JUDGMENT : Sabina, J. Vide this order above mentioned appeal filed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'Roadways') and cross-objections filed by the claimants shall be disposed of. 2. Devendra aged about 19 years had died in the motor vehicle accident. Claimants are the mother and two brothers of the deceased. Tribunal vide the impugned award has awarded Rs. 9,87,808/- as compensation to the claimants. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal by the Roadways as well as cross-objections by the claimants have been filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully. 4. A.W.2 Prakash Chand, while appearing in the witness box, deposed that on 12.5.2011 at about 1.45 p.m., he was travelling towards Sarwad. A motorcycle was being driven ahead of him on the left side of the road. In the meantime Roadways Bus bearing No. RJ-12-PA-0673 came from Sarwad side. The bus was being driven by the driver of the bus at a fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner and struck against motorcycle by coming on the wrong side of the road. As a result, Devender, who was the pillion rider of the motorcycle, suffered injuries and later succumbed to his injuries. 5. A perusal of the site plan also reveals that the bus driven by the bus driver had gone on the wrong side of the road and had caused the accident. In these circumstances, the learned Tribunal rightly placed reliance on the statement of A.W.2 in holding that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Roadways bus. Statement of Bhagwan, driver of the Roadways Bus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case fails to rebut the testimony of A.W.2. 6. The next question that arises for consideration is the quantum of compensation liable to be paid to the claimants. 7. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others AIR 2017 (SC) 4973 , wherein it was held as under:- "39. Before we proceed to analyse the principle for addition of future prospects, we think it seemly to clear the maze which is vividly reflectible from Sarla Verma, Reshma Kumari, Rajesh and Munna Lal Jain. Three aspects need to be clarified. Before we proceed to analyse the principle for addition of future prospects, we think it seemly to clear the maze which is vividly reflectible from Sarla Verma, Reshma Kumari, Rajesh and Munna Lal Jain. Three aspects need to be clarified. The first one pertains to deduction towards personal and living expenses. In paragraphs 30, 31 and 32, Sarla Verma lays down:- "30. 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 4, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this 37 (2003) 3 SLR (R) 601 31 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 dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six. 31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parents and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. 32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. 32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third." x x x x x "44. As far as the multiplier is concerned, the claims tribunal and the Courts shall be guided by Step 2 that finds place in paragraph 19 of Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of the said judgment. For the sake of completeness, paragraph 42 is extracted below :- "42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M- 13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years." x x x x "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 taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is 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 taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is 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 48 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." 8. In the present case, the income of the deceased has been assessed by the Tribunal as Rs. 4500/- per month. The deceased was doing labour work. The Tribunal rightly held that as the deceased was doing labour work he must have been earning at least Rs. 150/- per day. Hence, the learned Tribunal had rightly assessed income of the deceased as Rs. 4500/- per month. 9. 4500/- per month. The deceased was doing labour work. The Tribunal rightly held that as the deceased was doing labour work he must have been earning at least Rs. 150/- per day. Hence, the learned Tribunal had rightly assessed income of the deceased as Rs. 4500/- per month. 9. The deceased was a bachelor and claimants are his widowed mother and two brothers. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reproduced above dependency of the claimants was liable to be treated as 50% out of the income of the deceased. The learned Tribunal erred in treating dependency of the claimants as th out of the income of the deceased. Thus, dependency of the claimants works out to Rs. 2250/- per month. Multiplier of 18 has been rightly considered by the learned Tribunal while assessing the compensation amount. Thus, the compensation amount comes to Rs. 2250X18x12 = 4,86,000/-. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reproduced above, claimants are also entitled to receive an addition of 40% of the established income towards future prospects which comes to Rs. 1,94,400/-. Claimants would be further entitled to Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs. 4,86,000+1,94,400+15,000=6,95,400/-. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned Tribunal had erred in assessing the compensation at Rs. 9,87,808/-. Hence, the amount of compensation is reduced from Rs. 9,87,808/- (as awarded by the Tribunal) to Rs. 6,95,400/-. 11. Appeal and cross objections stand disposed of accordingly.