JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Both the afore FAOs, are, instituted against the impugned award rendered by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ghumarwin, camp at Bilaspur, upon, MAC No. 13-2 of 2015, respectively by the insurer, and, the claimants, whereunder, compensation amount, borne in a sum of Rs.17,61,000/-, along with interest, at, the rate of 9% per annum, from, the date of institution of petition, till its final realization thereof, stood assessed, vis-a-vis, the claimants, and, the apposite indemnificatory liability thereof, stood fastened, upon, the insurer of the offending vehicle, and, where through, the afore respectively seek reduction, and, enhancement, of, the afore determined compensation amount. 2. Since, both the afore FAOs hence arise, from, a common verdict, hence, both are amenable for a common adjudication being meted thereon. 3. The learned counsel(s) appearing, for the insurer, in making, a, vehement submission before this Court, (a) that the amount of per mensem salary, of, the deceased, as, computed by the learned tribunal, in a sum of Rs.8,000/-, as, purportedly derived from his tea stall, and, also his serving food thereat to the customers, rather standing erroneously computed, has, depended, upon, Ex.PW4/C, (b) whereunder, rather a valid permission was granted to the deceased to only operationalise a tea stall, (c) and, thereupon, he contends that any serving of food thereat hence by the deceased, and, also any derivation of any income, from the afore sale(s) by the deceased, being discardable, (d) besides he further contends that for want of best documentary evidence, comprised in apt income tax returns filed by the deceased, the oral testification of the claimants, is, discardable, rather he contends that the apt module for making the relevant determination, was, in consonance with the apt per diem wages, derived by a skilled workman. 4. 4. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, this Court disconcurs, hence, with the afore submission addressed by the learned counsel for the insurer, (a) given Ex.PW4/C making a vivid display of the deceased operationalizing a tea stll, hence, his being self employed or his being an entrepreneur, thereupon, it being impermissible to construe him to be a skilled workman, (b) besides it also being impermissible to compute qua any derivation of income by him, from, his running a commercial establishment not constituting the apt parameter, for, making a determination, of his, per mensem salary therefrom, (c) nor it being permissible, obviously, in contradiction, vis-a-vis, the afore conclusion, of, his rather being an entrepreneur, hence compute his per diem wages, at par with the wages drawn, by a skilled workman. (d) Even though, the wife of the deceased was unable to place, on record, the apt income tax returns, in personification of the claimed income, derived by the deceased, from his operationalising a tea stall, and, also his thereat serving food to the apposite customers, (e) yet the afore omission also cannot dispel the vigour, of, her apt testification, wherein, she has voiced qua her deceased husband rather drawing the pleaded income, from his avocation, of, his operationalizing a tea stall, and also serving thereat food, to the customers thereof, (f), given rather the wherewithal(s) available with the insurer, to elicit, from the income tax department, the relevant income tax returns filed by the deceased, and, its visibly omitting to elicit the afore evidence, from, the quarter concerned, (g) rather with PW-6, the supplier of goods ,to the deceased, rendering an echoing in his examination-in-chief qua the deceased, daily prucahsing goods in a sum of Rs.1000 to Rs.1200/-, for his hence preparing food, to be served, to his customers, hence visiting his commercial establishment, testification whereof remain unscathed, of its vigour, (h) besides with PW-7, a helper engaged by the deceased, at, the afore commercial establishment, also testifying qua the deceased earning Rs. 2000/- to Rs.3000/- per day, and, his being defrayed wages comprised in a sum of Rs.4,000/- per mensem, (I) though, also stood crossexamined by the counsel for the insurer, for belying the afore factum, yet with his remaining unscathed in the afore ordeal, (j) and, when best evidence comprised, in the persons residing in proximity to the commercial establishment of the deceased, remained unexamined, whereas, they could befittingly testify qua PW-7, never standing employed by the deceased, at his commercial establishment, (k) thereupon, it is to be concluded qua the testifications of PW-6, and, PW-7 hence being amenable for credence being meted thereto. Consequently, even if, assumingly, the deceased after deducting all the requisite expenses, hence, was earning a sum of Rs.500/- per diem, from his commercial establishment, thereupon, it can safely be concluded qua his earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. 6. Since, Ex.PW4/C, makes a display of the deceased being an entrepreneur, and, his being self employed, and, with the rates of items served by him, at his establishment, obviously with the efflux of time, begetting escalation or hikes, (i) thereupon, with hence visible evident certainty of income, standing rather derived by the deceased, from, his operationalizing a tea stall, obviously rather surging forth, (ii) and, thereupon, necessarily concomitant accretions, vis-a-vis, his aforestated certain income, rather warrant(s) application thereon. 4. The deceased, is, in the postmortem report, is reflected, at the relevant time, to be hence aged 40 years, at the relevant time. With the Hon'ble Apex Court, in case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 , the relevant paragraph No.59 extracted hereinafter: “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. 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.” (p.2721-2722) expostulating (i) that where the deceased concerned, is rendering employment, in non government organization(s), and, with apparently, the deceased rearing, a, certain, and, settled income from his afore entrepreneurship,(a) thereupon, hikes or accretions, on anvil of future incremental prospects, vis-a-vis, the salary drawn by him, at the time contemporaneous, to, the ill fated mishap, from his employer, or, from his entrepreneurship being also meteable thereto. However, before applying the mandate of the aforesaid relevant paragraph, borne in the judgment supra, it is significant to also bear in mind, the age of the deceased, (ii) since the postmortem report reflects, the deceased being aged 32 years, at the relevant time, hence with the afore extracted paragraph, mandating, of, accretions towards future incremental prospects, vis-a-vis, the salary drawn by the deceased, being pegged upto 40% thereof, besides being tenably meteable vis-a-vis the apposite per mensem income. Consequently, after meteing 40% increase(s) vis-a-vis the apposite per mensem income of the deceased, thereupon, the relevant last per mensem income of the deceased, is, recoknable at Rs.21000/-, [Rs.15000(per mensem income salary of the deceased from his apposite avocation)+Rs.6000/-(40% of the apposite income). Significantly, the number of dependents, of, the deceased, are, three, hence, 1/3rd deduction is to be visited upon a sum of Rs.21,000/-, hence, after making apt aforesaid deduction vis-a-vis Rs.21,000/-, the per mensem dependency comes to Rs.14,000/-. In sequel whereto, the annual dependency, of the dependents, upon, the income of the deceased is computed, at Rs.14,000x12=Rs.1,68,000/-. After applying thereon the apposite multiplier of 16, the total compensation amount, is assessed in a sum of Rs.1,68,000x16=Rs.26,88,000/- (Rs. In sequel whereto, the annual dependency, of the dependents, upon, the income of the deceased is computed, at Rs.14,000x12=Rs.1,68,000/-. After applying thereon the apposite multiplier of 16, the total compensation amount, is assessed in a sum of Rs.1,68,000x16=Rs.26,88,000/- (Rs. Twenty six lacs, and, eighty eight thousand only). 7. However, the quantification, of damages, by the learned Tribunal in a sum of Rs.1 lacs vis-a-vis, the widow of deceased, (i) under the head, loss of estate, (ii) and quantification, of compensation, vis-a-vis, the off springs of the deceased, borne in a sum of Rs. one lakh, under the head, loss of love and affection, as also quantification of funeral charges borne in a sum of Rs.25,000/-, is (a) in, conflict with the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), (b) wherein, it has been expostulated, that reasonable figures, under conventional heads, namely, loss to estate, loss of consortium vis-a-vis the widow of the deceased, and, funeral expenses being quantified only upto Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/-, and Rs.15,000/- respectively, (iii) and, with no expostulation occurring therein vis-a-vis the compensation amount(s), being awardable, to the off springs of the deceased, especially under the head, “loss of love and affection”, hence reliefs in respect thereto being impermissibly granted. Consequently, the award of the learned tribunal is interfered, to the extent aforesaid, of, its determining compensation, under, the aforesaid heads, vis-a-vis, the widow of the deceased, as also, vis-a-vis the off springs. Accordingly, in addition to the aforesaid amount of Rs.26,88,000/-, the claimants, are, entitled under conventional heads, namely, loss to estate, loss of consortium, and, funeral expenses, sums of Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively, as such, the total compensation to which the petitioners are entitled comes to Rs.26,88,000 + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.40,000/- + Rs.15,000/-= Rs.27,58,000/-(Rs. Twenty seven lakhs, fifty eight thousands only). 8. For the foregoing reasons, both the afore appeals are partly allowed, and, the impugned award, is, in the aforesaid manner, hence modified. Accordingly, the petitioners, are, held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.27,58,000/-, along with pending and future interest @9 %, from, the date of petition till the date, of, deposit, of the compensation amount. The amount of interim compensation, if awarded, be adjusted in the aforesaid compensation amount, at the time of final payment. The aforesaid amount of compensation be apportioned amongst the claimants in, the manner, as ordered by the learned tribunal. The amount of interim compensation, if awarded, be adjusted in the aforesaid compensation amount, at the time of final payment. The aforesaid amount of compensation be apportioned amongst the claimants in, the manner, as ordered by the learned tribunal. The share of the minor child, shall remain invested, in FDRs, upto, the stage of his attaining majority. However, the interest accrued thereon, shall be releasable, vis-a-vis, his mother, only when she explains, of, its being required, for, the upkeep and benefit of her minor child. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.