JUDGMENT : VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA, J. This appeal has been filed under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) challenging the legality and validity of the award dated 5-8-2016 passed by the II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anuppur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in Claim Case No. 22/2015, whereby the claim filed by the respondents for compensation on account of death of the husband of the respondent No. 1/claimant, namely, Shatrughan Yadav has been allowed. 2. The facts of the case adumbrated in a nutshell, are that the respondents-claimants filed a claim case before the Tribunal claiming compensation on account of death of Late Shatrughan Yadav, who was travelling in a Safari car which was dashed by the offending vehicle-truck bearing Registration No. MP-20-HB-0919 from behind while overtaking the car, as a consequence of which the deceased along with other travellers in the car died on account of injuries sustained by them in the accident. 3. An FIR was registered by the police against the driver of the offending vehicle and after conducting necessary investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The issue regarding the death of the deceased on account of the negligent driving by the offending vehicle-the truck was found to be proved which was being rashly and negligently driven by the respondent No. 8. 4. The Tribunal also recorded the finding that the vehicle in question was being driven in contravention of the insurance policy and held that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Safari car bearing Registration No. CG-16B-3729 which was dashed by the offending vehicle. The Tribunal found that there was breach of the insurance policy, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. However, following the principle of “pay and recover”, the Insurance Company was directed to deposit the awarded sum and thereafter to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. 5. Challenging the award passed by the Tribunal, counsel for the appellant raised the following two contentions: (i) That the Tribunal has erred while awarding 50% of the established income towards future prospects, as the deceased was working only as an insurance agent and there was no fixed salary and he was self employed. 5. Challenging the award passed by the Tribunal, counsel for the appellant raised the following two contentions: (i) That the Tribunal has erred while awarding 50% of the established income towards future prospects, as the deceased was working only as an insurance agent and there was no fixed salary and he was self employed. He contended that in the case of a claimant, who is not engaged in a permanent job, the award of future prospects is not permissible. (ii) That the issue regarding the principle of “pay and recover” has been referred to the Larger Bench and since the Insurance Company has no liability to pay compensation, therefore it cannot be compelled to pay compensation amount and later to recover it from the owner of the vehicle. 6. At the time of the argument, it was informed that the issue regarding payment of “future prospects” in the case of the deceased who was self employed or in a fixed salary and the issue of “pay and recover” have been referred to the Larger Bench. The case was heard and reserved. The first issue has been answered by the Constitution Bench on 31st October, 2017 in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 25590/2014, Nationol Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2018 (2) M.P.L.J. (S.C.) 344. The first issue was referred by a two-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa, (2015) 9 SCC 166 considering the cleavage of opinion in the cases of Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, 2014 (1) M.P.L.J. (S.C.) 50 : (2013) 9 SCC 65 and Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, 2014 (1) M.P.L.J. (S.C.) 1 : (2013) 9 SCC 54 , for an authoritative pronouncement in respect of award of “future prospects” in the case of a deceased having a permanent job or self-employed or working in a fixed salary. The Constitution Bench has decided the said issue and crystallized the same in para 61 as under: “(i) 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. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench. (ii) 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. (iii) 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. (iv) 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. (v) 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. (vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment. (vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. (viii) 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.” 7. In the present case the age of the deceased has been found to be between 26 to 30 years in paras 12 and 19 of the award passed by the Tribunal. 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.” 7. In the present case the age of the deceased has been found to be between 26 to 30 years in paras 12 and 19 of the award passed by the Tribunal. Thus, the deceased was less than 40 years at the time of the accident and, therefore, as per para 61(iv) of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), the deceased being a self-employed, shall be entitled to 40% of the established income instead of 50%, as awarded. 8. So far as award of compensation on other heads is concerned, the same has not been challenged. However, in the case of Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R.M.K. Veluswami, AIR 1962 SC 1 a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court culled out the factors which are to be taken into consideration in calculating the pecuniary loss to the dependent. The relevant portion of para 7 of the judgment is extracted hereunder : “In calculating the pecuniary loss to the dependants many imponderables enter into the calculation. Therefore, the actual extent of the pecuniary loss to the dependants may depend upon data which cannot be ascertained accurately, but must necessarily be an estimate, or even partly a conjecture. Shortly stated, the general principle is that the pecuniary loss can be ascertained only by balancing on the one hand the loss tot he claimants of the future pecuniary benefit and on the other any pecuniary advantage which from whatever source comes to them by reason of the death, that is, the balance of loss and gain to a dependant by the death must be ascertained. The burden is certainly on the plaintiffs to establish the extent of their loss. When the Courts below have, on relevant material placed before them, ascertained the said amount as damages the Supreme Court cannot in second appeal disturb the said finding except for compelling reasons. [(1942) AC 601 and (1951)].” In the present case, there is no challenge to the award of compensation in other heads by the appellant-Insurance Company, therefore, the amount of compensation under other heads are not required to be examined. 9. [(1942) AC 601 and (1951)].” In the present case, there is no challenge to the award of compensation in other heads by the appellant-Insurance Company, therefore, the amount of compensation under other heads are not required to be examined. 9. The next issue raised by the appellant that since the Tribunal has found breach of the insurance policy, as the offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, and the driver was not having a valid driving licence for heavy vehicles, therefore, the insurance company could not have compelled to pay the compensation amount and to recover it from the owner of the vehicle. He relied on a judgment passed by this Court in the case of Shankar Lal v. Sanjay Kumar, 2017 (2) M.P.L.J. 65 . 10. The issue regarding “pay and recover” is also referred to the Larger Bench. It is not in dispute that the issue is still pending adjudication. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parvathneni, (2009) 8 SCC 785 , the following two questions were referred to the Larger Bench for consideration: “7.……… (1) If an insurance company can prove that it does not have any liability to pay any amount in law to the claimants under the Motor Vehicles Act or any other enactment, can the Court yet compel it to pay the amount in question giving it liberty to later on recover the same from the owner of the vehicle? (2) Can such a direction be given under Article 142 of the Constitution, and what is the scope of Article 142? Does Article 142 permit the Court to create a liability where there is none?” 11. In the case of Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saju P. Paul, 2013 (2) M.P.L.J. (S.C.) 258 : (2013) 2 SCC 41 the Apex Court has clarified that during the pendency of consideration of the above questions by a Larger Bench, the course of “pay and recover” followed in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur, 2004 (2) M.P.L.J. (S.C.) 4 : (2004) 2 SCC 1 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Upendra Rao, (2004) 8 SCC 517 will be continued to be followed. It is pertinent to reproduce para 26 of the judgment: “25. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur, 2004 (2) M.P.L.J. (S.C.) 4 : (2004) 2 SCC 1 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Upendra Rao, (2004) 8 SCC 517 will be continued to be followed. It is pertinent to reproduce para 26 of the judgment: “25. The pendency of consideration of the above questions by a larger Bench does not mean that the course that was followed in Baljit Kaur and Challa Bharathamma should not be followed, more so in a peculiar fact situation of this case. In the present case, the accident occurred in 1993. At that time, claimant was 28 years' old. He is now about 48 years. The claimant was a driver on heavy vehicle and due to the accident he has been rendered permanently disabled. He has not been able to get compensation so far due to stay order passed by this Court. He cannot be compelled to struggle further for recovery of the amount. The insurance company has already deposited the entire awarded amount pursuant to the order of this Court passed on 1-8-2011 and the said amount has been invested in a fixed deposit account. Having regard to these peculiar facts of the case in hand, we are satisfied that the claimant (respondent No. 1) may be allowed to withdraw the amount deposited by the insurance company before this Court along-with accrued interest. The insurance company (appellant) thereafter may recover the amount so paid from the owner (Respondent No. 2 herein). The recovery of the amount by the insurance company from the owner shall be made by following the procedure as laid down by this Court in the case of Challa Bharathamma.” 12. So far as contention of the appellant is concerned, there is no dispute to the proposition of law that in the case of contravention and breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the insurance company cannot be held to be liable to pay compensation. In the present case also, the Tribunal has not held that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation, but has directed to pay compensation amount to the claimants and later to recover it from the owner of the vehicle in question under the principles of ‘pay and recover’. In the present case also, the Tribunal has not held that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation, but has directed to pay compensation amount to the claimants and later to recover it from the owner of the vehicle in question under the principles of ‘pay and recover’. In the case of Shankar Lai (supra) para 26 of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Saju P. Paul (supra) has not been considered, hence the said judgment is per incuriam on the issue of “pay and recover”. 13. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of law, as discussed hereinabove, we consider it fit and proper to direct payment of additional 40% of the established income of the deceased, being below the age of 40 years at the time of the accident in the light of para 61(iv) of the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Pranay Sethi (supra), instead of 50% towards “future prospects”. 14. In view of the aforesaid, the award amount of compensation is calculated and quantified as under: Annual income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal is Rs. 128076/-; 40% future prospects-Rs. 51230/-; [Total Rs. 128076 + 51230 = Rs. 179300/-]. Rs. 179300 - ?rd dependency (Rs. 59768) = Rs. 119538/-. Thus, compensation is assessed to Rs. 119538 × 17 [(multiplier, applied as per judgment passed in Sarla Verma (supra)]. Thus, the total award amount comes: Rs. 2032146 + Rs. 100000 (towards loss of consortium) + Rs. 25000/- (funeral expenses) = Rs. 2157146/-. Thus, the amount of compensation is quantified to Rs. 2157146/- (Rs Twenty one lakh fifty seven thousand one hundred forty six) only, which shall carry interest at the rate 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim application. 15. With the aforesaid observation and modification in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, the appeal stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.