JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. - These cross appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 27/9/2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (First), Jodhpur, ('the Tribunal'), whereby, the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 13,26,600/- along with interest @ 8.5% p.a. from the date of application i.e. 10/11/2009. 2. The application for compensation was filed by wife, parents and eight children of deceased Chutra Ram inter alia with the averments that on 10/11/2009 Chutra Ram was riding on his motorcycle when the offending bus being driven rashly and negligently by its driver Narendra Kumar came from behind and struck the motorcycle, resulting in grievous injuries to Chutra Ram to which he succumbed. It is claimed that the deceased was aged 30 years and was working with Jagnath Cotton Ginning & Pressing Pvt. Ltd. and used to earn Rs. 4,500/- per month. Based on the said averments, compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,47,000/- was claimed. 3. The owner, driver and power of attorney holder of the owner did not file any reply. 4. The Insurance Company filed its reply and denied all the averments for want of knowledge, however, accepted that on the date of accident the vehicle was insured with it. It was contended that the driver was not in possession of a valid and effective driving licence, the accident occurred on account of negligence of the deceased himself and it was prayed that the application for compensation be rejected. 5. The Tribunal framed four issues. On behalf of claimants, three witnesses were examined and 26 documents were exhibited. No evidence was produced by the Insurance Company. 6. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus. While assessing the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal determined the age of the deceased at 30 years, his income at Rs. 4,000/- per month, added 50% towards future prospects and on account of large number of dependents deducted 1/10th towards personal expenses and after applying the multiplier of 17, awarded compensation of Rs. 11,01,6,00/- towards loss of income, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses and in all awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 13,26,600/- with interest, as noticed above. 7. 11,01,6,00/- towards loss of income, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses and in all awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 13,26,600/- with interest, as noticed above. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company that the finding of the Tribunal pertaining to involvement of the vehicle has no basis. The FIR was lodged against an unknown vehicle and the Tribunal by merely relying on the result of police investigation has recorded the finding pertaining to involvement of the vehicle, which finding cannot be sustained, as the result of investigation by policy is merely an opinion of the investigating agency and is not a substantive piece of evidence. 8. Further submissions were made that the Tribunal committed error in assessing the amount of compensation by providing for 50% towards future prospects, deducting only 1/10th towards personal expenses and awarding huge amount towards loss of consortium, loss of love & affection to children and towards funeral expenses, which quantification is contrary to the judgments in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others. , (2017) AIR SC 5157 and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation , (2009) 6 SCC 121 , wherein, it has been laid down that future prospects for self employed person upto the age of 40 years can be 40%, the amount towards conventional heads can only be Rs. 70,000/- and that the minimum deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/6th and, therefore, the award deserves to be set aside/modified. 9. Learned counsel for the claimants, on the other hand, supported the award impugned insofar as the finding on involvement of the bus, deduction of 1/10th towards personal expenses and amount awarded towards conventional heads are concerned. However, it was submitted that the finding of the Tribunal pertaining to income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/- per month only instead of Rs. 4,500/- p.m. deserves to be modified based on the evidence available on record. It was submitted that the certificate of employer was produced, which could not have been partially accepted by the Tribunal and, therefore, the award deserves to be modified to the said extent. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 11. It was submitted that the certificate of employer was produced, which could not have been partially accepted by the Tribunal and, therefore, the award deserves to be modified to the said extent. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 11. So far as the challenge laid by the appellant Insurance Company to the involvement of insured vehicle is concerned, as already noticed hereinbefore, while the claimants led evidence in support of the claim, no evidence was led by the appellant Insurance Company. It is no doubt true that FIR was lodged against an unknown vehicle, however, the police after investigation, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred from the insured vehicle, which documents were produced and exhibited. P.W.1 Veera Ram appeared in the witness box as eye witness to the accident, who, though was related to the deceased, withstood the cross examination. In view of the above state of evidence pertaining to the accident in question, wherein, on the one hand the police investigation indicated involvement of the insured vehicle along with oral statements of Veera Ram, on the other hand there is no contrary evidence available on record, the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the insured vehicle. 12. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the issue now stands settled by the constitution bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi , wherein, it has been laid down as under: "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. 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 42 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." 13. (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." 13. So far as the issue of deduction is concerned, in Pranay Sethi it has been laid down that principles as laid down in the case of Sarla Verma need to be followed, wherein, it has been laid down as under: "Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six." 14. So far as the assessment of income of the deceased is concerned, it was the consistent case of the claimants that the deceased was working at Gujarat and was supporting a family consisting of his wife, 08 minor children and parents, besides himself. A certificate Ex.26 issued by the authorized signatory of Jagnath Cotton Ginning & Pressing Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot was placed on record indicating the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/- per month during 2008-2009 and for April, 2009 and May, 2009 it was indicated that he was paid Rs. 3,838/-per month as salary. The salary certificate, though is not very clear/speaking, it appears that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 4,500/- and after deduction he was paid Rs. 3,838/- per month for the months of April and May, 2009. The claimant Smt. Lachhi claimed monthly income of Rs. 7,000-Rs.8,000/- per month, while P.W.3 Bhai Khan, who claims to be a co-worker, claimed that the deceased was being paid Rs. 4,500/- as salary, besides overtime. 4,500/- and after deduction he was paid Rs. 3,838/- per month for the months of April and May, 2009. The claimant Smt. Lachhi claimed monthly income of Rs. 7,000-Rs.8,000/- per month, while P.W.3 Bhai Khan, who claims to be a co-worker, claimed that the deceased was being paid Rs. 4,500/- as salary, besides overtime. The very fact that the deceased was working far away from his residence in Jodhpur at Gujarat and was supporting a large family of 09 persons, even if parents are excluded, the claim of the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/- per month cannot be said to be excessive so as not to accept the same. The Tribunal, did not record any reason for not accepting the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/- p.m. 15. In view of the above, the income of the deceased is assessed at Rs. 4,500/- per month. On the said income, the claimants would be entitled to add future prospects at 40% in view of the principles laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi and so far as the amount under conventional heads is concerned, again in light of the case of Pranay Sethi, the claimants would be entitled to compensation to the extent of Rs. 70,000/- only. Coming to the issue of deduction, the principles laid down in the case of Sarla Verma are explicit, wherein, it has been laid down that where the number of dependent family members exceeds six, the deduction towards personal expenses can be 1/5th. 16. In view of the above, the claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Heads Rs. Loss of Income 4500 Add 40% future prospects +1800 6300 Less 1/5th towards personal expenses -1260 5040 Loss of Income = 5040 x 12 x 17 10,28,160/- Funeral expenses + other conventional heads 70,000/- Total 10,98,160/- Rounded off 11,00,000/- 17. In view of the above discussion, both the appeals are partly allowed and the award dated 27/1/2014 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that instead of a sum of Rs. 13,26,600/-, the claimants would now be entitled to compensation of Rs. 11,00,000/- along with interest, as ordered by the Tribunal, in proportion as indicated by the Tribunal. 18. 13,26,600/-, the claimants would now be entitled to compensation of Rs. 11,00,000/- along with interest, as ordered by the Tribunal, in proportion as indicated by the Tribunal. 18. The amount which has been placed in Fixed Deposit and by way of interim order dated 16/4/2014 has been ordered not to be encashed without leave of this Court, would follow the above direction. 19. No order as to costs.