JUDGMENT : SANDEEP SHARMA, J. 1. By way of appeal at hand, appellant-Insurance Company has challenged Award dated 5.7.2016 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, District Solan, H.P. camp at Nalagarh in M.A.C. Petition No. 27-NL/2 of 2012, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 24,90,500/- has been awarded in favour of respondents No.1 to 4-claimants (hereinafter, ‘claimants’) holding appellant-Insurance Company (hereinafter, ‘Insurance Company’) and respondent No.5, jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition till deposit of the entire amount. 2. Facts in brief, as are necessary for the adjudication of the appeal are that the a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came to be filed for grant of compensation on account of death of one Manjit Kumar, on behalf of the claimants who are wife, son, daughter and mother, respectively, of the deceased. Facts disclosed in the petition are that on 6.7.2012, at around 11.15 am, when Manjit Kumar while driving Santro Car bearing registration No. CH-01-AG-0873, reached near bus stand Kohara, Bhura, Tehsil Nalagarh, his car was hit by Maxi Cab bearing registration No. HR-58(T)-3920 coming from opposite side being driven by respondent No.5 in high speed, resulting into death of Manjit Kumar. Matter was reported to police and FIR was lodged. Post-mortem of the deceased was conducted at Civil Hospital Naraingarh. It is claimed in the petition that deceased was running business in the name and style of M/s Sai Engineering Works at Baddi and also running dairy farm and was earning Rs.29,000/- per month i.e. Rs.15,000/- from his business and Rs.14,000/- from dairy farm. As per claimants, Manjit Kumar was the sole bread earner of the family. 3. Respondent No. 5, while filing the reply, denied the involvement of offending vehicle in the accident and alleged that accident had occurred due to negligence of the deceased. In the alternative, it was pleaded that in any case, offending vehicle being insured with the appellant-Insurance Company, it was liable to indemnify the claimants. On the other hand, appellant-Insurance Company contested the petition by taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action, collusion and offending being plied in violation of the terms and conditions insurance policy. On merits, factum of accident was denied for want of knowledge. 4. On the other hand, appellant-Insurance Company contested the petition by taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action, collusion and offending being plied in violation of the terms and conditions insurance policy. On merits, factum of accident was denied for want of knowledge. 4. Learned Tribunal below, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, framed following issues on 7.1.2014: “1. Whether accident in question resulting into the death of Manjit Kumar, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, was the result of respondent No.1 in driving his Maxi Cab baring No. HR-68(T)-3920 in high speed, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners being dependents are entitled to claim compensation amount in the sum of Rs.60.0/- lacs along with interest @ 12% per annum from the respondents, as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the vehicle belonging to and driven by respondent Nno.1 was insured, if so, its effects? OPR-1 4. If issue No.3 is proved in affirmative, whether the vehicle had not been driven and plied by respondent No.1 in accordance with terms and conditions of the insurance policy? OPR-2 5. Relief” 5. Learned Tribunal below, on the basis of evidence led on record by the respective parties, allowed the petition and awarded following amounts under different heads: (a) Total compensation amount = Rs.20,65,500 (b) Loss of consortium and loss of estate = Rs.1,00,000 (c) Loss of love and affection to wife of the deceased i.e. petitioner = Rs.1,00,000 (d) Loss of love and affection to children i.e. petitioner No. 2 & 3 = Rs.1,00,000 (e) Loss of love and affection to mother of the deceased petitioner No. 4 =Rs.1,00,000 (f) Funeral expenses = Rs.25,000 Total = Rs.24,90,500 6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal below, appellant-Insurance Company has approached this court in the instant proceedings for quashing of the award. 7. Claimants claimed in the petition that monthly income of deceased was Rs.29,000/- from dairy and workshop. Besides this, claimants examined PW-3 Jeet Ram and PW-4 Teja Singh, to prove the income of the deceased from dairy and workshop. As per affidavit, exhibit PW-3/A, PW-3, Jeet Singh, has stated that the deceased was selling milk and earning Rs.2500-3000 per day. Similarly, PW-4 Teja Singh in his affidavit Exhibit PW-4/A has stated that deceased was earning Rs.40,000-50,000/- per month by making gates, grills etc. As per affidavit, exhibit PW-3/A, PW-3, Jeet Singh, has stated that the deceased was selling milk and earning Rs.2500-3000 per day. Similarly, PW-4 Teja Singh in his affidavit Exhibit PW-4/A has stated that deceased was earning Rs.40,000-50,000/- per month by making gates, grills etc. Appellant-Insurance Company has not led any evidence to rebut the evidence regarding income of the deceased. The learned Tribunal below, on the basis of evidence of claimants, took monthly income of deceased as Rs.9,000/- by taking daily income of deceased at Rs.300/-. Learned Tribunal below has granted an addition of 50% to the established income of deceased and thus calculated monthly income at Rs.13,500/- and after deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses, net income has been arrived at Rs.10,125/- and thus total loss of income has been calculated at Rs.20,65,500/-. 8. Learned counsel representing the appellant- Insurance Company has argued that the learned Tribunal below has awarded an addition of 50% to the established income of the claimant, which ought to have been 40% since the claimant was not in permanent employment and was self employed. 9. Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, AIR 2017 SC 5157 , has laid down parameters regarding grant of addition to established income. Relevant paragraphs of aforesaid judgment are reproduced herein 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 (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. It also granted Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. 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. The question still remains whether there should be no addition where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. 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.” 10. In view of the law laid down above, addition of 40% on account of loss of future income to the established income of deceased could only be granted, and as such, compensation awarded by learned Tribunal below needs to be reassessed in the following terms: Monthly income =9,000 40% addition = 3,600 Net monthly income =12,600 1/4th deduction 12,600-3150 =9450 Annual income 9450x 12 = 1,13,400 After applying multiplier of 17 1,13,400x 17=19,27,800 11. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company further argued that the learned Tribunal below has wrongly awarded amounts under the head of loss of love and affection that too, separately to the claimants, whereas, no such amount could have been awarded in favour of the claimants. Besides this, learned counsel representing the appellant-Insurance Company stated that the learned Tribunal below has awarded amounts on account of loss of consortium and loss of estate to claimant No.1 and funeral expenses, which are on higher side. 12. Besides this, learned counsel representing the appellant-Insurance Company stated that the learned Tribunal below has awarded amounts on account of loss of consortium and loss of estate to claimant No.1 and funeral expenses, which are on higher side. 12. In view of the law laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra) claimants are entitled to following amounts under conventional heads: 1. Loss of consortium (petitioner No.1) Rs.40,000 2. Loss of estate Rs.15,000 3. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000 13. Applying the ratio of law laid down in the judgment supra and parameters laid down, no amounts could have been awarded by the learned Tribunal below under the head of loss of love of affection and as such, impugned award deserves to be set aside to that extent. However, there is no illegality with the multiplier applied by learned Tribunal below i.e. 17 and further the rate of interest awarded by it. 14. Consequently, in view of aforesaid modification made herein above, claimants are held entitled to following amounts under various heads: 1. Compensation on account of loss of income of deceased = 19,27,800 2. Loss of consortium to petitioner No.1 being wife = 40,000 3. Loss of estate = 15,000 4. Funeral expense = 15,000 Total = 19,97,800 15. Apportionment of amount of compensation shall be as under: Claimant No. 1 Rs.8,00,000 Claimant No.2 Rs.4,00,000 Claimant No.3 Rs.4,00,000 Claimant No.4 Rs.3,97,800 16. 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 5.7.2016 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, District Solan, H.P. camp at Nalagarh in M.A.C. Petition No. 27-NL/2 of 2012, is modified to the above extent only. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of. Interim directions, if any, are also vacated.