JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. The common thread that connects all these appeals is that they all arise out of an accident which took place on 28.10.2010 at about 8:30 a.m. at Surajpur, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur wherein Jasbir Singh and Khageshwar Behera lost their lives. The claimants in FAO (MVA) No. 26 of 2014 are wife, minor son and mother of the deceased Khageswar Behera and claimants in FAO(MVA) Nos. 30 of 2014 and 42 of 2014 are parents and wife and minor daughter of the deceased Jasbir Singh. 2. The common case as pleaded by the claimants was that on 28.10.2010 the deceased boarded bus No. HP-17-4135 at Paonta Sahib to come to Nahan at about 8:30 a.m. When the bus reached at Surajpur, the same turned turtle as a result whereof deceased Jasbir Singh died on the spot whereas Khageswar Behera died on the way of hospital. It was averred that the accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of its driver Sanjeev Kumar. Hence, the present claim petitions. 3. The owner and driver of the vehicle filed a joint reply wherein they admitted the accident in question as also the death but denied that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of its driver Sanjeev Kumar. According to them, the accident had taken place on account of mechanical failure. 4. The insurance company filed its separate reply wherein it was averred that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and that the offending vehicle was also being plied by the respondents in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance company. It was also submitted that the deceased were not covered under the insurance policy as the policy purchased by the owner of the vehicle was only an Act policy. 5. The learned Tribunal on 01.11.2011 framed the following issues in MAC Petition No.72-MAC/2 of 2010, MAC Petition No. 81- MAC/2 of 2010 and MAC Petition No. 131-MAC/2 of 2011:- MAC Petition No.72-MAC/2 of 2010 1. Whether Khageswar Behera died on account of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent No. 3 on 28.10.2010, at about 8:30 a.m., near village Surajpur, as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether Khageswar Behera died on account of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent No. 3 on 28.10.2010, at about 8:30 a.m., near village Surajpur, as alleged? OPP. 2. In case issue No. 1 is determined in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom?OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable against respondents No.1 to 3, as alleged? OPR 1 to 3 4. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and that the bus was being plied without a valid permit and in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged? OPR 5. Relief. MAC Petition No. 81-MAC/2 of 2010 and MAC Petition No. 131-MAC/2 of 2011 1. Whether Jasbir Singh died on account of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent No. 3 on 28.10.2010, at about 8:30 a.m., near village Surajpur, as alleged? OPP. 2. In case issue No. 1 is determined in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom?OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable against respondents No.1 to 3, as alleged? OPR 1 to 3 4. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and that the bus was being plied without a valid permit and in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged? OPR- 4 5. Relief. 6. After recording and evaluating the same, the claim petitions were allowed by awarding different amount of compensation and aggrieved thereby the insurance company has preferred the instant appeals. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 7. Apart from questioning the quantum of compensation awarded in each of the cases, it has been vehemently argued by Shri Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant(s) that being an Act policy, the liability to pay the compensation amount could not have been fastened upon the insurance company. This contention is completely misconceived, as evidently the insurance company has charged a premium of Rs. 312 per passenger, therefore, the policy cannot be considered to be an Act policy. 8. This contention is completely misconceived, as evidently the insurance company has charged a premium of Rs. 312 per passenger, therefore, the policy cannot be considered to be an Act policy. 8. At this stage, it may be observed that the findings recorded by learned Tribunal with respect of the bus being driven in a rash and negligent manner are based upon the correct appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence that has come on record, therefore, warrants no interference, moreover such findings have not even been seriously contested by the appellant. 9. Now as regards the award of compensation, there can be no dispute that the compensations awarded by the learned Tribunal are now required to be assessed and determined in accordance with the decision of a Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Pranay Sethi and others 2017 ACJ 2700 . 10. Why this case came to be referred to the Constitutional Bench, the answer is not difficult to find and the same is set out in para-1 of the judgment itself which reads thus: “Perceiving cleavage of opinion between Reshma Kumari v.Madan Mohan, 2013 ACJ 1253 (SC) and Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh 2013 ACJ 1403 (SC), both three-Judge Bench decisions, a two- Judge Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa, (2015) 9 SCC 166 , thought it appropriate to refer the matter to a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement, and that is how the matters have been placed before us.” 11. The conflict between the judgments as extracted above was resolved by concluding that the decision in Rajesh versus Rajbir Singh, 2013 ACJ 1403 (SC) was not a binding precedent as it had not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari versus Madan Mohan, 2013 ACJ 1253 (SC). The Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering the entire conspectus of law arrived at the following conclusions:- “(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi, 2012 ACJ 1428 (SC), 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, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), 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, 2013 ACJ 1403 (SC) has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, 2013 ACJ 1253 (SC), 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 and 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 and 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 and 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 and 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 paras 14 and 15 of Sarla Verma 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), which we have reproduced hereinbefore. (vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), read with para 21 of that judgment. (vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. (viii) Reasonable figures under conventional heads, namely, loss to 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 per cent in every three years.” Conclusions (iii) to (viii) are relevant for the adjudication of these cases. 12. (viii) Reasonable figures under conventional heads, namely, loss to 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 per cent in every three years.” Conclusions (iii) to (viii) are relevant for the adjudication of these cases. 12. It is thus clear from the aforesaid that the compensation henceforth to be awarded in favour of the claimants is essentially to be abide by the aforesaid conclusions, more particularly, conclusions No.(iii) to (viii) which except for conclusions No.(v) and (vi) are selfspeaking. 13. Now, as regards conclusions No. (v) and (vi), it would be apposite to extract paragraphs No.14, 15 and 21 along with table as referred to in Sarla Verma and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) which read thus:- “14. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra’s case, 1996 ACJ 831 (SC), the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceed six. 15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependant on the father. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependant on the father. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependant on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third. 21. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependant on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third. 21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M- 15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.” Age of the deceased Multiplier scale as envisaged in Susamma Thomas Multiplier scale as adopted in Trilok Chandra Multiplier scale in Trilok Chandra as clarified in Charlie Multiplier specified in second column in the Table in Second Schedule to MV Act Multiplier actually used in Second Schedule to MV Act (as seen from the quantum of compensation) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Up to 15 years - - - 15 20 15 to 20 years 16 18 18 16 19 21 to 25 years 15 17 18 17 18 26 to 30 years 14 16 17 18 17 31 to 35 years 13 15 16 17 16 36 to 40 years 12 14 15 16 15 41 to 45 years 11 13 14 15 14 46 to 50 years 10 12 13 13 12 51 to 55 years 9 11 11 11 10 56 to 60 years 8 10 9 8 8 61 to 65 years 6 8 7 5 6 Above to 65 years 5 5 5 5 5 14. Evidently, the judgment in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) has brought about radical and fundamental changes with regard to award of compensation. Evidently, the judgment in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) has brought about radical and fundamental changes with regard to award of compensation. For this purpose, this Court would deal with the case by drawing a comparative table of the amount actually awarded by the learned Tribunal along with modified award. 15. Now adverting to the quantum of compensations as awarded in each of the case, the appeals for this purpose shall have to be segregated and dealt with independently. FAO No. 26 of 2014 16. Here the deceased Khageshwar Behera was employed as Operator in M. Sea Pharmaceutical unit and as per the salary certificate Ext. PW4/D issued by his employer, he was drawing a salary of Rs.10,000/- per month and the age of the deceased at the relevant time was only 33 years. The learned tribunal has awarded 50% towards future prospect whereas as per Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), the same could have only been awarded to the extent of 40% since the deceased was not a government employee. As regards the deduction of 1/3rd for personal living expenses and applying of the multiplier of 16, no exception can be taken to the same. However, as regard the award of loss of consortium of Rs. 1,00,000/-, another some of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the minor son of the deceased on account of loss of care and guidance and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- on account of funeral expenses, the same are not in accordance with law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) and the claimants at best can only be held entitled to only lump sum of Rs. 70,000/- i.e. towards loss of consortium Rs.40,000/-, funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- and loss of estate Rs.15,000/-. 17. At this stage learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently argue that the learned Tribunal has erred in assuming the salary of the deceased to Rs.10,000/- per month, that too, on the basis of the salary certificate which was exhibited in the statement of the claimant No. 1 Smt. Prasanti Behera and not by the employer. 17. At this stage learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently argue that the learned Tribunal has erred in assuming the salary of the deceased to Rs.10,000/- per month, that too, on the basis of the salary certificate which was exhibited in the statement of the claimant No. 1 Smt. Prasanti Behera and not by the employer. I find no merit in this contention for the simple reason that no doubt the salary certificate was exhibited in the statement of the petitioner No. 1 but then the respondent had not only the right but every opportunity to cross-examine her but surprisingly the insurance company had not chosen to cross- examine this witness with regard to the income of the deceased. Having failed to do so, the appellant cannot be permitted to now question the income as reflected in the income certificate. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the award passed by the learned tribunal is required to be modified in conformity with the ratio of the judgment in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) and is accordingly modified as under: Sr.No. Award passed by the Tribunal Modified Award by this Court Details/Particulars Details/Particulars (i) Age of the deceased 33 years (ii) Assumed salary plus future prospects Rs.10,000+5000=Rs.15,000/- Modified proved salary plus future prospects Rs.10,000+40%=4000=14,000/- (iii) After deduction of 1/3 : Rs.15,000-Rs.5000 = Rs.10,000/- After deduction of 1/3 : Rs.14,000 – Rs.4666 = Rs. 9334/- (iv) Annual: Rs.10,000x12=Rs.1,20,000/- Annual: Rs.9334 x 12 = Rs.1,12,008/- (v) Multiplier of 16: Rs.1,20,000x16=Rs.19,20,000/- Multiplier of 16: Rs.1,12,008 x16=Rs.17,92,128/- (vi) Plus Loss of consortium to widow =Rs.1,00,000/- Another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded to minor son Plus Loss of consortium = Rs.40,000/- (vii) Funeral expenses: Rs.25,000/- Funeral expenses: Rs.15,000/- (viii) Loss to estate – Nil Loss to estate : Rs.15,000/- (ix) Total Award: Rs.21,45,000/- plus interest Total Modified Award: Rs.18,62,128/- plus interest FAO(MVA) No. 30/2014 & FAO(MVA) No. 42/2014 19. The deceased Jasbir Singh in these cases was 35 years old and employed as police constable in S.P. Office, Nahan. As per the salary certificate Ext. PW4/A issued by Dy. S.P. (Hq.), Nahan. He was drawing a salary of Rs. 17,509/- per month. The deceased Jasbir Singh in these cases was 35 years old and employed as police constable in S.P. Office, Nahan. As per the salary certificate Ext. PW4/A issued by Dy. S.P. (Hq.), Nahan. He was drawing a salary of Rs. 17,509/- per month. As per the judgment in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) an increase of 50% was to be made in the income of the deceased for future prospects and this is what the learned tribunal has awarded and, therefore, no exception to this part of the finding of the learned tribunal can be taken. The only issue now surviving for consideration is the award of Rs.1,00,000/- to the widow of the deceased on account of loss of consortium and another Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of minor daughter of the deceased on account of loss of care and guidance in FAO(MVA) No.42 of 2014 and further award of Rs.25,000/- on account of funeral expenses, the same are not in accordance with law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) and the claimants at best can be held entitled to only a lump sum of Rs. 70,000/- i.e. towards loss of consortium Rs.40,000/-, funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- and loss of estate Rs.15,000/-. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the award passed by the learned tribunal is required to be modified in conformity with the ratio of the judgment in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) and is accordingly modified as under: Sr.No. Award passed by the Tribunal Modified Award by this Court Details/Particulars Details/Particulars (i) Age of the deceased: 35 years (ii) Salary plus future prospects: Rs.17,509+50% = Rs. 17,509+ Rs.8754=Rs.26,263/- Modified proved salary plus future prospects: Rs.17,509+50% = Rs. 17,509+ Rs.8754=Rs.26,263/- (iii) After deduction of 1/3: Rs.26,263-Rs.8754=Rs.17,509/- After deduction of 1/3: Rs.26,263-Rs.8754=Rs.17,509/- (iv) Annual: Rs.17,509x12=Rs.2,10,108/- Income Tax deduction = Rs. 1010/- = Rs.2,10,108 – Rs.1010 =Rs.2,09,098/- Annual: Rs.17,509x12=Rs.2,10,108/- Income Tax deduction = Rs. 1010/- = Rs.2,10,108 – Rs.1010 =Rs.2,09,098/- (v) Multiplier of 16: Rs.2,09,098x16=Rs.33,45,568/- Multiplier of 16: Rs.2,09,098x16=Rs.33,45,568/- (vi) Plus Loss of consortium to widow =Rs.1,00,000/- Loss of care and guidance awarded to minor daughter =Rs.1,00,000/- Plus Loss of consortium = Rs.40,000/- (vii) Funeral expenses: Rs.25,000/- Funeral expenses: Rs.15,000/- (viii) Loss to estate – Nil Loss to estate : Rs.15,000/- (ix) Total Award: Rs.35,70,568/- plus interest Total Modified Award: Rs.34,15,568/- plus interest 21. The award amount shall be apportioned between the claimants as follows:- Respondent No. 1 in FAO(MVA) No.42/14 Rs.9,00,000/- Respondent No. 2 in FAO(MVA) No.42/14 Rs.16,15,568/- Respondent No. 2 in FAO(MVA) No.30/14 Rs.9,00,000/- 22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeals are partly allowed in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.