JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned award, dated 12.8.2013, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Sirmaur District at Nahan,Himachal Pradesh, in MAC Petition No.16- MAC/2 of 2010, whereby learned Tribunal below while allowing the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, having been preferred by respondents No.1 to 6 ( for short ''claimants''), directed the appellant-insurance company to pay a sum of Rs. 10,89,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date filing of the petition till deposit, appellant-insurance company has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set-aside the impugned award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-1, Nahan. 2. Briefly stated facts, as emerge from the record are that respondents No.1 to 6, claiming themselves to be legal heirs of deceased Vinod Kumar, filed petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act ( for short ''Act''), seeking therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/- on account of death of above deceased person in motor vehicle accident. Deceased Vinod Kumar died in motor vehicle accident near village Madhighat, Tehsil Renukaji, District Sirmaur, H.P. on 15.11.2009, while he was travelling in Bolero Camper No. HP-16- 0289 and was carrying diesel and petrol drum belonging to his employer, Sh. Mohinder Singh, contractor, from Dadahu to village Charpari. Unfortunately, when vehicle in question reached near village Madighat, the same went off the road and rolled down the hill, as a consequence of which, deceased suffered fatal injuries and died on the way to Rajgarh Hospital. Claimants alleged that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 and at that relevant time, deceased was working as Supervisor with Sh. Mohinder Singh, contractor and he was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 9000/-. Claimants further claimed that deceased was also earning a sum of Rs. 30,000/- per season from agriculture. 3. Respondents No.1 and 2 by way of reply refuted the aforesaid claim of the claimants. Respondents No.1 and 2 though admitted the factum with regard to the accident and death of deceased Vinod Kumar, but denied that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 and claimed that accident occurred on account of mechanical failure of the vehicle. 4. Respondents No.1 and 2 though admitted the factum with regard to the accident and death of deceased Vinod Kumar, but denied that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 and claimed that accident occurred on account of mechanical failure of the vehicle. 4. Appellant-Insurance Company (respondent No.3) refuted the claim of the claimant on the ground that deceased was an unauthorized passenger in the goods vehicle and driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. Appellant-Insurance Company further claimed that since the vehicle in question was being plied by the respondent in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, it is not liable to indemnify the insured. 5. On the basis of the pleadings adduced on record, learned Tribunal below framed the following issues on 19.7.2011:- 1. Whether Vinod Kumar died on account of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent No.1, Satya Pal on 15.11.2009, at about 4:30 PM, near Madighat on Dadahu-Baru Sahib road 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 driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and that the vehicle was being plied for hire and reward in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged? OPR-3. 4. Whether the petition filed in collusion with respondents No.1 and 2, as alleged?OPR-3. 5. Relief:- 6. Subsequently, vide award dated 12.8.2013, learned Tribunal below held respondents-claimants entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,89,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition till its payment. Though, learned Tribunal below held liable respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally qua aforesaid compensation, but ordered that appellant-Insurance Company being insurer shall satisfy the award. In the aforesaid background, appellant- insurance company has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to quash and setaside the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal below. 7. Mr. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel representing the appellant-Insurance company, vehemently argued that impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal below is not in accordance with law and as such, same deserve to be quashed and set-aside. Mr. 7. Mr. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel representing the appellant-Insurance company, vehemently argued that impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal below is not in accordance with law and as such, same deserve to be quashed and set-aside. Mr. Thakur, further contends that impugned award is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same is not based upon the correct appreciation of the evidence and as such cannot be allowed to sustain. While referring to the impugned award, Mr. Thakur argued that learned Tribunal below erred in passing the impugned award because vehicle in question is a private vehicle registered as per copy of registration certificate Ex. RW1/E and as such, no compensation, if any, could be awarded in favour of the claimants on account of death of deceased Vinod Kumar, who at that relevant time was travelling as owner of the goods in the vehicle in question and as such, insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. Mr. Thakur, further contends that learned Tribunal below erred in concluding that the appellant-insurance company failed to lead evidence to prove that deceased was travelling in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy because admittedly there is admission on the part of the claimants that at the time of the accident, deceased was travelling in the ill-fated vehicle as owner of the goods and as such, there was no requirement to specifically prove that vehicle in question was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. He further contended that since vehicle in question was insured as private vehicle, no goods could be carried/transported in the vehicle and as such, there is clear cut violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and learned Tribunal below ought not to have awarded any compensation in favour of the claimants. 8. While placing reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court in case titled National Insurance Company Limited V. Pranay Sethi and Ors. , (2017) AIR SC 5157, Mr. 8. While placing reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court in case titled National Insurance Company Limited V. Pranay Sethi and Ors. , (2017) AIR SC 5157, Mr. Thakur, contended that learned Tribunal also erred in law by awarding 50% increase over and above the income of the deceased because keeping in view the age and occupation of the deceased, addition of 40% was required to be made and as such, award deserve to be quashed and set-aside.Lastly, Mr.Thakur,contended that amount awarded under various heads is also not in consonance with the latest law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi''s case and as such, impugned award cannot be allowed to sustain. 9. Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, learned counsel representing respondents No.1 to 6/claimants, while supporting the impugned award contended that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal below, rather same is based upon the correct appreciation of the evidence and as such, there is no scope of interference. He further stated that it is not in dispute that the deceased died on account of the accident of ill-fated vehicle, which was being driven by respondent No.7-herein. Mr. Kanwar, further argued that since respondents failed to prove that accident had occurred on account of mechanical defect in the vehicle, learned Tribunal below rightly held claimants entitled to be compensated on account of death of deceased Vinod Kumar. Mr. Karan, while referring to the judgment rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, fairly conceded that the claimants are entitled to Rs. 15,000/- on account of funeral charges and Rs. 40,000/- on account of loss of consortium, however he disputed the contention put forth by Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate, that no amount could be awarded in favour of the claimants under the head of "loss of care and guidance. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 11. Before ascertaining the correctness of the submissions having been made by Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate, that no amount could be awarded in favour of the claimants under the head of "loss of care and guidance. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 11. Before ascertaining the correctness of the submissions having been made by Mr. Jagdish Thakur,learned counsel representing the appellant-Insurance Company vis-a-vis impugned award, it may be noticed that respondents No.7 and 8, who happened to be owner and driver of the vehicle have not filed any appeal against the impugned award, wherein they have been held liable to pay compensation jointly and severally and as such, same has attained finality qua them. 12. Having carefully examined/analyzed the submissions having been made by learned counsel representing the parties vis-a vis impugned award, this court is not persuaded to agree with the submissions having been made by learned counsel representing the appellant-insurance company because it stands duly proved on record that deceased Vinod Kumar died in an accident due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.7, who was driving the offending vehicle at that relevant time. It is also not in dispute that deceased was working as a Supervisor with the employer Sh. Mohinder Singh (PW-3). Similarly, this Court finds from the evidence available on record that onus to prove that respondent No.7 was not having a valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, was upon the appellant-insurance company, who has not been able to discharge aforesaid onus, rather it stands duly proved on record that respondent No.7 was having valid and effective driving licence to drive the Light Motor Vehicle, which was endorsed for HTV on 1.3.2005 and licence was valid upto 25.2.2010. 13. Rw-2, Shri Phool Singh, Licence Clerk posted in the office of Licensing Authority, Nahan admitted in his cross-examination that licence issued in favour of respondent No.7 is also valid for driving LMV Transport vehicles. In nutshell, the case of the claimants is that deceased Vinod Kumar was travelling in the offending vehicle as owner of the goods, which fact has been also admitted by respondents No.1 and 2. In nutshell, the case of the claimants is that deceased Vinod Kumar was travelling in the offending vehicle as owner of the goods, which fact has been also admitted by respondents No.1 and 2. No doubt, registration certificate Ex.RW1/E suggests that vehicle in question was registered as private vehicle not goods vehicle, but in the case at hand, no evidence has been led on record by the appellant-insurance company that deceased was carrying goods in the vehicle in question on the payment of rent, rather claimants have specifically stated that on the date of alleged accident deceased was travelling in Bolero Camper and was carrying diesel and petrol drum of Sh. Mohinder Singh, contractor, who while appearing as PW-3 has also admitted the factum with regard to employment of deceased as supervisor with him. It has specifically come in the statement of PW-3, Sh. Mohinder Singh that he and Kuldeep Singh, owner of the ill-fated vehicle are contractors and works together and he had sent deceased Vinod Kumar to fetch drums of diesel and petrol in the vehicle. 14. Pw-3, Sh. Mohinder Singh categorically stated before the tribunal below that deceased was working as Supervisor with him and drawing monthly salary of Rs. 9000/- and he had also issued salary certificate Ex.PW3/A. Further, perusal of RC Ex.RW1/E suggests that sitting capacity of the vehicle was 4+1 and the evidence led on record clearly suggest that at the time of unfortunate accident four persons including the driver were sitting in the vehicle and as such, claim raised by the claimants cannot be rejected on the ground that goods were being carried out in the private vehicle. It is quite apparent from the statement of aforesaid witness that Kuldeep Singh owner of the vehicle and PW-3,Mohinder Singh, with whom deceased used to work as supervisor were working together and deceased Vinod Kumar on the askance of Mohinder Singh (PW-3) had gone to fetch drums in the vehicle. 15. Though, in the case at hand claimants claimed that deceased Vinod Kumar was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 9000/-, but since no cogent and convincing evidence, be it ocular or documentary led on record, learned tribunal below assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 15. Though, in the case at hand claimants claimed that deceased Vinod Kumar was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 9000/-, but since no cogent and convincing evidence, be it ocular or documentary led on record, learned tribunal below assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 4000/- per month and in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others , (2013) 3 RCR(Civ) 170, ordered for an addition of 50% in the income of the deceased while determining the future prospects. 16. Having carefully perused the judgment rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi''s case supra , this Court finds force in the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company that tribunal below has fallen in error while making an addition of 50% and it ought to have made addition of 40% of the actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects. Recently the Hon''ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi''s casehas reiterated that 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. In the instant case, though the age of the deceased was 35 years, but he had no permanent job and as such, learned tribunal below ought to have made an addition of 40% to the actual salary of the deceased and as such, award on that account needs to be modified. 17. While making an addition of 40% of the actual established income of deceased, his monthly salary comes out to Rs. 5600/-( Rs. 4000+ 1600= Rs. 5600/-). 18. Similarly, this Court finds force in the arguments of Sh. Jagdish Thakur, that in view of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors .V. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. 5600/-( Rs. 4000+ 1600= Rs. 5600/-). 18. Similarly, this Court finds force in the arguments of Sh. Jagdish Thakur, that in view of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors .V. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. , (2009) 6 SCC 121 , learned Tribunal below has erred in deducting 1/5th income from the proved income of the deceased because there were five dependents i.e respondents No. 1 to 5 because respondent No.6 being father does not fall in the definition of dependent, 1/4th income of the deceased is liable to be deducted from his income for his personal expenses and after deducitng 1/4th income as personal expenses, his contribution towards the family comes to Rs. Rs. 4200/-( Rs. 5600-Rs. 1400/- =Rs,4200/-) and as such, net contribution towards family would be Rs. 50,400 per annum ( Rs. 4200 x 12= Rs. 50400). There is no dispute with regard to multiplier of ''15'' applicable in the present case, as the deceased was 35 years of age at the time of the accident and as such applying the multipier of ''15'' loss of dependency comes to Rs. 7,56,000( Rs. 50400 x 15= Rs. 7,56,000). In view of aforesaid modification, claimants shall be entitled to an amount of Rs. 7,56,000/- on account of loss of dependency. 19. Having perused the judgment rendered by Hon''ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi''s case supra , this Court is persuaded to agree with the contention of learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company that no money could be awarded under the head of loss of care and guidance. Hon''ble Apex Court has categorically held that head relating to loss of care and guidance for the minor children does not exist. There are only three conventional heads i.e. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. In the aforesaid judgment, Hon''ble Apex Court has quantified the amount to be paid under the aforesaid conventional heads. Relevant paras of aforesaid judgment are reproduced here in below:- "47. In our considered opinion, if the same is followed, it shall subserve the cause of justice and the unnecessary contest before the Tribunals and the courts would be avoided. 48. Another aspect which has created confusion pertains to grant of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. In Santosh Devi , the two-Judge Bench followed the traditional method and granted Rs. 48. Another aspect which has created confusion pertains to grant of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. In Santosh Devi , the two-Judge Bench followed the traditional method and granted Rs. 5,000/- for transportation of the body, Rs. 10,000/- as funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- as regards the loss of consortium. In Sarla Verma, the Court granted Rs. 5,000/- under the head of loss of estate, Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of Consortium. In Rajesh, the Court granted Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses. It also granted Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The Court enhanced the same on the principle that a formula framed to achieve uniformity and consistency on a socioeconomic issue has to be contrasted from a legal principle and ought to be periodically revisited as has been held in Santosh Devi . On the principle of revisit, it fixed different amount on conventional heads. What weighed with the Court is factum of inflation and the price index. It has also been moved by the concept of loss of consortium. We are inclined to think so, for what it states in that regard. We quote:- "17. In legal parlance, "consortium" is the right of the spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate. That non-pecuniary head of damages has not been properly understood by our courts. The loss of companionship, love, care and protection, etc., the spouse is entitled to get, has to be compensated appropriately. The concept of non pecuniary damage for loss of consortium is one of the major heads of award of compensation in other parts of the world more particularly in the United States of America, Australia, etc. English courts have also recognised the right of a spouse to get compensation even during the period of temporary disablement. By loss of consortium, the courts have made an attempt to compensate the loss of spouse''s affection, comfort, solace, companionship, society, assistance, protection, care and sexual relations during the future years. Unlike the compensation awarded in other countries and other jurisdictions, since the legal heirs are otherwise adequately compensated for the pecuniary loss, it would not be proper to award a major amount under this head. Unlike the compensation awarded in other countries and other jurisdictions, since the legal heirs are otherwise adequately compensated for the pecuniary loss, it would not be proper to award a major amount under this head. Hence, we are of the view that it would only be just and reasonable that the courts award at least rupees one lakh for loss of consortium." 49. Be it noted, Munna Lal Jain , (2015) AIRSCW 3105 did not deal with the same as the notice was confined to the issue of application of correct multiplier and deduction of the amount. 50. This aspect needs to be clarified and appositely stated. The conventional sum has been provided in the Second Schedule of the Act. The said Schedule has been found to be defective as stated by the Court in Trilok Chandra. Recently in Puttamma and others v. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another it has been reiterated by stating:- " we hold that the Second Schedule as was enacted in 1994 has now become redundant, irrational and unworkable due to changed scenario including the present cost of living and current rate of inflation and increased life expectancy." 51. As far as multiplier or multiplicand is concerned, the same has been put to rest by the judgments of this Court. Para 3 of the Second Schedule also provides for General Damages in case of death. It is as follows:- "3. General Damages (in case of death): The following General Damages shall be payable in addition to compensation outlined above:- (i) Funeral expenses- Rs. 2,000/-. (ii) Loss of Consortium, if beneficiary is the spouseRs. 5,000/- (iii) Loss of Estate - Rs. 2,500/- (iv) Medical Expenses actual expenses incurred before death supported by bills/vouchers but not exceeding Rs. 15,000/-" 52. On a perusal of various decisions of this Court, it is manifest that the Second Schedule has not been followed starting from the decision in Trilok Chandra and there has been no amendment to the same. The conventional damage amount needs to be appositely determined. As we notice, in different cases different amounts have been granted. A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was granted towards consortium in Rajesh. The justification for grant of consortium, as we find from Rajesh, is founded on the observation as we have reproduced hereinbefore. 53. On the aforesaid basis, the Court has revisited the practice of awarding compensation under conventional heads. 54. A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was granted towards consortium in Rajesh. The justification for grant of consortium, as we find from Rajesh, is founded on the observation as we have reproduced hereinbefore. 53. On the aforesaid basis, the Court has revisited the practice of awarding compensation under conventional heads. 54. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh. It has granted Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/- loss of consortium and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to Santosh Devi, it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the Tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that 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 principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads. 55. Presently, we come to the issue of addition of future prospects to determine the multiplicand. 56. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads. 55. Presently, we come to the issue of addition of future prospects to determine the multiplicand. 56. In Santosh Devi the Court has not accepted as a principle that a self-employed person remains on a fixed salary throughout his life. It has taken note of the rise in the cost of living which affects everyone without making any distinction between the rich and the poor. Emphasis has been laid on the extra efforts made by this category of persons to generate additional income. That apart, judicial notice has been taken of the fact that the salaries of those who are employed in private sectors also with the passage of time increase manifold. In Rajesh''s case, the Court had added 15% in the case where the victim is between the age group of 15 to 60 years so as to make the compensation just, equitable, fair and reasonable. This addition has been made in respect of self employed or engaged on fixed wages. 57. Section 168 of the Act deals with the concept of "just compensation" and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standard because such determination can never be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect. The aim is to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical precision on the basis of materials brought on record in an individual case. The conception of "just compensation" has to be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non violation of the principle of equitability. In a case of death, the legal heirs of the claimants cannot expect a windfall. Simultaneously, the compensation granted cannot be an apology for compensation. It cannot be a pittance. Though the discretion vested in the Tribunal is quite wide, yet it is obligatory on the part of the Tribunal to be guided by the expression, that is, "just compensation". The determination has to be on the foundation of evidence brought on record as regards the age and income of the deceased and thereafter the opposite multiplier to be applied. The formula relating to multiplier has been clearly stated in Sarla Verma and it has been approved in Reshma Kumari . The age and income, as stated earlier, have to be established by adducing evidence. The formula relating to multiplier has been clearly stated in Sarla Verma and it has been approved in Reshma Kumari . The age and income, as stated earlier, have to be established by adducing evidence. The Tribunal and the Courts have to bear in mind that the basic principle lies in pragmatic computation which is in proximity to reality. It is a well accepted norm that money cannot substitute a life lost but an effort has to be made for grant of just compensation having uniformity of approach. There has to be a balance between the two extremes, that is, a windfall and the pittance, a bonanza and the modicum. In such an adjudication, the duty of the Tribunal and the Courts is difficult and hence, an endeavour has been made by this Court for standardization which in its ambit includes addition of future prospects on the proven income at present. As far as future prospects are concerned, there has been standardization keeping in view the principle of certainty, stability and consistency. We approve the principle of "standardization" so that a specific and certain multiplicand is determined for applying the multiplier on the basis of age. 58. The seminal issue is the fixation of future prospects in cases of deceased who is self-employed or on a fixed salary. Sarla Verma has carved out an exception permitting the claimants to bring materials on record to get the benefit of addition of future prospects. It has not, per se, allowed any future prospects in respect of the said category. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 60. The controversy does not end here. The question still remains whether there should be no addition where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Sarla Verma thinks it appropriate not to add any amount and the same has been approved in Reshma Kumari. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that salary does not remain the same. When a person is in a permanent job, there is always an enhancement due to one reason or the other. To lay down as a thumb rule that there will be no addition after 50 years will be an unacceptable concept. We are disposed to think, there should be an addition of 15% if the deceased is between the age of 50 to 60 years and there should be no addition thereafter. Similarly, in case of self employed or person on fixed salary, the addition should be 10% between the age of 50 to 60 years. The aforesaid yardstick has been fixed so that there can be consistency in the approach by the Tribunals and the courts. 61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:- (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 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." 20. While applying the ratio of aforesaid law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi''s case, amounts awarded under various heads I.e. funeral expenses, loss of care and guidance and loss of consortium requires to be re-assessed accordingly, the amount awarded qua the funeral expenses and loss of consortium is modified to Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 40,000/- instead of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 40,000/- instead of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/-, as awarded by learned MACT below. Since, no amount could be awarded under the head of "loss of care and guidance" and as such, award amount made qua the same is quashed and setaside. However, this Court while exercising power under Order XLI Rule 33 of CPC, wherein appellate Court enjoys the power to pass any decree and make any order, which ought to have been passed or made as the case may be, deems it fit to grant an amount of Rs. 15,000/- on account of loss of estate. In view of the aforesaid modifications made hereinabove, now the respondents-claimants shall be entitled to following amount:- Compensation of dependency Rs. 7,56,000/- Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/- Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 8,26,000/- 21. The award amount shall be apportioned among the claimants/respondents No.1 to 5 as under: 1 Smt. Chander Kala wife of late Sh. Vinod Kumar (including consortium) Rs. 3,00,000/- 2 Master Divesh son of late Sh. Vinod Kumar Rs. 1,46,000/- 3 Kumari Dipika D/o late Sh. Vinod Kumar Rs. 1,40,000/- 4 Kumari Nidhika D/o late Sh.Vinod Kumar Rs. 1,40,000/- 5 Smt. Shanti Devi mother of late Sh. Vinod Kumar Rs. 1,00,000 22. Needless to say, the amount awarded in favour of respondents /claimants No. 2 to 4 (minor) shall be invested in their names in the fixed deposit, till their attaining the age of majority. 23. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove and law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court, present appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award passed by the learned MACT below is modified to the aforesaid extent only. Present appeal is disposed of, so also pending applications, if any.