ORDER : ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J. 1. Since all the instant appeals are arising out of the same impugned award dated 09.07.2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short, “the Tribunal”) in MAC Case Nos.403/2018 & 404/2018 by which the claim petitions submitted by the claimants-appellants (hereinafter referred to as “the claimants”) have been partly allowed and the insurance company has been directed to pay amount of compensation to the claimants along-with interest. Hence, with the consent of all the counsels of both the sides, there appeals are decided by this common order. In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2777/2020 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant- insurance company submits that only on the question of quantum, a challenge has been led to the impugned award. Counsel submits that the deceased Gulsher Khan was serving in the Indian Army on the post of Constable and on the fateful day, i.e.,26.08.2018, he was travelling in a vehicle bearing No.RJ-37-CA-4677, which met with an accident resulting in the death of the deceased- Gulsher Khan on the spot. Counsel submits that when a claim petition was submitted by the claimants, i.e., dependents of the deceased-Gulsher Khan, for getting compensation before the Tribunal, the salary slip of the deceased-Gulsher Khan was produced on the record as Exhibit-12, which provided that the basic/ band salary/ pay of the deceased was Rs.35,900/- per month, but while calculating his salary, the certain other allowances were added and accordingly, the monthly salary of the deceased-Ex.12 was determined as Rs.48,840/-. Counsel submits that by no stretch of imagination, can the allowances other than the band/ basic pay be treated as part and parcel of the salary and the same cannot be treated as components of the deceased- Gulsher Khan’s salary. Hence, under these circumstances, the income of the deceased- Gulsher Khan has been determined on the higher side and the impugned award has been passed by the Tribunal erroneously. 3. In support of his contention, counsel for the appellant- insurance company has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Madras High Court in the case of Brinks Arya India Private Ltd. Vs. G. Bama & Ors. reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 11348 . 3. In support of his contention, counsel for the appellant- insurance company has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Madras High Court in the case of Brinks Arya India Private Ltd. Vs. G. Bama & Ors. reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 11348 . Counsel submits that in the aforesaid judgment, it has been held by the Madras High Court that the convenience allowances paid to an employee cannot be treated as part and parcel of the salary, hence, under these circumstances, the salary cannot be determined after adding the convenience allowances. Counsel submits that in the light of the aforesaid judgment passed by the Madras High Court in the case of G. Bama (supra), the excessive amount so determined by the Tribunal in the impugned award is liable to be reduced by treating the monthly salary of the deceased as Rs.35,900/- instead of Rs.48,840/-. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-claimants (hereinafter referred to as “the claimants”) opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the appellant- insurance company and submits that apart from the basic band salary of an employee, the other allowances under the head of Transport Allowance, House Rent Allowance, Provident Fund Loan, Provident Fund and Special Allowances are required to be added as components of the salary. 5. In support of his contention, counsel for the claimants has placed reliance upon the order dated 08.01.2026 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Kamlesh Devi & Ors. Vs. Rohitash & Ors. while deciding S.B. Misc. Appeal No.399/2023 & the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Meenakshi Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1872 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 7. Perusal of the record indicates that the deceased Gulsher Khan was posted as Constable in the Indian Army and on the fateful date, i.e., on 28.08.2024, he met with an accident, wherein the offending vehicle struck his vehicle and he died on the spot. After his death, the claimants approached the Tribunal by way of filing claim petition seeking compensation and while producing the evidence, his salary certificate was produced on the record and the same was marked as Exhibit-12. After his death, the claimants approached the Tribunal by way of filing claim petition seeking compensation and while producing the evidence, his salary certificate was produced on the record and the same was marked as Exhibit-12. Perusal of the same indicates that the basic band pay of the deceased was Rs.35,900/- and after adding the other allowances under the heads of MS Pay, CL Pay, TPAL, Dearness Allowance, PMHA, LRA and HIMA3, his monthly salary was determined as Rs.48,840/- and on the basis of the same, the amount of compensation has been determined in the impugned award in favour of the claimants. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Meenakshi (supra) has dealt with an identical issue and has held in Paras Nos.9, 10 & 12 as under:- “9. Recently in a judgment dated 11th July, 2024 in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nalini [Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 4230/2019], this Court held that, allowances under the heads of transport allowance, house rent allowance, provident fund loan, provident fund and special allowance ought to be added while considering the basic salary of the victim/deceased to arrive at the dependency factor. 10. Therefore, components of house rent allowance, flexible benefit plan and company contribution to provident fund have to be included in the salary of the deceased while applying the component of rise in income by future prospects to determine the dependency factor. The Accident Claims Tribunal was justified in factoring these components into the salary of the deceased, before applying 50% rise by future prospects due to future prospects, while calculating the total compensation payable to the appellant. xx xx xx xx 12. We, therefore, hold that the High Court has erred while omitting to add the components of house rent allowance, flexible benefit plan and Company contribution to provident fund to the basic salary of the deceased while applying the principle of rise in income by future prospects.” 9. Perusal of the aforesaid judgment clearly indicates that the other allowances under the heads of Transport Allowances, House Rent Allowance, Provident Fund Loan, Provident Fund and Special Allowance are required to be added, while considering the basic salary of the deceased/ victim in order to arrive at a dependency factor. 10. Perusal of the aforesaid judgment clearly indicates that the other allowances under the heads of Transport Allowances, House Rent Allowance, Provident Fund Loan, Provident Fund and Special Allowance are required to be added, while considering the basic salary of the deceased/ victim in order to arrive at a dependency factor. 10. It has also been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that the components of the House Rent Allowances, Flexible Benefit Plan and Company Contribution to the Provident Fund ought to be included in the salary of the deceased while applying the principle of rise in income by future prospects to determine the dependency factor and excluding the Income Tax of the aforesaid amount. 11. Since the controversy involved in this appeal is no more res integra as the same has been recently decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Meenakshi (supra). This Court finds no merit and reason to take a different view. 12. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit and substance in the arguments submitted by the counsel for the appellant-insurance company, hence the same amounts to be devoid of merit and the same is liable to be and is hereby rejected. In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 918 /202 1 13. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants- claimants (hereinafter referred to as “the claimants”) seeking suitable amount of enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MAC Case No.404/2018 vide award dated 09.07.2020. The only argument raised by counsel for the claimants is that while granting the compensation under the head of loss of consortium, a sum of Rs.40,000/- has been awarded to each of the claimants, but it has not been directed that there shall be increase in such amount on a yearly basis in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in 2017 (16) SCC 860 . The Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 17.12.2025 in the case of Hasina Yasim Vs. National Insurance Company while deciding Special Leave to Petition (C) No.27285/2025 in Paras 6 & 7, has categorically held that in accidents which have occurred prior to the year 2020, the proposition of law relating to enhancement in every three years as propounded in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) is not applicable. National Insurance Company while deciding Special Leave to Petition (C) No.27285/2025 in Paras 6 & 7, has categorically held that in accidents which have occurred prior to the year 2020, the proposition of law relating to enhancement in every three years as propounded in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) is not applicable. The same would be applicable only in those cases where the accident has occurred from the year 2020 onwards. 14. Considering the above recent view as taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Hasina Yasim (supra) & Pranay Sethi (supra), this Court finds no merit and substance in the instant appeal submitted by the claimants, hence, the same is liable to be and is hereby rejected. In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 745/2021 15. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants (hereinafter referred to as “the claimants”) submits that in the impugned award, while deciding the MAC Case No.403/2018, the deceased- Abdul Daud Khan was treated as a skilled labour while assessing and determining his monthly income. Counsel further submits that the minimum wages only for 26 days has been counted in determining the deceased-Abdul Daud Khan’s monthly income. However, as per the judgment dated 23.02.2022 passed by this Court in the case of Nandu Devi & Anr. Vs. Sohan Lal & Ors. while deciding S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.769/2007, it has been held that while determining the monthly income of a daily wager, a period of 30 days instead of 26 days ought to have be considered. Hence, under these circumstances, the amount so awarded by the Tribunal is liable to be increased. 16. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-insurance company opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the claimants and submits that looking to the various circulars issued by the Department of Labour, Government of Rajasthan published in the gazette notification, the monthly income of a daily wager, i.e., skilled labour prevailing the time was Rs.6,475/- per month and after taking into account the aforesaid circular/notification, the Tribunal has rightly determined the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,474/- per month. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted and the instant appeal is liable to be rejected. 17. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted and the instant appeal is liable to be rejected. 17. This Court in the case of Nandu Devi (supra) has already decided the controversy involved in the instant appeal, i.e., the assessment of monthly salary of skilled or unskilled persons. In the case of Nandu Devi (supra), after relying the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jalauar Singh & Ors. Vs. Barkat Singh & Ors. reported in 2012 (2) MACT Raj. 692 , it has been held that the Tribunal ought to consider the monthly income of the daily wager for 30 days instead of 26 days. Therefore, in the light of the discussion hereinabove, the claimants are entitled to get the following amount of enhanced compensation as reproduce in the table hereinunder:- Monthly income (with Personal Expense Deduction of 1/4th) Rs.249 X 30 X 3/4th = Rs.5,602.5/- Annual income Rs. 5,602.5 X 12 = Rs.67,230/- p.a. Add 25 per cent towards future prospects Rs.67,230 X 25%= Rs.16,807.5/- (Rs.67,230 +Rs.16,807.5 = Rs.84,037.5/-) Multiplier to be applied 13 Rs.84,037.5 X 13 = Rs.10,92,487.5/- Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Loss of Consortium, Love and Affection Rs.40,000/- X 4= Rs.1,60,000/- Funeral Expense Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.12,82,487.5/- Less amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs.11,36,920/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.1,45,567.5/- 18. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands partly allowed. The award passed by the Tribunal stands modified to the extent that the claimant would be now entitled to get a further sum of Rs.1,45,567.5/- by way of enhanced compensation and the remaining terms and conditions of the award shall remain intact. 19. The respondents are directed to pay the above computed enhanced amount within a period of two months from today with interested @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition.