JUDGMENT : M. Jeyapaul, J. The widow and four children of deceased Raj Kumar have preferred the present appeal challenging part of negligence attributed to the deceased Raj Kumar and also the quantum of compensation. The claimants have contended that on 21.10.1991, when Raj Kumar (since deceased) was coming from Barara on the scooter of Pawan Kumar to his village Dulliana after filling petrol in the scooter of Pawan Kumar, the van bearing registration No. HR 03-2804 owned by respondent No.1 came from Jagadhari side driven by respondent No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner and hit the scooter of Pawan Kumar from behind and as a result of which the pillion rider Raj Kumar sustained multiple grievous injuries and succumbed to the same in the Civil Hospital, Mullana. The claimants sought compensation for the death of Raj Kumar in the motor accident. 2. Respondents filed written statement attributing negligence to the scooterist who came on the main road at a very high speed from the petrol pump without minding the traffic on the main road. It was contended that the driver of the van was not rash or negligent at the time when the accident took place. 3. The Tribunal took the income of the deceased at Rs. 52,000 per annum. A sum of Rs. 12,000 was deducted therefrom for the personal expenses of the deceased. Applying the multiplier of 11' the Tribunal arrived at a compensation of Rs. 4,40,000. But having held that there was some negligence on the part of the scooterist who drove the scooter taking Raj Kumar as the pillion rider, 1/3rd of the compensation was deducted and the insurance company was directed to pay 2/3rd of the compensation. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently submit that the multiplier of 13' should have been applied to calculate the loss of dependency of the deceased who was 46 years old at the time of accident as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . Contending that there was no negligence on the part of the scooterist as per the evidence of PW 2, the eyewitness to the occurrence, he would submit that the Tribunal should not have deducted 1/3rd of the compensation towards part of the negligence on the side of the scooterist. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . Contending that there was no negligence on the part of the scooterist as per the evidence of PW 2, the eyewitness to the occurrence, he would submit that the Tribunal should not have deducted 1/3rd of the compensation towards part of the negligence on the side of the scooterist. He would submit that the annual income of the deceased was arrived at without properly adverting to the documents produced to show the exact income of the deceased. It is his further contention that the Tribunal had not granted any compensation towards conventional heads. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company would vehemently submit that the Tribunal has rightly awarded just compensation based on the materials available on record. He would submit that as per law, the multiplier of 11' was applied and no addition to the income of the deceased towards future prospects was made by the Tribunal. Therefore, it is his submission that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. The evidence of PW 2, Krishan Lal, who proceeded along with the deceased has categorically admitted that the moment the scooter reached the main road after filling petrol in the petrol pump, the accident took place. The driver of the vehicle who emerged from the petrol pump to reach the main road should have carefully watched the vehicles proceeding on the road. Had the scooterist taken care to give right of way to the motorist who was coming on the main road crossing the petrol pump, the accident would not have taken place. The motorist who was proceeding on the main road had a right of way. The scooterist who came from the side of the petrol pump should have taken care while reaching the main road in order to avoid hitting the motor vehicle proceeding on the main road. But the motor vehicle which was proceeding on the main road should also have proceeded slowly near the petrol pump, as it is always expected that the vehicles after filling petrol would come down to the main road to proceed further. The accident could also have been averted, had the driver of the van driven the same slowly near the petrol pump. The accident could also have been averted, had the driver of the van driven the same slowly near the petrol pump. Just because the driver of the van had a right of way, he was not supposed to drive the vehicle rashly and negligently at a breakneck speed. 7. In my considered view, the Tribunal having adverted to the evidence on record has rightly come to a decision that there was 1/3rd negligence on the part of the scooterist and 2/3rd negligence on the part of the driver of the van. 8. The appellants have examined an Assistant Accounts Officer of the firm in which the deceased was working as a labour contractor. Exhs. P3 to P10, the documents maintained by the firm, were also produced. The aforesaid documents would disclose only the total amount received by the deceased for the contract work he accomplished by engaging the labourers. The amount found referred to in Exh. P3 to Exh. P10 would not reflect the annual net income of the deceased. In fact, PW 3 has categorically admitted the above position. 9. In view thereof, in my considered view, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the income of the deceased at Rs. 52,000 per annum. 10. The Tribunal has held based on the post-mortem certificate that the deceased was 46 years old at the time when the accident took place. The decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, (2012) 6 SCC 421 ), can very well be applied even to the cases which are pending disposal. It is the trite law that the principles enunciated in the ratio laid down by the courts will have to be applied as a precedent while determining the issues addressed before the court even in pending cases. In my considered view, there is no embargo to apply the principles laid down in the aforesaid two decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 11. As per the decision in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the multiplier of 13' will have to be applied to calculate the loss of dependency on the death of a person who was 46 years old. 11. As per the decision in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the multiplier of 13' will have to be applied to calculate the loss of dependency on the death of a person who was 46 years old. But the Claims Tribunal has applied only the multiplier of 11' to arrive at the loss of dependency. Further as per the decision in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , even if a person with fixed wages or a labourer, for that matter, dies at the age of 46, 30 per cent of income will have to be added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects while calculating the loss of dependency. Therefore, I have proposed to add 30 per cent of the income of the deceased towards future prospects. 12. The deceased had left behind 5 dependants. Therefore, 1/4th of the income will have to be deducted for personal and living expenses of the deceased. Under the conventional heads, I have proposed to award a sum of Rs. 10,000 towards loss of consortium, Rs. 10,000 towards loss to estate and Rs. 5,000 towards transportation of the dead body as well as funeral expenses. 13. In view of the above, a sum of Rs. 4,39,400 (Rs. 52,000 + 30 per cent thereof being Rs. 15,600 = Rs. 67,600 1/4th thereof being Rs. 16,900 = Rs. 50,700 x 13 = Rs. 6,59,100 - 1/3rd thereof being Rs. 2,19,700 = Rs. 4,39,400 towards loss of dependency, Rs. 10,000 towards loss of consortium, Rs. 10,000 towards loss to estate and Rs. 5,000 towards transportation of the dead body as well as funeral expenses, in aggregate Rs. 4,64,400 with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent on the enhanced portion of compensation from the date of petition till realization is awarded. 14. The rate of interest fixed by the Tribunal on the amount awarded by it and the mode of apportionment done by the Tribunal stand confirmed. With the above modification in the quantum of compensation, the appeal stands partly allowed.