpreted and adopted based on the rules in order to make a fair and equitable determination of compensation, which obviously includes the consideration of cumulative facts viz i.e. the passage of time, the change of life style, rise in price index, the social status of the family of the deceased and obviously the age of the deceased itself. Because, the age would play an important and a pivotal role too for determining the future prospects in anticipation of income, which the deceased would have otherwise procured had he not died in the accident and that is why in the said judgment too, 40 percent has been assessed to be made for the future prospects, which was held to be reasonable. 30. In view of the aforesaid reasoning, and particularly, what has been endeavoured by the learned counsel for the appellant, at this stage, in the absence of there being any pleading or evidence led by him, he may not be permitted to barge over the basic foundation of the case, which was pleaded and built up by him by way of defense, before the learned Tribunal, at the appellate stage and that too without inviting the Appellate Court after notice to the respondents about his probable argument to put an attack to the impugned award. 31. In that eventuality, and for the reasons assigned above, I do not find any apparent error or infirmity in the impugned award, as passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Appeal from Order fails. The judgment rendered by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is hereby affirmed. Accordingly, the Registry is directed to remit the statutory deposit of Rs. The Appeal from Order fails. The judgment rendered by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is hereby affirmed. Accordingly, the Registry is directed to remit the statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- to the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which would be in turn remitted back to the claimants along with the amount of compensation, which has been determined by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.