JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri. L. Sreekanta Rao, learned counsel for the insurer-appellant and perused the records. The claimants-respondent Nos. 1 to 3, driver & owner-respondents-3 & 4, though served, have remained un-represented. 2. The insurer has preferred this appeal, challenging the impugned Judgment and award dated 20.08.2015, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Additional Small Causes and Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru, in MVC No.1233/2012 on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. 3. The facts of the case are that on 29.10.2012 at about 11.00 a.m, the deceased Raju was traveling in the goods auto bearing registration No.KA-10-5929 was carrying the pipes along with driver Gururaj, the owner of the auto. When they came near MES National College junction, the driver of the car bearing registration No.KA-05-C-9735 came from left side of the goods auto, driven in a high speed, rash and negligent manner by its driver and dashed to the auto. As a result, the auto rolled down. Due to the impact, driver and owner of the auto sustained severe injuries. The owner of the auto died at the spot and driver succumbed to the injuries in K.S. Hospital, Mysuru. The claimant being the wife of deceased Raju has filed a claim petition under Section-166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, seeking compensation. 4. After service of notice, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle (car), appeared through their respective counsel but did not chose to file objections. However, the insurer has filed objections, denying the averments made in the claim petition. During the enquiry before the Tribunal, the claimants have established the occurrence of accident, actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the offending car and its insurance coverage with the 3rd respondent-appellant herein and the same has remained unchallenged either by the driver or by the owner of the vehicle. The challenge by the insurer, in this appeal, is only in respect of the quantum of compensation. 5. The Tribunal, after evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence has held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car and consequently awarded total compensation of Rs.12,27,400/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit under the following heads. Sl. No Headings Amount Rs. Sl. No Headings Amount Rs. 1 Loss of dependency 11,52,400 2 Loss of Consortium 50,000 3 Funeral expenses 25,000 Total 12,27,400 6. The learned counsel for the appellant made two fold submissions. Firstly, he contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in adding Rs.3000/- to the income of the deceased towards 'future prospects'. Secondly he submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in awarding compensation of Rs.75,000/- under other conventional heads viz., 'loss of consortium' and 'funeral expenses'. Drawing the attention of the Court to the judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi (AIR 2017 Supreme Court 5157) , he submitted that the total/maximum compensation payable under conventional heads, cannot exceed Rs.70,000/-. 7. Before adverting to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer, it is just and proper to refer to the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court, laid down in Pranay Sethi's case referred to supra, particularly, paragraph-61 (i) to (viii) of the judgment, which reads as here under : (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 ( AIR 2009 SC 3104 ), a judgment by a co- ordinate Bench. It is because a co- ordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another co-ordinate Bench. (ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari (AIR 2013 SC (Supp) 474), 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 the 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 the 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. 8. In the case on hand, the accident was of the year 2012 and the deceased Raju, the owner of the goods auto was aged 32 years at the time of accident. According to PW.2, the wife of the deceased, he was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. In the absence of any documentary evidence and established income, the Tribunal was justified in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.6000/- per month. Based on the judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of Rajesh & others -vs- Rajbir Singh and others (2013 ACJ 1403), the Tribunal added 50% to the income of the deceased towards 'future prospectus' to assess the compensation payable towards 'loss of dependency'. Based on the judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of Rajesh & others -vs- Rajbir Singh and others (2013 ACJ 1403), the Tribunal added 50% to the income of the deceased towards 'future prospectus' to assess the compensation payable towards 'loss of dependency'. At this stage, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case at paragraph 61 (iv) and since the deceased was aged 32 years at the time of the accident, 40% of the income is to be added to the actual income of the deceased towards future prospectus. Thus, the compensation payable to the claimants towards 'loss of dependency' would comes to Rs.6000+2400=8,400 -1/3 (2,800)=Rs.5600x12x16=10,75,200) as against Rs.11,52,400/- awarded by the Tribunal. Now its takes me to the next question as to whether the Tribunal was justified in awarding compensation of Rs.75,000/- towards 'loss of consortium' and 'funeral expenses'. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 61 (viii) of Pranay Sethi's case, the maximum/total compensation payable under conventional heads would be restricted to Rs.70,000/-. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal was not justified in awarding compensation of Rs.75,000/- under conventional heads. Thus, it would be just and proper to award compensation of Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads viz., Rs.40,000/- towards 'loss of consortium' Rs.15,000/- towards 'loss of estate' and Rs.15,000/- towards 'funeral expenses'. Thus, in all the claimants-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein are entitled to total compensation of Rs.11,45,200/- (Rupees eleven lakhs forty five thousand two hundred only) as against Rs.12,27,400/- awarded by the Tribunal. The reduction in compensation would come to Rs.82,200/- . Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. In modification of the impugned Judgment and award dated 20.08.2015, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the Additional Small Causes and Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru, in M.V.C. No.1229/2012, the compensation payable to the claimants is reduced from 12,27,400/- to Rs.11,45,200/- (Rupees eleven lakhs forty five thousand two hundred only). The reduced compensation comes to Rs.82,200/- (Rupees eighty two thousand two hundred only). The insurer-appellant herein shall deposit the entire compensation amount with accrued interest, before the concerned Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Judgment. The reduced compensation comes to Rs.82,200/- (Rupees eighty two thousand two hundred only). The insurer-appellant herein shall deposit the entire compensation amount with accrued interest, before the concerned Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Judgment. However, the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal, insofar as it relates to the rate of interest and apportionment is concerned, shall remain un- altered. The amount in deposit before this Court shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal. There shall be no order as to the costs, Office to draw the decree accordingly.