JUDGMENT : Kalyan Rai Surana, J. 1. Heard Mr. AR Agarwala, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. SK Goswami and Mr. A. Acharyya, learned counsels appearing for the respondents No. 2 & 4 respectively. None appears on call for other respondents although notice was duly served. By this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 08.05.2012 passed by the learned Member, MACT, Dhubri in MAC Case No. 234/2006. By the said impugned judgment and award, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,41,500/- with 6% interest to the claimants, who filed the claim petition on the death of the deceased, namely, Gaji Sheikh, who had died on the spot on 24.04.2006, in a motor vehicle accident that had occurred due to collusion between two vehicles. This appeal has been filed for enhancement of the award passed by the learned Tribunal. 2. In the claim petition, it was stated that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus, causing death to the victim herein and two others. The insurers of both the offending vehicles, being respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 4 herein had filed their respective written statement before the learned Tribunal, taking usual plea of denial and had put the appellants-claimants to strict proof of their claim. 3. In support of their claim, the appellants-claimants examined two witnesses. The claimant No. 1 was examined as CW. 1 and one Jasmat Ali was examined as CW. 2. The appellants-claimants exhibited- FIR (Ext. 1), Charge-Sheet (Ext. 2), Seizure List (Ext. 3 to 5) and Post-mortem report (Ext. 6). 4. The learned Tribunal had framed the following issues during trial:- 1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. AS-25/C-0329 and the claimant sustained injuries due to the accident? 2. Whether the offending vehicle was duly insured with M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited at the time of accident? 3. What shall be the just and proper compensation and by whom payable? 5. In respect of issue No. 1, it was held that both the vehicles were responsible for the accident on account of rash and negligent driving and both were held liable for paying compensation in equal proportion and the said issue was decided in the affirmative. 3. What shall be the just and proper compensation and by whom payable? 5. In respect of issue No. 1, it was held that both the vehicles were responsible for the accident on account of rash and negligent driving and both were held liable for paying compensation in equal proportion and the said issue was decided in the affirmative. The issue No. 2 was also decided in the affirmative. In respect of issue No. 3 (mentioned in the impugned judgment as "issues No. 3 and 4" although issue No. 4 is not found to be framed), by relying on the evidence and pleadings, the age of the deceased was taken as 35 years, as mentioned in the post-mortem report and on failure of the appellants-claimants to produce any documentary evidence regarding professional income, the daily wage of the deceased was taken to be Rs. 100/- per day and the notional income as Rs. 3000/- per month. The deduction of 1/4th of the income was considered towards personal and living expenses and the annual contribution was taken as Rs. 27000/-. Relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the compensation was calculated as under: 27000 X 16 = Rs. 4,32,000/- Funeral expenses = Rs. 2,000/- Loss of consortium = Rs. 5,000/- Loss of estate = Rs. 2,500/- Total: = Rs. 4,41,500/- Consequently, the claim petition was allowed by awarding the aforesaid amount in favour of the claimants inclusive of interim relief and the same was directed to be paid by both the insurance companies in equal proportion with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of evidence on affidavit i.e. 09.08.2011. 6. Pressing for the enhancement of the award, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the interest of the award should have been levied from the date of the accident and, if not, from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 29.05.2006. Further, it is submitted that since the claim of Rs. 4,500/- per month as monthly income of the deceased was not rebutted during the cross-examination of witnesses and moreover, CW. 2, who was the co-worker of the deceased, had deposed to the effect that the deceased was earning Rs. 4,500/- per month, as such the income of the deceased should have been considered as Rs. 4,500/- per month as monthly income of the deceased was not rebutted during the cross-examination of witnesses and moreover, CW. 2, who was the co-worker of the deceased, had deposed to the effect that the deceased was earning Rs. 4,500/- per month, as such the income of the deceased should have been considered as Rs. 4,500/- per month. It is also submitted that at the time of his death, the deceased had left behind more than 6 dependants inclusive of wife, children and his father and, as such, the deduction of personal expenses should have been 1/5th instead of 1/4th. 7. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellants has relied on the case of Syed Sadiq etc. v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company, (2014)2 SCC 735 on the proposition for enhancement of income on account of future prospects of income and for canvassing his submission that the declaration made by the appellants that the deceased was earning Rs. 4,500/- per month should have been accepted. He has also relied in the case of Smt. Lakhi Das & Ors. v. Raju Sarmah & Anr., 2014 (3) TAC 941 (Gau.), to demonstrate that in absence of any contradiction, the monthly income as claimed by the appellants should have been accepted. 8. Per contra, the learned counsels appearing for the respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 4, have separately submitted that the appellants-claimant's witnesses i.e. CW. 1 & CW. 2 did not lead any documentary evidence to prove the monthly income of the deceased. It is also submitted that the law on applicable multiplier has been settled in paragraph-30 of the case of Sarla Verma (supra), wherein it has been held that where the number of dependants is 4 to 6, 1/4th income is deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and only when dependants exceeds 6 in number, the admissible deduction would be 1/5th. 9. Referring to the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal, it has been submitted by the learned counsels for the respondents No. 2 and 4 that though in the claim petition, the claimants had stated that the deceased had left behind 7 dependants, but taking note of the evidence to the effect that the father of the deceased had already expired, the number of dependents were held to be 6 by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, 1/4th of the income was rightly held to be deductable in respect of personal living expenses as per the ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). 10. Countering the case of Smt. Lakhi Das (supra) and Syed Sadiq (supra), cited by the learned counsel for the appellants, it has been stated that in the first case, the deceased was a fisherman and in the second case, the deceased was a vegetable vendor, therefore, it was held that a vegetable vendor is reasonably capable of earning Rs. 6,500/- per month. It is also submitted that as per the ratio laid down in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had relied on the case of Sarla Verma (supra) for the purpose of assessing the future prospects. 11. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the both sides and on perusal of the materials on record, it is seen that in the claim petition, it was projected by the appellants that the income of the deceased was Rs. 4,500/- per month. Both the CW. 1 and CW. 2 had also asserted that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 4,500/-, which amounts to Rs. 150/- per day. In the cross-examination of the said CWs, the evidence adduced by them on the monthly income of the deceased, could not be successfully demolished. 12. In the case of Syed Sadiq (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "8. The appellant/claimant in his appeal further claimed that he had been earning 10,000/- p.m. by doing vegetable vending work. The High Court however, considered the loss of income at 3500/- p.m. considering that the claimant did not produce any document to establish his loss of income. It is difficult for us to convince ourselves as to how a labour involved in an unorganized sector doing his own business is expected to produce documents to prove his monthly income. In this regard, this Court, in the case of Ramchandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Company Limited, has held as under: "13. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the Appellant was aged about 35 years and was working as a Coolie and was earning 4500/- per month at the time of accident. In this regard, this Court, in the case of Ramchandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Company Limited, has held as under: "13. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the Appellant was aged about 35 years and was working as a Coolie and was earning 4500/- per month at the time of accident. This claim is reduced by the Tribunal to a sum of 3000/- only on the assumption that wages of the labourer during the relevant period viz. in the year 2004, was 100/- per day. This assumption in our view has no basis. Before the Tribunal, though Insurance Company was served, it did not choose to appear before the Court nor did it repudiated the claim of the claimant. Therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to have reduced the claim of the claimant and determined the monthly earning a sum of 3000/- p.m. Secondly, the Appellant was working as a Coolie and therefore, we cannot expect him to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. In the absence of any other evidence contrary to the claim made by the claimant, in our view, in the facts of the present case, the Tribunal should have accepted the claim of the claimant. 14. We hasten to add that in all cases and in all circumstances, the Tribunal need not accept the claim of the claimant in the absence of supporting material. It depends on the facts of each case. In a given case, if the claim made is so exorbitant or if the claim made is contrary to ground realities, the Tribunal may not accept the claim and may proceed to determine the possible income by resorting to some guess work, which may include the ground realities prevailing at the relevant point of time. In the present case, Appellant was working as a Coolie and in and around the date of the accident, the wage of the labourer was between 100/- to 150/- per day or 4500/- per month. In our view, the claim was honest and bona fide and, therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to have reduced the monthly earning of the Appellant from 4500/- to 3000/- per month. We, therefore, accept his statement that his monthly earning was 4500/-." 9. In our view, the claim was honest and bona fide and, therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to have reduced the monthly earning of the Appellant from 4500/- to 3000/- per month. We, therefore, accept his statement that his monthly earning was 4500/-." 9. There is no reason, in the instant case for the Tribunal and the High Court to ask for evidence of monthly income of the appellant/claimant. On the other hand, going by the present state of economy and the rising prices in agricultural products, we are inclined to believe that a vegetable vendor is reasonably capable of earning 6,500/- per month." 13. In the present case in hand also, the deceased was working as a daily wage labourer and no evidence of rebuttal was led by the respondents No. 2 & 4 to rebut that in the year 2006, a labourer could not have earned Rs. 150/- per day or Rs. 4,500/- per month. Therefore, following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Syed Sadiq (supra), this Court is inclined to accept the statements made in the claim petition as well as the oral evidence of CW. 1 and CW. 2, quantifying monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/- per month. 14. The next point is regarding the applicability of deduction on account of personal expenses. In this connection, it is seen that in paragraph-30 of the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that if the deceased had left behind 4 to 6 dependants, the applicable deduction is 1/4th and only when the dependants was more than 6 in number, the deduction would be 1/5th In the present case in hand, there is nothing to rebut the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment to the effect that the deceased had left behind 6 dependants. Therefore, this Court is bound by the ratio laid down in the Sarla Verma (supra) and, as such, no infirmity is found in deduction of 1/4th of income on account of personal and living expenses of the deceased. 15. The another point of determination is with regard to increment on account of future prospects of income. In this connection, the admitted case of the appellants is that the deceased was a daily wage labourer, having no fixed income. 15. The another point of determination is with regard to increment on account of future prospects of income. In this connection, the admitted case of the appellants is that the deceased was a daily wage labourer, having no fixed income. On the aforesaid point, the relevant portion of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) is quoted below: "14. It is interesting to note here that while the reference was pending, the judgment in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Limited and others was delivered by a two-Judge Bench which commented on the principle stated in Sarla Verma. It said:- "14. We find it extremely difficult to fathom any rationale for the observation made in para 24 of the judgment in Sarla Verma case that where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc. the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death and a departure from this rule should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. In our view, it will be naive to say that the wages or total emoluments/income of a person who is self-employed or who is employed on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc. would remain the same throughout his life. 15. The rise in the cost of living affects everyone across the board. It does not make any distinction between rich and poor. As a matter of fact, the effect of rise in prices which directly impacts the cost of living is minimal on the rich and maximum on those who are self-employed or who get fixed income/emoluments. They are the worst affected people. Therefore, they put in extra efforts to generate additional income necessary for sustaining their families. 16. The salaries of those employed under the Central and State Governments and their agencies/instrumentalities have been revised from time to time to provide a cushion against the rising prices and provisions have been made for providing security to the families of the deceased employees. The salaries of those employed in private sectors have also increased manifold. 16. The salaries of those employed under the Central and State Governments and their agencies/instrumentalities have been revised from time to time to provide a cushion against the rising prices and provisions have been made for providing security to the families of the deceased employees. The salaries of those employed in private sectors have also increased manifold. Till about two decades ago, nobody could have imagined that salary of Class IV employee of the Government would be in five figures and total emoluments of those in higher echelons of service will cross the figure of rupees one lakh. 17. Although the wages/income of those employed in unorganised sectors has not registered a corresponding increase and has not kept pace with the increase in the salaries of the government employees and those employed in private sectors, but it cannot be denied that there has been incremental enhancement in the income of those who are self-employed and even those engaged on daily basis, monthly basis or even seasonal basis. We can take judicial notice of the fact that with a view to meet the challenges posed by high cost of living, the persons falling in the latter category periodically increase the cost of their labour. In this context, it may be useful to give an example of a tailor who earns his livelihood by stitching clothes. If the cost of living increases and the prices of essentials go up, it is but natural for him to increase the cost of his labour. So will be the cases of ordinary skilled and unskilled labour like barber, blacksmith, cobbler, mason, etc. 18. Therefore, we do not think that while making the observations in the last three lines of para 24 of Sarla Verma judgment, the Court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in the income of a person who is self-employed or who is paid fixed wages. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30% increase in his total income over a period of time and if he/she becomes victim of an accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation." 15. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30% increase in his total income over a period of time and if he/she becomes victim of an accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation." 15. The aforesaid analysis in Santosh Devi (supra) may prima facie show that the two-Judge Bench has distinguished the observation made in Sarla Verma's case but on a studied scrutiny, it becomes clear that it has really expressed a different view than what has been laid down in Sarla Verma (supra). If we permit ourselves to say so, the different view has been expressed in a distinctive tone, for the two-Judge Bench had stated that it was extremely difficult to fathom any rationale for the observations made in para 24 of the judgment in Sarla Verma's case in respect of self-employed or a person on fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc. This is a clear disagreement with the earlier view, and we have no hesitation in saying that it is absolutely impermissible keeping in view the concept of binding precedents." 16. Coming to the case of Syed Sadiq (supra), it is seen that for deciding the case, the Hon'ble Apex Court had relied on the case of Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Limited & Ors., (2012) 6 SCC 421 and in this regard, it is seen that in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court, by relying on the case of Sarla Verma (supra), had overruled the case of Santosh Devi (supra) on the matter of calculating income in respect of future prospects, expressing disagreement on the ground that the said decision in Santosh Devi (supra) was hit by the principle of binding precedent arising from the case of Sarla Verma (supra). Accordingly, bound by the ratio laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the appellants are not found to be entitled to any increment and/or addition of income on account of future prospects. 17. The next issue is with regard to applicable addition and/or enhancement of the award under conventional heads viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. 17. The next issue is with regard to applicable addition and/or enhancement of the award under conventional heads viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. In the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), it was held that the claimants are entitled to Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate, Rs. 40,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses. In the present case in hand, in those conventional heads, the sum of Rs. 2800/-, Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 2000/- were awarded. Accordingly, the amount for loss of consortium is enhanced from Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 40,000/-, Rs. 15,000/- from Rs. 2800/- for loss of estate and Rs. 2000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal in respect of funeral expenses is enhanced to Rs. 15,000/- [(as per Pranay Sethi (supra)]. Therefore, the appellants-claimants are entitled to a further enhanced sum of Rs. 60,500/- on account of these conventional heads. 18. In view of above decision, the compensation stands re-determined now as follows:- (i) Annual Income Rs.4,500/- x 12 = 54,000/- (ii) Deduction for personal expenses ¼ Rs. 13,500/- Total Rs.40,500/- (iii) Total dependency Rs.40,500 x 16 = 6,48,000 (iv) Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- (v) Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- (vi) Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.7,18,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Eighteen Thousand only) (vii) Enhancement of award Rs.7,18,000/-4,41,500/-=Rs.2,76,500/- (Rupees Two Lakh Seventy Six Thousand Five Hundred only). 19. Therefore, the award now stands enhanced by a further sum of Rs. 2,76,500/- to a total amount of Rs. 7,18,500/- (inclusive of original award of Rs. 4,41,500/-). The interest of the award is maintained @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the evidence i.e. 09.08.2011. Although the claim petition was filed on 29.05.2006, but the evidence on affidavit was filed only on 09.08.2011. Therefore, the respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 4 are liable to pay interest from the date of filing of evidence on affidavit i.e. 9.8.2011. The learned counsels for the respondents No. 2 and 4 have submitted that the entire awarded sum with interest was deposited before the learned Tribunal prior to the institution of this appeal. In that view of the matter, the appellants-claimants are entitled to only the enhanced amount with 6% interest thereon from the date of filing of the evidence on affidavit i.e. 09.08.2011. In that view of the matter, the appellants-claimants are entitled to only the enhanced amount with 6% interest thereon from the date of filing of the evidence on affidavit i.e. 09.08.2011. The aforementioned enhanced amount and interest thereon shall be paid to the appellants-claimants by the respondent No. 2 (The Oriental Insurance Company Limited) and the respondent No. 4 (The New India Assurance Company Limited) in equal share and proportion. The enhanced award may be deposited before the Registry of this Court within a period of 2 (two) months from today. On such deposit being made, Registry may permit the appellants-claimants to withdraw the same on being duly identified by their appearing counsel. If such enhanced award is not deposited, the appellants-claimants shall be at liberty to enforce the award through the recovery procedure through the learned Tribunal. 20. Resultantly, the appeal stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. The judgment and award passed by the learned Member, MACT, Dhubri in MAC Case No. 234/2006 stands modified and enhanced, as indicated above. Send back the LCR.