JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J: The instant appeal is directed, against, the award recorded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I) Kangra at Dharmshala, upon, RBT (MACP No. 94-K/13 of 2011, whereby, it proceeded to assess compensation qua the dependents of deceased Ranjeet Singh, compensation whereof, is, comprised in a sum of Rs. 36,97,740/- only, and, the apposite indemnificatory liability, is, fastened upon the insurer/appellant herein. 2. The learned counsel appearing, for the appellant/insurer, does not, contest the validity of the findings recorded, by the learned Tribunal, vis-à-vis, issue No.1, issue whereof appertains, to, the occurrence, of, demise of Ranjeet Singh being a sequel, of, rash and negligent manner, of, driving of the offending vehicle, by respondent No.1. Furthermore, he also does not contest, the, validity, of, the fastening, upon it, of, the apposite indemnificatory liability. 3. However, the contest which, is, reared by the insurer rather is concentrated, upon the learned Tribunal hence fallaciously proceeding, to compute the per mensem salary, of the deceased, in, a sum of Rs. 17,150/-, fallacy whereof, is, espoused, to arise (a) from the learned Tribunal, while not moving astray, from, cogent evidence qua the deceased, drawing, a sum of Rs. 12,150/-, per mensem, from his rendering employment with M/s Infratech Pvt. Ltd., factum whereof also stands conjointly deposed, by PW-3, and, by PW-4, (b) whereas, its, rather untenably also meteing deference, to the conjoint depositions, rendered by PW-3, and, by PW-4 qua the deceased, also in addition thereto, drawing, a further sum, of Rs. 5000/- per mensem, from, his rendering employment, with, M/s Shiva Tent House, Shahpur. The un- tenability(s) of placing reliance thereon, is, canvassed by the learned counsel, for, the insurer, to, stem from, the learned Tribunal hence inaptly inferring, that with both, PW-2 and PW-4, remaining uncross-examined, by the learned counsel for the insurer, qua, the aforesaid factum, thereupon, the, gravest solemnity, being visited, vis-à-vis, their respective apt conjoint testifications. 4. The un- tenability(s) of placing reliance thereon, is, canvassed by the learned counsel, for, the insurer, to, stem from, the learned Tribunal hence inaptly inferring, that with both, PW-2 and PW-4, remaining uncross-examined, by the learned counsel for the insurer, qua, the aforesaid factum, thereupon, the, gravest solemnity, being visited, vis-à-vis, their respective apt conjoint testifications. 4. The vigor of the aforesaid address, made before this Court, by the learned counsel for the appellant, is to be gauged, from (a) though with both PW2 and PW-4, remaining evidently uncross-examined, by the counsel for the insurer, vis-à-vis, the aforesaid trite factum, nonetheless, in the learned Tribunal, meteing profound solemnity thereto, rather moving astray, from the trite factum, qua, the apt onus for adducing best evidence thereon, hence being cast upon the claimants, (b) and unless, the claimants’, had adduced the best documentary evidence, in discharge of the apt onus, as, cast upon them, vis-à-vis, the issue(s) apposite therewith, (c) thereupon, the mere factum, of, any want of cross-examination, of, both PW-2 and, of, PW-4, by the counsel for the insurer, imperatively, vis-à-vis, the aforesaid trite factum, was not enjoined, to spur any inference, qua the claimants hence satisfactorily discharging, the apposite onus, qua the apt issue(s), germane thereto. Contrarily, it, was unwarranted, for, the learned Tribunal, to not insist, qua adduction of best documentary evidence, by the claimants, vis-àvis, the issue, whereon the onus, qua discharge whereof, was, cast upon them nor also obviously, to, omit to insist, for, hence the best documentary evidence being adduced, by them in display of the deceased, apart from, his deriving Rs. 12,150/- per mensem, from his employment, with, M/s Infratech, is also, drawing Rs. 5000/- per mensem, from his rendering employment, with M/s Shiva Tent House. (d) moreso, when the counsel, for the respondents relies upon PW-2/A, to contend of its comprising, the, apposite best documentary evidence, whereas, its, carrying reflections in respect, of, the prior employment, of the deceased, with M/s Sun Security Services. Consequently, the effects of the aforesaid omissions’, is qua, an, apt inference being generated, qua, the per mensem salary, of the deceased, being computable, at, Rs. 12,150/-, AND, its comprising, the apposite per mensem salary derived by him, from, his rendering employment only with M/s Infratech Pvt. Ltd. 3. Consequently, the effects of the aforesaid omissions’, is qua, an, apt inference being generated, qua, the per mensem salary, of the deceased, being computable, at, Rs. 12,150/-, AND, its comprising, the apposite per mensem salary derived by him, from, his rendering employment only with M/s Infratech Pvt. Ltd. 3. Be that as it may, the deceased, as divulged by his matriculation certificate, was, at the relevant time, aged 38 years. Since the deceased was rendering employment, in, private sector or was self-employed, thereupon, with the Hon'ble Apex Court, in case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 , the relevant paragraph No.59 extracted hereinafter: “59. Having bestowed our anxious consideration, we are disposed to think when we accept the principle of standardization, there is really no rationale not to apply the said principle to the self-employed or a person who is on a fixed salary. To follow the doctrine of actual income at the time of death and not to add any amount with regard to future prospects to the income for the purpose of determination of multiplicand would be unjust. The determination of income while computing compensation has to include future prospects so that the method will come within the ambit and sweep of just compensation as postulated under Section 168 of the Act. In case of a deceased who had held a permanent job with inbuilt grant of annual increment, there is an acceptable certainty. But to state that the legal representatives of a deceased who was on a fixed salary would not be entitled to the benefit of future prospects for the purpose of computation of compensation would be inapposite. It is because the criterion of distinction between the two in that event would be certainty on the one hand and staticness on the other. One may perceive that the comparative measure is certainty on the one hand and uncertainty on the other but such a perception is fallacious. It is because the price rise does affect a self-employed person; and that apart there is always an incessant effort to enhance one’s income for sustenance. One may perceive that the comparative measure is certainty on the one hand and uncertainty on the other but such a perception is fallacious. It is because the price rise does affect a self-employed person; and that apart there is always an incessant effort to enhance one’s income for sustenance. The purchasing capacity of a salaried person on permanent job when increases because of grant of increments and pay revision or for some other change in service conditions, there is always a competing attitude in the private sector to enhance the salary to get better efficiency from the employees. Similarly, a person who is self-employed is bound to garner his resources and raise his charges/fees so that he can live with same facilities. To have the perception that he is likely to remain static and his income to remain stagnant is contrary to the fundamental concept of human attitude which always intends to live with dynamism and move and change with the time. Though it may seem appropriate that there cannot be certainty in addition of future prospects to the existing income unlike in the case of a person having a permanent job, yet the said perception does not really deserve acceptance. We are inclined to think that there can be some degree of difference as regards the percentage that is meant for or applied to in respect of the legal representatives who claim on behalf of the deceased who had a permanent job than a person who is self-employed or on a fixed salary. But not to apply the principle of standardization on the foundation of perceived lack of certainty would tantamount to remaining oblivious to the marrows of ground reality. And, therefore, degree-test is imperative. Unless the degree-test is applied and left to the parties to adduce evidence to establish, it would be unfair and inequitable. The degree-test has to have the inbuilt concept of percentage. And, therefore, degree-test is imperative. Unless the degree-test is applied and left to the parties to adduce evidence to establish, it would be unfair and inequitable. The degree-test has to have the inbuilt concept of percentage. Taking into consideration the cumulative factors, namely, passage of time, the changing society, escalation of price, the change in price index, the human attitude to follow a particular pattern of life, etc., an addition of 40% of the established income of the deceased towards future prospects and where the deceased was below 40 years, an addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years would be reasonable.” (p.2721-2722) expostulating (i) that where the deceased concerned, is rendering employment, in non government organization(s), as is hereat, the apt employment, of, the deceased, (a) thereupon, hikes or accretions, on anvil, of future incremental prospects, vis-à-vis, the salary drawn, by him, at the time contemporaneous to the ill fated mishap, from his employer, being also meteable thereto. However, before applying the mandate, of the, aforesaid relevant paragraph, borne in the judgment supra, it is significant to also bear in mind, the age of the deceased, (ii) since the postmortem report, reflects, the trite factum of the deceased at the relevant time, being aged 38 years, thereupon, with the afore extracted paragraph, mandating, of, accretions towards future incremental prospects, vis-à-vis, the salary las drawn, by the deceased, being hence pegged, upto 40% thereof, besides being tenably meteable vis-à-vis, the, apposite last drawn salary. Consequently, in consonance therewith, after meteing 40% increase(s), vis-à-vis, the apposite deceased’s last drawn salary, thereupon, the relevant last drawn salary, of, the deceased is reckonable, at Rs. 17,010/-, [Rs.12,150/-(last drawn salary of the deceased)+ Rs. 4,860/- (40% of the last drawn salary). Significantly, the number of dependents, of, the deceased, are, four, hence, 1/4th deduction is to be visited, upon, a sum of Rs. 17,010/-, deducted, amount whereof, is calculated at Rs. 4,252/- per mensem. Consequently, the annual dependency, including the future hikes towards future prospects, is, worked out, now at Rs.17,010–Rs.4,252 = Rs.12,758/-. In sequel whereto, the annual dependency, of the dependents, upon, the income of the deceased is computed, at Rs.12,758x12 = Rs.1,53,096/-. After applying, upon, the aforesaid figure, of, annual dependency, the apposite multiplier of 15, the total compensation amount, is assessed, in a sum of Rs.1,53,096 x15 = Rs. 22,96,440/-. 5. In sequel whereto, the annual dependency, of the dependents, upon, the income of the deceased is computed, at Rs.12,758x12 = Rs.1,53,096/-. After applying, upon, the aforesaid figure, of, annual dependency, the apposite multiplier of 15, the total compensation amount, is assessed, in a sum of Rs.1,53,096 x15 = Rs. 22,96,440/-. 5. However, the quantification, of compensation/ damages, by the learned Tribunal in a sum of Rs.1 lacs, vis-a-vis, the widow of deceased, (i) under the head, loss of consortium, (ii) and quantification, of compensation in a sum of Rs. 22,96,440/- vis-a-vis the mother and off springs of the deceased, under the head, loss of love and affection, is (a) in, conflict with the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), (b) wherein, it has been expostulated, that reasonable figures, under conventional heads, namely, loss to estate, loss of consortium, and, funeral expenses being quantified only upto Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/-, and Rs.25,000/- respectively, (iii) and, with no expostulation, occurring therein, vis-a-vis the compensation amount(s), being awardable, to the mother, and, to the off springs of the deceased, especially under the head, loss of love and affection, hence reliefs in respect thereto, being impermissibly granted. Consequently, the award of the learned tribunal is interfered, to the extent aforesaid, of, its inaptly determining compensation, under, the aforesaid heads, vis-à-vis, the widow of the deceased, as also, vis-à-vis, the off springs, and, mother of the deceased. Accordingly, in addition to the aforesaid amount of Rs. 22,96,440/-, the petitioners, are, now at entitled under conventional heads, namely, loss to estate, loss of consortium, (only to the widow of the deceased), and, funeral expenses, sums of Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively, as such, the total compensation whereto the petitioners are entitled, comes to Rs. 22,96,440/- + 15,000/- + 40,000/- + 25,000/-= Rs. 23,76,440/- (Rs. Twenty three lacs, seventy six thousand, four hundred forty only). 6. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the insurer is partly allowed, and, the impugned award, is, in the aforesaid manner, hence modified. Accordingly, the petitioners, are, held entitled to a total compensation, of, Rs. 23,76,440/-, along with pending and future interest @ 7.5 %, from, the date of petition till the date, of, deposit, of the compensation amount. The amount of interim compensation, if awarded, be adjusted in the aforesaid compensation amount, at the time of final payment. Accordingly, the petitioners, are, held entitled to a total compensation, of, Rs. 23,76,440/-, along with pending and future interest @ 7.5 %, from, the date of petition till the date, of, deposit, of the compensation amount. The amount of interim compensation, if awarded, be adjusted in the aforesaid compensation amount, at the time of final payment. Compensation amount be apportioned, amongst the claimants, and be disbursed, in, the manner, ordered by the learned Tribunal. The shares of the minor children, shall remain invested, in FDRs, upto, the stage of theirs attaining majority. However, interest accrued thereon, shall be releasable vis-a-vis their mother, only when she explains, of, its being required, for, the upkeep and benefit, of the, minor children. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.