JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, National Insurance Company Ltd. as well as Mr. D.R. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1, 2 & 3. None appears for the respondent No. 4 despite due notice from this court. 2. By means of this appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the judgment and award dated 22.11.2016 delivered in T.S. (MAC) No. 111 of 2014 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, No. 4, West Tripura, Agartala has been challenged. The challenge in this appeal is based on a decision of the apex court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, AIR 2017 SC 5157 . The apex court in Pranay Sethi (supra) on overruling the decision of Rajesh and Others vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 54 and on restating the law as decided in Reshma Kumari and Others vs. Madan Mohan and Another, AIR 2013 SC (Supp) 474 has observed and enunciated as under: “57. Section 168 of the Act deals with the concept of “just compensation” and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standard because such determination can never be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect. The aim is to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical precision on the basis of materials brought on record in an individual case. The conception of “just compensation” has to be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non-violation of the principle of equitability. In a case of death, the legal heirs of the claimants cannot expect a windfall. Simultaneously, the compensation granted cannot be an apology for compensation. It cannot be a pittance. Though the discretion vested in the tribunal is quite wide, yet it is obligatory on the part of the tribunal to be guided by the expression, that is “just compensation.” The determination has to be on the foundation of evidence brought on record as regards the age and income of the deceased and thereafter the apposite multiplier to be applied. The formula relating to multiplier has been clearly stated in Sarla Verma (supra) and it has been approved in Reshma Kumari (supra). The age and income, as stated earlier, have to be established by adducing evidence. The formula relating to multiplier has been clearly stated in Sarla Verma (supra) and it has been approved in Reshma Kumari (supra). The age and income, as stated earlier, have to be established by adducing evidence. The tribunal and the Courts have to bear in mind that the basic principle lies in pragmatic computation which is in proximity to reality. It is a well accepted norm that money cannot substitute a life lost but an effort has to be made for grant of just compensation having uniformity of approach. There has to be a balance between the two extremes, that is, a windfall and the pittance, a bonanza and the modicum. In such an adjudication, the duty of the tribunal and the Courts is difficult and hence, an endeavour has been made by this Court for standardization which in its ambit includes addition of future prospects on the proven income at present. As far as future prospects are concerned, there has been standardization keeping in view the principle of certainty, stability and consistency. We approve the principle of “standardization” so that a specific and certain multiplicand is determined for applying the multiplier on the basis of age. 58. The seminal issue is the fixation of future prospects in cases of deceased who is self- employed or on a fixed salary. Sarla Verma (supra) has carved out an exception permitting the claimants to bring materials on record to get the benefit of addition of future prospects. It has not, per se, allowed any future prospects in respect of the said category. 59. Having bestowed our anxious consideration, we are disposed to think when we accept the principle of standardization, there is really no rationale not to apply the said principle to the self-employed or a person who is on a fixed salary. To follow the doctrine of actual income at the time of death and not to add any amount with regard to future prospects to the income for the purpose of determination of multiplicand would be unjust. The determination of income while computing compensation has to include future prospects so that the method will come within the ambit and sweep of just compensation as postulated under Section 168 of the Act. In case of a deceased who had held a permanent job with inbuilt grant of annual increment, there is an acceptable certainty. The determination of income while computing compensation has to include future prospects so that the method will come within the ambit and sweep of just compensation as postulated under Section 168 of the Act. In case of a deceased who had held a permanent job with inbuilt grant of annual increment, there is an acceptable certainty. But to state that the legal representatives of a deceased who was on a fixed salary would not be entitled to the benefit of future prospects for the purpose of computation of compensation would be inapposite. It is because the criterion of distinction between the two in that event would be certainty on the one hand and staticness on the other. One may perceive that the comparative measure is certainty on the one hand and uncertainty on the other but such a perception is fallacious. It is because the price rise does affect a self-employed person; and that apart there is always an incessant effort to enhance one's income for sustenance. The purchasing capacity of a salaried person on permanent job when increases because of grant of increments and pay revision or for some other change in service conditions, there is always a competing attitude in the private sector to enhance the salary to get better efficiency from the employees. Similarly, a person who is self-employed is bound to garner his resources and raise his charges/fees so that he can live with same facilities. To have the perception that he is likely to remain static and his income to remain stagnant is contrary to the fundamental concept of human attitude which always intends to live with dynamism and move and change with the time. Though it may seem appropriate that there cannot be certainty in addition of future prospects to the existing income unlike in the case of a person having a permanent job, yet the said perception does not really deserve acceptance. We are inclined to think that there can be some degree of difference as regards the percentage that is meant for or applied to in respect of the legal representatives who claim on behalf of the deceased who had a permanent job than a person who is self-employed or on a fixed salary. But not to apply the principle of standardization on the foundation of perceived lack of certainty would tantamount to remaining oblivious to the marrows of ground reality. But not to apply the principle of standardization on the foundation of perceived lack of certainty would tantamount to remaining oblivious to the marrows of ground reality. And, therefore, degree-test is imperative. Unless the degree-test is applied and left to the parties to adduce evidence to establish, it would be unfair and inequitable. The degree-test has to have the inbuilt concept of percentage. Taking into consideration the cumulative factors, namely, passage of time, the changing society, escalation of price, the change in price index, the human attitude to follow a particular pattern of life, etc. an addition of 40% of the established income of the deceased towards future prospects and where the deceased was below 40 years an addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years would be reasonable. 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 (supra) 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, AIR 2012 SC 2185 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 (supra), 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. 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 (supra) which we have reproduced hereinbefore. (vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma (supra) 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.” (Emphasis added) 3. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, based on the law as settled and recorded in Para-61 of Pranay Sethi (supra), has contended that the loss of future prospect shall be 25% in lieu of 30% as given by the tribunal. The funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate shall be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, based on the law as settled and recorded in Para-61 of Pranay Sethi (supra), has contended that the loss of future prospect shall be 25% in lieu of 30% as given by the tribunal. The funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate shall be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively from Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- 4. In terms of the order dated 17.05.2018, Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has produced a calculation sheet. It appears from that after adding 25% for loss of future prospect on the determined income of Rs. 9,000/- per month, the annual income of the deceased would be come to Rs. 9,000/- per month, the annual income of the deceased would be come to [Rs. 9,000/- x 25% = Rs. 2250 + Rs. 9,000/- = Rs. 11,250 x 12] Rs. 1,35,000/-. Now, multiplying Rs. 1,35,000/- by ‘13’ (the multiplier) it comes to Rs. 17,55,000/-. For determining the loss of income, there shall be a deduction of 1/3rd as his personal expenses from the said amount. Thus, the amount on account of loss of income comes to Rs. 11,70,000/-. With the said amount Rs. 85,000/- shall be added as the transportation cost which includes the airfare. Another sum of Rs. 92,127/- be added as the cost of the treatment of the victim. With that amount, funeral cost of Rs. 15,000/- loss of consortium for the claimant-respondent No. 1 Rs. 40,000/- be added and finally a sum of Rs. 15,000/- be added as the loss of estate. Thus, the total amount comes to Rs. 14,17,127/-. The appellant has deposited the entire award with interest in this Registry on 14.06.2017. The modified amount shall also carry interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 03.04.2014 till realization of the said award. 5. Mr. D.R. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 has fairly acceded to the submission made by Mr. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. However, he has expressed his grievance that the income was not properly assessed but the claimant-respondents did not prefer any appeal against the said determination. This court would not reopen the said determination in this appeal filed by the insurer inasmuch as, in the context of occupation, the said income appears reasonable. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. However, he has expressed his grievance that the income was not properly assessed but the claimant-respondents did not prefer any appeal against the said determination. This court would not reopen the said determination in this appeal filed by the insurer inasmuch as, in the context of occupation, the said income appears reasonable. The claimant-respondent No. 1 shall first get a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as a special damage on her and thereafter, the remainder of the amount shall be divided in 3[three] parts. The claimant-respondent No. 1 shall be allowed to take 50% from that share and the remaining 50% shall be deposited in a term deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of 5[five] years. The claimant-respondent No. 1 shall also be entitled to receive interest from the said term deposit. The share of the other claimant-respondents shall be initially kept in the term deposit in any nationalized bank till they attained the majority. Out of the said term deposit, the claimant-respondent No. 1 [their mother] shall be entitled to draw the interest on quarterly basis at her option. However, on their attaining majority, the term deposit shall be maintained for another 5[five] years of 50% of their share and the remaining 50% of their share shall be released to them for good upbringing and meet the challenges of life. Since the insurer has deposited the entire amount, after calculating the interest on the date of deposit on the basis of the modified compensation, if any amount is determined surplus, the said amount, shall be released to the appellant following the due process. 6. In terms of the above, this appeal stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. 7. There shall be no order as to costs. 8. A copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel for the parties.