ORDER : GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. The claimants are in appeal before this Court for enhancement of compensation awarded in W.C. Case No. 52/07 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Hazaribagh under Section 4 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. 2. The facts are not in dispute that Santosh Prajapati died during course of his employment on 10.03.2002 while he was driving the vehicle No. BR 13 P 0774. The claim case was filed impleading the owner of the vehicle as O.P. 1 and its insurer as O.P.2. 3. This appeal has been admitted under the following substantial questions of law: “Whether the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 ” in relation to calculating compensation for the victims of the motor accident can be applied to the victims of accident, who are claiming compensation under Workmen Compensation Act/Employee Compensation Act” 4. This appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that the object of the Workmen’s Compensation Act is to award just compensation which is also the object of the workmen’s Compensation Act. While awarding compensation, learned court of Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation has failed to appreciate the law which was later developed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) wherein the compensation is also awarded under the head of loss of earning as a future prospect. 5. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellants that award of just compensation is the essence of award under any of the statute. Law is now settled that prospect of future loss of earning is an important compensation while awarding just compensation, and therefore claim cannot be denied on this score. 6. It is argued on behalf of the Respondent that even under Motor Vehicle Act, in all cases compensation is not allowed for prospect of losing future earnings. In claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act fixed award of compensation is made as per computational table and any such loss under the head of future prospect is not permissible. In Workmen’s Compensation Act also the computation is to be made as per the table appended to Section 4 which has no provision for future prospect. 7. In claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act fixed award of compensation is made as per computational table and any such loss under the head of future prospect is not permissible. In Workmen’s Compensation Act also the computation is to be made as per the table appended to Section 4 which has no provision for future prospect. 7. So far, the first substantial question of law is concerned, this Court is of the view that the provisions for awarding compensation under different statutes viz Employees Compensation Act, 1923, Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and Railways Act proceed on different principles for computation and award of compensation. To hold that principles of computation in all these cases will proceed on the same principles as laid down in Pranay Sethi case (supra), will erase the fine distinction and be against the statutory scheme. This Court answered this question in the negative in M.A. No.513 of 2016 for the reasons discussed therein vide order dated 04.02.2025. In the present case as well, there is no reason why the principles of computation of compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act be extended to that under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Under the circumstance, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Miscellaneous appeal stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.