JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Instant appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter, ‘Act’), is directed against Award dated 23.5.2016 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla, H.P. in M.A.C.C. No. 95-S/2 of 2014, whereby appellant- Insurance Company has been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 14,00,200/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization of the whole amount with interest to respondents No.1 and 2-claimants (hereinafter, ‘claimants’). Besides this, the claimants have been held entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 2. Facts as emerge from the record are that the claimants being legal heirs of deceased Tulsi Ram, by way of petition filed under Section 166 of the Act, claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the appellant-Insurance Company as well as respondent No.3, Vigyan Chand, owner-cum-driver of the ill-fated vehicle bearing registration No. HP-62B-0824 on account of death of Tulsi Ram alias Tulsi Prem Khatri. Claimants claimed that the deceased Tulsi Ram was aged about 21 years at the time of accident and he was traveling in the vehicle in question from Sandhu to Theog. Allegedly, aforesaid vehicle met with an accident on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.3, who at the relevant time was driving the vehicle in question and on account of injuries suffered by Tulsi Ram in the aforesaid accident, he passed away. 3. Respondents No.3 i.e. driver-cum-owner, refuted the claim of the claimants on the ground that they have not approached the learned Tribunal below with clean hands and claimed that claim petition is not maintainable against him. On merits, though aforesaid respondent admitted factum with regard to accident, but specifically denied the allegation that vehicle was being driven by him in rash and negligent manner. Respondent No.3 claimed that since vehicle stood insured at the time of accident, appellant-Insurance Company being insurer is liable to indemnify him. 4. On merits, though aforesaid respondent admitted factum with regard to accident, but specifically denied the allegation that vehicle was being driven by him in rash and negligent manner. Respondent No.3 claimed that since vehicle stood insured at the time of accident, appellant-Insurance Company being insurer is liable to indemnify him. 4. On the other hand, appellant-Insurance Company refuted the claim of the claimants on the ground that driver of the vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence and vehicle in question was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy as well as provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, and as such, it is not liable to indemnify the insured. 5. On the basis of pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, learned Tribunal below framed following issues on 21.7.2015 : “(1) Whether Sh. Tulsi Ram alias Tulsi Prem Khattri died in a road side accident on 27.07.2014 involving vehicle No. HP-62B-0824, being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner? OPP (2) If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, for what amount of compensation the claimants is entitled and from whom? OPP (3) Whether the claimants have not approached the Tribunal with clean hands, if so, its effect? OPR-1 (4) Whether the claimants are estopped from filing the present claim petition from their own act and conduct? OPR-1 (5) Whether the claim petition is not maintainable? OPR (6) Whether the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle involving in the accident, if so, its effect? OPR (7) Whether the vehicle is being permitted to ply in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as well as provisions of M.V. Act, if so its effect? OPR-2 (8) Whether there is collusion between the claimants and respondent No.1, if so, its effect? OPR (9) Relief. 6. Subsequently, learned Tribunal below, vide Award dated 23.5.2016, held claimants entitled to a sum of Rs. 14,00,200/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation of the whole amount, with interest from the appellant-Insurance Company. Learned Tribunal below also held claimants entitled to Rs. 2,00,000/- from appellant-Insurance Company on account of contractual liability as the owner had paid additional premium towards accident premium for five persons. 14,00,200/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation of the whole amount, with interest from the appellant-Insurance Company. Learned Tribunal below also held claimants entitled to Rs. 2,00,000/- from appellant-Insurance Company on account of contractual liability as the owner had paid additional premium towards accident premium for five persons. In the aforesaid background, appellant-Insurance Company has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside the Award passed by learned Tribunal below being excessive and contrary to the evidence on record. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 8. Having heard the learned counsel representing the parties and perused evidence, be it ocular or documentary, adduced on record by the respective parties, this court is not persuaded to agree with the contention of Mr. Virender Sharma, learned counsel representing the appellant-Insurance Company that the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal below is not based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties rather, this court is convinced and satisfied that learned Tribunal below has appreciated the evidence in its right perspective and has rightly directed appellant-Insurance Company to indemnify respondent No.3. 9. Careful perusal of impugned award passed by learned Tribunal below suggests that the onus to prove that driver of the vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle involved in the accident, was upon the appellant-Insurance Company but, evidence adduced on record reveals that it was not able to discharge said onus and as such, this court is not in agreement with the contention of Mr. Virender Sharma, learned counsel representing the appellant-Insurance Company that the learned Tribunal below erred in passing the impugned award ignoring the fact that driver of the vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. Evidence adduced on record by the claimants clearly suggests that at the time of accident, driver of the vehicle driving the ill-fated vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence. Evidence adduced on record by the claimants clearly suggests that at the time of accident, driver of the vehicle driving the ill-fated vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence. Similarly, this court finds that no cogent and convincing evidence is led on record by the appellant-Insurance Company that vehicle in question was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and as such, learned Tribunal below rightly decided the issue against the appellant-Insurance Company. 10. This court with a view to ascertain the correctness and genuineness of the argument advanced by Mr. Virender Sharma, learned counsel representing the appellant-Insurance Company that the learned Tribunal below wrongly arrived at a conclusion that at the time of accident, deceased was drawing salary of Rs. 7100/- per month, carefully examined the evidence adduced on record by the respective parties with regard to the income of the deceased. Claimants, in their claim petition claimed that the deceased was getting salary of Rs. 7,000/- per month and Rs. 100/- per day by doing overtime from PW-4, Shri Parshotam. PW-1, mother of deceased, in her affidavit Ext. PW- 1/A, categorically stated that income of her son at the time of accident was Rs. 7,000/- and same was likely to increase from 10,000/- to Rs. 30,000/-. To prove the factum with regard to salary of the deceased being Rs. 7,000/-, claimants examined PW-4 Parshotam i.e. employer, who in his affidavit, Ext. PW-4/A, corroborated the version put forth by PW-1 that at the time of accident, deceased was being paid Rs. 7100/- per month by him. Aforesaid witness also deposed before the learned Tribunal below that apart from regular services, he also used to engage deceased on part time basis as per requirement of work. 11. True it is that in support of aforesaid assertion made by PW-4 with regard to salary paid by him to deceased Tulsi Ram, he did not place on record any documentary evidence but if cross-examination conducted upon this witness is seen/analysed, it clearly suggests that statement of PW-4 remained unrebutted. In the cross-examination, no specific suggestion, if any, is/was ever put to PW-4 that he did not engage deceased as Supervisor on the monthly salary of Rs. 7,100/- per month. 12. In the cross-examination, no specific suggestion, if any, is/was ever put to PW-4 that he did not engage deceased as Supervisor on the monthly salary of Rs. 7,100/- per month. 12. Having carefully perused evidence led on record by the claimants with regard to salary of deceased, this court is not persuaded to agree with the contention of Mr. Virender Sharma, learned counsel representing the appellant-Insurance Company that learned Tribunal below has failed to appreciate the evidence with respect to salary in its right perspective. This court is also not inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Virender Sharma, learned counsel representing the appellant-Insurance Company that since no cogent and convincing evidence was led on record by claimants with regard to salary of the deceased, learned Tribunal below ought to have taken into consideration minimum wages applicable at the relevant time because admittedly, in the case at hand, claimants led specific evidence on record to prove income of deceased. PW-4, Parshotam i.e. employer has categorically stated that he was paying Rs. 7,100/- per month to the deceased. 13. At this stage, learned counsel representing the appellant-Insurance Company while inviting attention of this Court to judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, AIR 2017 SC 5157 , contends that the learned Tribunal below has wrongly awarded amounts under various other heads i.e. loss of estate, loss of love and affection and funeral charges and as such, impugned award to that extent needs to be modified. 14. At this stage, it would be profitable to reproduce following paragraphs of aforesaid judgment herein below : “47. In our considered opinion, if the same is followed, it shall sub-serve 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 (supra), 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. 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 (supra). 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. 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.” 60. The controversy does not end here. 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.” 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. (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. 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.” 15. This court having perused the aforesaid judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others (supra) is in agreement with Mr. Virender Sharma, learned counsel representing the appellant-Insurance Company that amount awarded by the learned Tribunal below, on account of loss of estate, loss of love and affection and funeral charges needs to be re-assessed. Similarly, the addition of 50% to the future income of the deceased is also against the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment. As per aforesaid judgment, addition of 40% to the established income of deceased could be made as he was not doing any permanent job and at the time of accident, he was 21 years old. 16. In view of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment, taking monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 7,100/-, total loss of dependency/contribution would as follows: Income of the deceased Rs. 7100/- Addition of 40% Rs. 16. In view of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment, taking monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 7,100/-, total loss of dependency/contribution would as follows: Income of the deceased Rs. 7100/- Addition of 40% Rs. 7100 x 40% = Rs. 2840/- Total income Rs. 9940/- 1/2 Deduction Rs. 9940/- x 1/2 = Rs. 4970/- Net Income Rs. 4970/- per month (Rs. 59640/- per annum) After applying multiplier of 18 Rs. 10,73,520/- 17. So far grant of amount under loss of love and affection is concerned, same is not admissible in view of latest law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and no amount could have been awarded under aforesaid head. So far amounts awarded under other two heads i.e. loss of estate and funeral charges i.e. Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- are concerned, same also ought to have been Rs. 15,000/- under each head. 18. Consequently, in view of aforesaid modification made herein above, respondents No.1 and 2/claimants are held entitled to following amounts under various heads : 1. Loss of dependency Rs. 10,73,520/- 2. Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- 3. Funeral charges Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 11,03,520/- 19. This Court however does not see any reason to interfere with the rate of interest awarded on the amount of compensation and as such, same is upheld. Apportionment shall remain as has been made by the learned Tribunal below. Similarly, this court finds no illegality in the multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal below, which has rightly been applied as per law and further the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- has also been rightly awarded by the learned Tribunal below. 20. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made herein above and law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, present appeal is partly allowed and Award dated 23.5.2016 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla, H.P. in M.A.C.C. No. 95-S/2 of 2014, is modified to the above extent only. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of. Interim directions, if any, are vacated.