JUDGMENT : ( Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J .) Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 1. Claimants/appellants are the legal heirs of the deceased, who died during course of his employment and has been awarded a compensation of Rs.4,60,518/- along with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of petition till its deposit by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hazaribag cum Workmen Compensation Commission, in W.C. Case No. 38 of 2012 under Section 4 of the Employment Insurance Act, 1983. 2. Deceased was driving the bus at the time of accident. The facts are not in dispute that deceased (Kaisar Khan) aged about 30 years was a driver of the volvo truck no. Br-1 GA 146 and died in the accident when dashed with another truck. 3. This appeal is admitted on 17.09.2018 to be heard on the following substantial question of law: - I) Whether the learned Commissioner, Workmen Compensation has erred in law in computing the compensation by assessing the monthly income of the workmen at the rate of Rs. 4732/- on the basis of daily minimum wages of truck driver fixed at Rs.182/-, as per the notification of the Government, despite the admission of the employer (respondent no.1) that the deceased was being paid Rs.9,500/- along with Rs. 100/- as daily food allowance? II) Whether the appellants/claimants are entitled to the compensation for the future prospect on the death of deceased employee? 4. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellants that as per the written statement submitted by the owner of the vehicle/ O.P. No. 1, in which he was getting monthly salary of 9,500/- along with daily food allowance of Rs. 100/-. However, the learned Labour Court-cum-Workmen Compensation Commissioner awarded the compensation by taking as Rs.182/- per day as the minimum wages and computed as Rs. 4732/- as monthly income. 5. With respect to future prospects, it is argued that the spirit behind awarding compensation is that it should be just compensation which has been held in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. 2017 16 SCC 680 held as under:- “10. The discussion on the point in Pranay Sethi was from the standpoint of arriving at “just compensation” in terms of Section 108 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 11. 2017 16 SCC 680 held as under:- “10. The discussion on the point in Pranay Sethi was from the standpoint of arriving at “just compensation” in terms of Section 108 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 11. If an indicia is made available in the form of a statutory instrument which affords a favourable treatment, the decision in Pranay Sethi cannot be taken to have limited the operation of such statutory provision specially when the validity of the Rules was not put under any challenge. The prescription of 15% in cases where the deceased was in the age bracket of 50-60 years as stated in Pranay Sethi cannot be taken as maxims. In the absence of any governing principle available in the statutory regime, it was only the form of an indication. If a statutory instrument has devised a formula which affords better or greater benefit, such statutory instrument must be allowed to operate unless the statutory instrument is otherwise found to be invalid. (emphasis supplied). 6. It is argued that considering the ratio laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court as well as by Allahabad High Court in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Sri Yamini & three Ors (First Appeal from Order No.2367 of 2013) appellants are entitled to compensation for loss of earning under the head of future prospect. 7. Learned counsel for the Respondent- Insurance Company has defended the impugned judgment/ Award. 8. It is argued that learned Trial Court in Para-8 has assigned specific reasons as to why claim of monthly income as salary of Rs. 9,500/- was not accepted by the learned court below. Therefore, the minimum wage for truck driver notified by Government was taken into consideration for computing the compensation amount as per the Schedule-IV of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. 9. With regard to the future prospect, it is submitted that the claimant had an option either to file claim case under the Motor Vehicles Act or under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. The claimants elected to file the case under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 in which there is no provision for award of compensation under the heading of future prospect. 10. The claimants elected to file the case under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 in which there is no provision for award of compensation under the heading of future prospect. 10. I find force in the argument advanced on behalf of the respondent Insurance Company, that specific statutory schemes have been enacted to compensate the victims of accidental death or injuries either during the course of employment or under the provisions of Employees Compensation Act,1923 and under Motor Vehicle Act,1988. Claimants have an option to move for compensation under either of the statutory scheme which has been conceived with altogether different methodology to compute compensation depending on the fact and situation. To hold otherwise, will amount to doing violence with the object, intendment of these Acts. Admittedly, the compensation is computed under Employees Compensation Act, as per Schedule IV of Section 4, whereas the compensation under Motor Vehicles Act is computed on the basis of multiplier system as decided in Pranay Sethi case (supra ). 11. As far as the Authority (s) relied upon by the counsel on behalf of the appellant is concerned, I find force in the argument advanced on behalf of the Respondent-Insurance Company, that under the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules,1988, there is specific rule, framed which was considered for an award of compensation including the heading for future prospects. There is no such rule as framed in Jharkhand to award compensation under the heading of future prospect. 12. There is merit in the case for enhancement of compensation, considering the fact that it has not been denied in the show cause filed on behalf of by the owner of the vehicle (respondent no.1) that the deceased was driving the said vehicle at the relevant time of accident on monthly salary which was of Rs.9500/-. A.W. 1, A.W. 2 and A.W. 3 have consistently stated that the deceased was earning Rs.9500/- per month at the time of accident and no contrary evidence has been led on behalf of Insurance Company. Taking the nature of occupation and the year of accident, claim of Rs.9500/- per month does not appear to be exaggerated. Learned Court below was in error to have computed the compensation amount by taking the minimum wage of the deceased and rejecting Rs.9500/- as the monthly income. 13. Taking the nature of occupation and the year of accident, claim of Rs.9500/- per month does not appear to be exaggerated. Learned Court below was in error to have computed the compensation amount by taking the minimum wage of the deceased and rejecting Rs.9500/- as the monthly income. 13. Taking Rs.9500/- as the monthly income, the final compensation amount as per Schedule IV to Section 4 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, shall be Rs.9500/2 multiplied by admissible factor of 194.64 which will be as Rs.9,24,540/-. 14. The Insurer of the vehicle (respondent no.2) is directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs.9,24,540/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of accident to the claimants. However, 50% of the compensation amount shall go to the widow of the deceased (claimant no.1) and rest 50% will be received by the other claimants in equal share by appellant nos.2 to 6. Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly allowed. I.A. if any, is disposed of.