JUDGMENT : Tashi Rabstan, J. 1. On the strength of case set up in the appeal, appellant-insurer has prayed for setting aside the impugned award dated 24th of February, 2016 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajouri, (for short 'the Tribunal'), mainly on the following grounds:- "I. That the award impugned is bad on the facts as well as all such principles and rules of the case. II. That the award has been determined on the higher side and not justified which was required to be passed by the learned Tribunal as just compensation in light of legal propositions and well established principles of law. III. That the alleged deceased was a bachelor, and only the mother, i.e., respondent No. 1 herein was required to be considered as dependent, so the deduction of 50% was required to be made on account of personal and living expenses from the actual income of the deceased as the dependency/contribution to the mother or parents was only to the extent of 50%, but the learned Tribunal while making the deduction on account of personal and living expenses failed to appreciate the guidelines and law as laid down in "Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.", therefore, the compensation towards loss of dependency is determined unjustly. IV. That the learned Tribunal has fallen in error by increasing the income of the deceased and should have not determined the compensation towards loss of dependency by increasing the income of the deceased on account of future prospects. V. That the learned Tribunal has committed an error by adopting the multiplier of 16 as per the age of deceased is not as per dictum of law as laid down by three Judges Bench of Apex Court in "New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Pathak" as well as in "U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Tarlok Chandra", and also various other judgments wherein it has been clearly held that the selection of multiplier cannot in all cases be solely dependent on the age of the deceased. VI. That the learned Tribunal has not deducted the income tax from the income of the deceased while calculating the compensation. VII. That the impugned award deserve to be set aside as Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded towards the loss of consortium which can only be awarded in case the victim is a married person. VIII. VI. That the learned Tribunal has not deducted the income tax from the income of the deceased while calculating the compensation. VII. That the impugned award deserve to be set aside as Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded towards the loss of consortium which can only be awarded in case the victim is a married person. VIII. That interest @ 7.5 per cent on the compensation has been awarded on the compensation for the entire period since date of institution when delay in finalization of the claim was attributed to the petitioners/claimants because a long period of two years was taken by them to produce the evidence." 2. The facts in a nutshell are that on 24th day of October, 2014, driver-respondent No. 5 herein, while driving the offending vehicle bearing registration No. JK02BD/6923 from Jammu towards Rajouri in a rash and negligent manner, lost the control over the vehicle when it reached at GRID Station Dhanwan Kote, and the said vehicle met with an accident due to which one Bopinder Kumar sustained grievous injuries. The said Bopinder Kumar was brought to District Hospital, Rajouri and thereafter referred to Government Medical College, Jammu for advanced treatment, where he succumbed to his injuries. The said vehicle was owned by one Monik Chand (respondent No. 6 herein). The age of the deceased was 24 years at the time of accident and at that relevant point of time he was serving as Constable in Jammu and Kashmir Police under Belt No. 1381/R and PID No. 119460 and was getting gross monthly salary of Rs. 17,854/-. In addition, it is also contended that the deceased also used to cultivate the landed property. In the claim petition before the Tribunal filed by the claimants, despite service effected upon the driver of the offending vehicle and its owner (respondents No. 5 & 6 herein), they had chosen not to appear before the Tribunal, therefore, were set ex-parte and it was only the Insurance Company who resisted the claim petition by filing the objections before the Tribunal. 3. The Tribunal after hearing the parties appeared before it and examining the evidence passed the award dated 24th of February, 2016 whereby claimants (respondents No. 1 to 4 herein) were held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 3. The Tribunal after hearing the parties appeared before it and examining the evidence passed the award dated 24th of February, 2016 whereby claimants (respondents No. 1 to 4 herein) were held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 33,72,240/- (Thirty three lacs seventy two thousand two hundred and forty only), along with interest @ 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. 4. Feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the same by filing the present appeal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions and gone through the records of the appeal. 6. Perusal of the claim petition is suggestive of the fact that the Tribunal had fixed the income of the deceased-Bopinder Kumar at Rs. 17,854/- per month. The future prospects were fixed at 30%, i.e., Rs. 17854 + 5356 = Rs. 23,210/-. Thereafter, deducting 1/4th of total income towards his personal expenses and by adopting the multiplier of 16, the Tribunal had granted the following compensation under different heads. S.No. Heading Amount in Rs. I. Loss of dependency Rs.33,42,240/- II. Loss of Consortium Rs.10,000/- III. Funeral Expenses Rs.10,000/- IV. Loss of Estate Rs.10,000/- Total:- Rs.33,72,240/- 7. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurer states that the Tribunal while passing the award has applied the higher multiplier. However, by following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. v, Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 and the decision of a Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case titled " 2018(1) JKJ 25 [SC] National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi", (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the legal position is that multiplier should depend on age of deceased and not on the age of dependents. It would be apt to reproduce relevant paragraphs No. 51 to 54 of Constitutional Bench Judgment rendered in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) hereunder verbatim:- "51. As far as multiplier or multiplicand is concerned, the same has been put to rest by the judgments of this Court. Para 3 of the Second Schedule also provides for General Damages in case of death. It is as follows:- "3. General Damages (in case of death): The following General Damages shall be payable in addition to compensation outlined above:- (i) Funeral expenses Rs. Para 3 of the Second Schedule also provides for General Damages in case of death. It is as follows:- "3. General Damages (in case of death): The following General Damages shall be payable in addition to compensation outlined above:- (i) Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000* (ii) Loss of Consortium, if beneficiary is the spouse Rs. 5,000* (iii) Loss of Estate Rs. 2,500* (iv) Medical Expenses actual expenses incurred before death supported by bills/vouchers but not exceeding Rs. 15,000* 52. On a perusal of various decisions of this Court, it is manifest that the Second Schedule has not been followed starting from the decision in Trilok Chandra (supra) and there has been no amendment to the same. The conventional damage amount needs to be appositely determined. As we notice, in different cases different amounts have been granted. A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was granted towards consortium in Rajesh. The justification for grant of consortium, as we find from Rajesh, is founded on the observation as we have reproduced hereinbefore. 53. On the aforesaid basis, the Court has revisited the practice of awarding compensation under conventional heads. 54. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh. It has granted Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/- loss of consortium and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to Santosh Devi, it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The Court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and Courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and Courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that 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 principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads." 8. Learned counsel for the appellant further states that the Tribunal while passing award ought to have deducted income tax from the salary of the deceased and that in a case of bachelor 50% has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, whereas in the instant case, 1/4th has been deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. The said contention requires consideration. 9. By taking Rs. 17,854/- as monthly income of the deceased, the annual dependency comes to Rs. 17,854 X 12 = 2,14,248/-. After deducting 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased, the income will be Rs. 1,07,124/-, to this 50% has to be added as future prospects and that will be Rs. 1,07,124 + 53,562 = 1,60,686/-. By adopting the multiplier of 18, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 1,60,686 X 18 = Rs. 28,92,348/- (Twenty eight lakhs ninety two thousand three hundred forty eight only). In addition to it, as per the decision rendered in Pranay Sethi's case, the claimants will also be entitled to Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- as loss of estate. 10. In view of the above, the award of the Tribunal is modified as under;- S. No. Heading Award of the Tribunal Modified Award 1. Loss of Dependency Rs.33,42,240/- Rs.28,92,348/- 2. Loss of Consortium Rs.15,000/- Deleted 3. For Funeral Expenses Rs.10,000/- Rs.15,000/- 4. For Loss of Estate Rs.10,000/- Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.29,22,348/- 11. 15,000/- as loss of estate. 10. In view of the above, the award of the Tribunal is modified as under;- S. No. Heading Award of the Tribunal Modified Award 1. Loss of Dependency Rs.33,42,240/- Rs.28,92,348/- 2. Loss of Consortium Rs.15,000/- Deleted 3. For Funeral Expenses Rs.10,000/- Rs.15,000/- 4. For Loss of Estate Rs.10,000/- Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.29,22,348/- 11. The interest granted by the Tribunal @ 7.5% is confirmed. 12. The claimants are entitled to withdraw the modified amount as mentioned above minus the amount already released and the Registry shall release the same after proper verification/identification of the claimants. Appellant-Insurance Company is at liberty to withdraw the excess amount deposited by it before the Registry. 13. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed, partly.