JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J —Since common questions of fact and law arise for consideration in all these appeals and cross objections, they were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The facts common in these cases are that a motor vehicle accident involving Jeep bearing registration No. HP-07A-2083 took place on 13.02.2005 at 8.30 p.m. at place Boh. Its occupants Tek Chand and Sewa Ram died on the spot. Though, the driver Tilak Ram initially survived, but thereafter he too died. Claim petitions came to be filed by the legal representatives/dependants of Tek Chand and Sewa Ram. 3. As regards, legal representative of deceased Sewa Ram, claim petition filed by her was registered as Claim Petition No. 45 of 2005 and vide award dated 08.08.2011, she was awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.4, 52, 000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit of the amount. 4. As regards deceased Tek Chand, the claim petition filed by his legal representatives was registered as Claim Petition No.49 of 2005 and an amount of Rs.2, 80, 000/- was awarded in their favour along with interest as aforesaid. The liability was fastened upon the driver and the State was held to vicariously liable and they in turn were jointly and severally held liable to pay the award amount constraining the driver to file two separate appeals which have been registered as FAOs No. 454 and 455 of 2011, respectively. 5. Questioning the inadequacy of compensation, the legal representatives of deceased Sewa Ram has filed appeal registered as FAO No. 390 of 2011, whereas, the legal representatives of Tak Chand have filed Cross Objections No.146 of 2013. 6. For the sake of convenience, I would first take up the appeals filed by the driver being FAOs No.454 and 455 of 2011. 7. It is not in dispute that Tilak Ram (since deceased) was the driver of the vehicle which met with an accident in which Tek Chand and Sewa Ram died. Therefore, the moot question is whether Tilak Ram was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner or was it a case of mechanical failure as alleged by him. 8. It is not in dispute that Tilak Ram (since deceased) was the driver of the vehicle which met with an accident in which Tek Chand and Sewa Ram died. Therefore, the moot question is whether Tilak Ram was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner or was it a case of mechanical failure as alleged by him. 8. In reply filed to the claim petition by the State of Himachal Pradesh and Assistant Engineer, I&PH, Sub Division, Sunni, it was admitted that the vehicle in question was being driven by Tilak Ram. It is also not in dispute that both Sewa Ram and Tek Chand were present in the vehicle at the time of accident. 9. Likewise, Tilak Ram in his reply admitted that both Sewa Ram and Tek Chand had accompanied him and the vehicle rolled down. While appearing as a witness RW-1 Tilak Ram admitted that he allowed Tek Chand, Sewa Ram and Bhagat Ram to board the vehicle. He admitted that Bhagat Ram had got down the vehicle prior to the accident and further admitted that both Sewa Ram and Tek Chand died in the accident. 10. To the similar effect are the statements of Baldev Ram RW-2 and RW-3 S.D.Sharma, who admitted that the driver had permitted the private persons to board the vehicle. 11. The specific defence put up by the driver Tilak Ram was that the accident had taken place not because of any rash and negligent act on his part, but due to mechanical defect. However, no mechanical expert was examined to prove this fact. 12. It is more than settled that the onus to prove that the accident was caused due to mechanical failure is indeed very heavy and has to be proved that the mechanical defect was such which could not be detected at the time when the vehicle was put on road. (Refer: HRTC versus Rajender Lal, 1985 ILR(HP) 865) . Neither the owner(s) nor the driver has averred regarding the fact that they had taken precaution to put the vehicle in road worthy condition and the defect was not discoverable by the use of reasonable care. 13. In such circumstances, the learned Tribunal below was right in applying res ipsa loquitur. After all, the vehicles simply do not roll down the road unless of course there is negligence of some person or there is a mechanical defect. 13. In such circumstances, the learned Tribunal below was right in applying res ipsa loquitur. After all, the vehicles simply do not roll down the road unless of course there is negligence of some person or there is a mechanical defect. Once, it is established that the vehicle was not having any mechanical defect, then obviously, the principle of res ipsa loquitur will have to be applied in the given facts and circumstances of the case and resultantly the Court has left with no other option, but to hold the driver Tilak Ram to be rash and negligent and it is on account of his act that the State has rightly been held to be jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in these appeals and accordingly both of them are dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application(s) , if any, also stand disposed of. 15. Now, adverting to the appeal i.e. FAO(MVA) No.390 of 2011 and Cross Objections No. 146 of 2013. I would, first, deal with the FAO(MVA) No. 390 of 2011 which has been preferred by the mother of the deceased Sewa Ram for enhancement of the compensation. It is not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 18 years at the date of accident and was alleged to be working as a mason and agriculturist and was thereby earning Rs.9.000/- per month. However, no proof in support of this claim was placed on record by the appellant herein constraining the learned Tribunal to assume his income to be Rs.3, 000/- per month and after taking and thereafter deducting 1/3rd of the income towards his personal expenses, the loss of dependency was worked to Rs.2, 000/- per month or Rs.24, 000/- per year. Then, applying the multiplier of 18, the total dependency was worked out to Rs.4, 32, 000/-. In addition to that the petitioner was held entitled for Rs.10, 000/- as loss of consortium, Rs.5, 000/- for loss of estate and Rs.5, 000/- towards funeral expenses and in this way the appellant-claimant was held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4, 52, 000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 16. In addition to that the petitioner was held entitled for Rs.10, 000/- as loss of consortium, Rs.5, 000/- for loss of estate and Rs.5, 000/- towards funeral expenses and in this way the appellant-claimant was held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4, 52, 000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 16. There can be no dispute that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is now required to be fixed in accordance with the decision of a Constitutional Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Pranay Sethi and others , (2017) ACJ 2700. 17. However, before understanding and applying the ratio of Pranay Sethi''s case , it would be necessary to advert to the Cross Objections which have been preferred by the legal representatives of deceased Tek Chand. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 19 years on the date of accident. Herein, also the plea was raised that the deceased was working as a mason and agriculturist and earning more than Rs.10, 000/- per month. However, in absence of proof, the learned Tribunal assumed his income to be Rs.3, 000/- per month. Since, the deceased was bachelor, the learned Tribunal deducted 50% of his income towards personal and living expenses and in this way the loss of dependency was worked out at Rs.1, 500/- per month or Rs.18, 000/- per year. On this, a multiplier of 15 was applied by the learned Tribunal and total compensation was worked to be Rs.2, 70, 000/-. On this, Rs.5, 000/- each was awarded under the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses and the claimants thus were held entitled to total compensation of Rs.2, 80, 000/- plus interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 18. Now, adverting to Pranay Sethi''s case , it would be necessary to first understand and appreciate why the matter in Pranay Sethi''s case came to be decided by the Constitution Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court. The answer is not difficult to find and the same is set out in para-1 of the judgment itself and reads thus:- "Perceiving cleavage of opinion between Reshma Kumari v.Madan Mohan , (2013) ACJ 1253 (SC) and Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh , (2013) ACJ 1403 (SC) , both three-Judge Bench decisions, a two - Judge Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa , (2015) 9 SCC 166 , thought it appropriate to refer the matter to a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement, and that is how the matters have been placed before us." 19. The conflict between the judgments as extracted above was resolved by concluding that the decision in Rajesh versus Rajbir Singh , (2013) ACJ 1403 (SC) was not a binding precedent as it had not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari versus Madan Mohan , (2013) ACJ 1253 (SC) . The Hon''ble Supreme Court after considering the entire conspectus of law arrived at the following conclusions:- "(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi, 2012 ACJ 1428 (SC) , 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, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) , 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, 2013 ACJ 1403 (SC) has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, 2013 ACJ 1253 (SC) , 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 and 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 and 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 and 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 and 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 and 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 and 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 paras 14 and 15 of Sarla Verma 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) , which we have reproduced hereinbefore. (vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) , read with para 21 of that judgment. (vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. (viii) Reasonable figures under conventional heads, namely, loss to 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 per cent in every three years." Conclusions (iii) to (viii) are relevant for the adjudication of these cases. 20. It is thus clear from the aforesaid that the compensation henceforth to be awarded in favour of the claimants is essentially to be abide by the aforesaid conclusions, more particularly, conclusions No.(iii) to (viii) which except for conclusions No.(v) and (vi) are self-speaking. 21. Now, as regards conclusions No. (v) and (vi) , it would be apposite to extract paragraphs No.14, 15 and 21 along with table as referred to in Sarla Verma and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another , (2009) ACJ 1298 (SC) which read thus:- "14. 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''s case, 1996 ACJ 831 (SC) , the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this 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 dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six. 15. 15. 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 parent/s 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 not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependant on the father. 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 family of the bachelor is large and dependant 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. 21. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependant 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. 21. 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, M-16 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." Age of the deceased Multiplier scale as envisaged in Susamma Thomas Multiplier scale as adopted in Trilok Chandra Multiplier scale in Trilok Chandra as clarified in Charlie Multiplier specified in second column in the Table in Second Schedule to MV Act Multiplier actually used in Second Schedule to MV Act (as seen from the quantum of compensation) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Up to 15 years - - - 15 20 15 to 20 years 16 18 18 16 19 21 to 25 years 15 17 18 17 18 26 to 30 years 14 16 17 18 17 31 to 35 years 13 15 16 17 16 36 to 40 years 12 14 15 16 15 41 to 45 years 11 13 14 15 14 46 to 50 years 10 12 13 13 12 51 to 55 years 9 11 11 11 10 56 to 60 years 8 10 9 8 8 61 to 65 years 6 8 7 5 6 Above to 65 years 5 5 5 5 5 22. Evidently, the judgment in Pranay Sethi''s case has brought about radical and fundamental changes with regard to award of compensation. Evidently, the judgment in Pranay Sethi''s case has brought about radical and fundamental changes with regard to award of compensation. For this purpose, this Court would deal with individual case by drawing a comparative table of the amount actually awarded by the learned Tribunal along with modified award. Comparative chart of award passed by the learned Tribunal as also by the High Court Cross Objections No. 146 of 2013 in FAO (MVA) No.454 of 2011. Sr.No. Award passed by the Tribunal Modified Award by this Court Details/Particulars Details/Particulars (i) Age of the deceased: 19 years (ii) Assumed salary plus future prospects: Rs.3, 000+0=Rs.3, 000/- Modified proved salary plus future prospects: Rs.3, 000+40%=1, 200=4, 200/ - Annual: Rs.4, 200x 12= Rs.50, 400/- (iii) After deduction of 50% of Rs.3, 000/- : Rs.1, 500/ - After deduction of 50% of Rs.50, 400 : Rs.25, 200/- (iv) Annual: Rs.1, 500x12=Rs.18, 000/ - (v) Multiplier of 15: Rs.18, 000x15=Rs.2, 70, 000/- Multiplier of 18: Rs.25, 200 x18 =Rs.4, 53, 600/- (vi) Plus Loss of consortium =Nil Plus Loss of consortium = Rs.40, 000/- (vii) Funeral expenses: Rs.5, 000/- Funeral expenses: Rs.15, 000/- (viii) Loss to estate : Rs.5, 000/- Loss to estate : Rs.15, 000/- (ix) Total Award: Rs.2, 80, 000/- plus interest Total Modified Award: Rs. 5,23, 600/- plus interest FAO(MVA) No.390 of 2011. Sr.No. Award passed by the Tribunal Modified Award by this Court Details/Particulars Details/Particulars (i) Age of the deceased: 18 years (ii) Assumed salary plus future prospects : Rs.3, 000/ - +0= Rs.3, 000/- Modified proved salary plus future prospects: Rs.3, 000+40%=1, 200=4, 200/ - Annual: Rs.4, 200x 12= Rs.50, 400/- (iii) After deduction of 1/3rd of Rs.3, 000/- : Rs.2000/- After deduction of 50% of Rs.50, 400/- : Rs.25, 200/- (iv) Annual: Rs.2, 000x12=Rs.24, 000/ - ---- (v) Multiplier of 18: Rs.24, 000 x18 =Rs.4, 32, 000/- Multiplier of 18: Rs.25, 200 x18 =Rs.4, 53, 600/- (vi) Plus Loss of consortium =Rs.1, 0, 000/- Plus Loss of consortium to widowed mother: Rs.40, 000/- (vii) Funeral expenses: Rs.5, 000/- Funeral expenses: Rs.15, 000/- (viii) Loss of estate: Rs.5, 000 Loss to estate : Rs.15, 000/- (ix) Total Award: Rs.4, 52, 000/- plus interest Total Modified Award: Rs. 5,23, 600/- plus interest 23. 5,23, 600/- plus interest 23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeals filed by the driver being FAOs (MVA) No.454 and 455 of 2011 are dismissed, whereas, Cross Objections No.146 of 2013 in FAO (MVA) No. 454 of 2011 and FAO (MVA) No.390 of 2011, preferred by the claimants, are allowed in the aforesaid terms and the claimants are held entitled to the award amount of Rs.5, 23, 600/- plus interest at the rate of 6% per annum, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application(s) , if any, shall also stand disposed of. Registry is directed to place a copy of this judgment on the files of connected matters.