JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. This appeal on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company is directed against the award dated 3.11.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III), Mandi, H.P., in claim petition No. 30/15, whereby it allowed the claim petition filed by respondent No.1/claimant and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,02,048/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the claimant filed a claim petition on the premise that on 9.10.2013 he was a pillion rider of Scooter No. HP33-7267 and was going from Mandi to Kantandi; and when they reached near Dodu Nallah, one Maxi cab No. HP01-M-0940 being driven by respondent No.3 in a rash and negligent manner hit the scooter, as a result whereof, the claimant along with driver of the scooter fell down and sustained injuries. He was taken to Zonal Hospital, where he remained admitted on account of major injury on his right leg. It was further averred that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3. On these allegations, the claimant claimed compensation of Rs. 10 lacs. 3. The claim petition was contested by respondents No. 2 and 3 owner and driver of the offending vehicle respectively, wherein they denied the accident in question having taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3 and rather, it was alleged that it was the driver of the scooter, respondent No.4, on account of whose negligence, the accident in question had been caused. 4. Respondent No.4 filed separate reply, wherein he submitted that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3, whereas he was driving the scooter in a slow speed. 5. As regards Insurance Company, it too contested the petition by raising various preliminary objections like the driver not possessing effective and valid driving license, violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the accident in question having taken place because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3. On merits, these preliminary objections were reiterated. 6. On 30.3.2016, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. On merits, these preliminary objections were reiterated. 6. On 30.3.2016, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the petitioner sustained multiple injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 9.10.2013 at about 4.45 pm at place Dodu Nalla on Mandi Katindhi State highway due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2 and respondent No.4 while they were driving their respective vehicles bearing No. HP01-M-0940 and No. HP33-7267 in rash and negligent manner, as alleged? OPP 2. In case issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so to what extent and from whom? OPP 3. Whether vehicle bearing registration No. HP01-M- 0940 was being driven by respondent No.2 in contravention of insurance policy, as alleged? OPR3 4. Whether vehicle bearing registration No. HP33- 7267 was being driven by respondent No.4 in contravention of insurance policy, as alleged? OPR5 5. Whether accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.2, as alleged? OPR4 6. Whether case FIR against respondent no.2 is wrongly registered at the instance of respondent No.4, as alleged? OPR2 7. Relief. 7. After recording the evidence and evaluating the same, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned award which has been assailed by the Insurance Company primarily on two grounds – (i) the learned Tribunal erred in taking income of the claimant as Rs. 5200/- per month as per minimum wages in the year 2013, whereas as per the notification issued by Labour Department, the minimum wages at the relevant period were Rs.4500/- per month w.e.f. 1.9.2012; and (ii) the learned Tribunal erred in giving 30% addition in income to the claimant, whereas only 10% addition could have been granted in terms of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, AIR 2017 SC 5157 . 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 9. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, AIR 2017 SC 5157 . 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 9. It is no longer res integra that the awards even on account of injury are now to be adjudged and determined in light of the judgment passed by the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) as has been recently held by three-Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagdish vs. Mohan and ors., AIR 2018 SC 1347 . 10. Now adverting to the facts of case, it would be noticed that as per the notification issued by the Labour Department minimum wages in the year 2013 were Rs.4500/- per month w.e.f. 1.9.2012 and this position is candidly admitted by the learned counsel for the claimant. Once this being the admitted position, then obviously the income of the claimant had to be taken as Rs.4500/- per month instead of Rs.5200/- per month. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the appellant. 11. As regards award of 30% addition to the claimant towards future increase in income, even this question is no longer res integra in view of the ratio laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra). The claimant though is entitled to the addition in income on account of the injuries sustained by him, but not at 30%, as awarded by the learned Tribunal, but would be entitled to only 10% increase since at the relevant time, the claimant was admittedly 54 years of age. This would be evident from para 61 of the conclusions culled out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case, which read thus:- “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. (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. (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 30 to 32 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 42 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.” This point is also answered in favour of the appellant. 12 Since compensation under the other heads has not been specifically challenged, therefore, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with such findings rendered by the learned Tribunal, however, in view of what is stated above, obviously the award passed by the learned Tribunal cannot sustain in its entirety and the appeal filed by the Insurance Company has to be partly allowed. 13 In case the compensation is now determined on the basis of the income of the claimant at Rs.4500/- and not at Rs.5200/- and the future loss is calculated at 10% instead of 30% as held by the learned Tribunal, the claimant would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,66,210/-. 14 Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the award dated 3.11.2017 passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimant would now be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,66,210/- instead of Rs.2,02,048/-. As regards the interest, he shall be entitled to the same @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs.