JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal is directed against the award rendered by the Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-1, Kullu in M.A.C. Petition No. 29 of 2015, whereby, the learned Tribunal adjudged compensation vis-a-vis, the LRs of deceased Jagdev. A perusal of the postmortem report Ex.PW1/A, makes a visible disclosure, of the deceased suffering his demise, on account of hemorrhage, hemorrhage whereof, is ascribed to a motor vehicle accident. 2. The trite grounds raised by the appellants herein, for striving, to beget enhancement, of, apposite computation of compensation amount vis-a-vis them, is, grooved in the factum of the learned tribunal, untenably scoring off, the testification of PW-4, wherein, he voices (a) of the deceased rearing an income of Rs.1 lac per mensem, from agricultural pursuits, (b) wherefrom, the counsel for the appellants, espouses, that the learned tribunal hence has grossly erred in assessing the per mensem income, of the deceased, only, in a sum of Rs.6000/-, whereafter, the counsel contends, that it has resulted in gross under assessment, of, compensation amount vis-a-vis the claimants. 3. The aforesaid contention meted before this Court by the counsel for the appellants, obviously, has to suffer outright rejection, for the reasons (a), the bald testification of PW-4 unaccompanied by any receipts, making disclosures vis-a-vis the apposite sale proceeds accruing to the deceased, hence, being obviously unworthwhile nor warranting any imputation of any credence thereto. The learned tribunal had thereafter computed the notional per mensem income of the deceased, in a sum of Rs.6000/-, in computation(s) whereof, apparently hence there appears no gross infirmity, especially when there is no specific precise evidence vis-a-vis the precise income reared, by the deceased, from, his agricultural pursuits. 4. Now at, the legality of the learned tribunal rather applying upon the apposite annual dependency, a multiplier of 15, is to be adjudged. In making an adjudication with respect to the applicability of a multiplier of 15, by the learned tribunal vis-a-vis the apposite annual dependency, of, the deceased, an allusion to paragraph No.21, occurring in a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered in case tilted as Sarla Verma vs. DTC, reported in (2009)6 SCC 121 , is imperative, paragraph No.21 whereof is extracted hereinafter:- “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 21 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-15 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.” A reading of the apposite hereinabove extracted para 21 of Sarla Verma's case (supra), discloses, that upon a deceased, evidently falling within the age groups of 15 to 21 years, and, 21 to 25 years, thereupon multiplier of 18 being applicable vis-a-vis the figure of annual dependency, (i) and, when hereat at the stage contemporaneous to the accident, deceased Jagdev, as revealed by his postmortem report, was aged 21 years, hence a multiplier of 18, was enjoined, to be applied by the learned tribunal, upon, the figure of annual dependency, as aptly computed by it. Consequently, the non applying, by the learned tribunal, of the apposite multiplier of 18 vis-a-vis the figure, of annual dependency aptly computed by it, has resulted in under assessment of compensation vis-a-vis the claimants. 5. The deceased, is, in the postmortem report, reflected to be aged 21 years, at the relevant time. The learned counsel appearing, for the objectors/claimants, submits that, 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. 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. 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 selfemployed 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. 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. 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, hence, evidently rendered employment, in non government organization(s) or was self employed, as, is the deceased hereat, (a) thereupon, hikes or accretions, on anvil of future prospects vis-a-vis the apposite income drawn by him, at the time contemporaneous to the ill fated mishap, from his avocation, 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 21 years, at the relevant time, hence with the afore extracted paragraph, mandating, of, accretions, towards, future incremental prospects vis-a-vis the income drawn by the deceased, being pegged upto 40% thereof, also being tenably meteable vis-a-vis the apposite hereat notional income assessed in a sum of Rs.6,000/-. Consequently, after meteing 40% increase(s) vis-a-vis the apt notional assessed income, thereupon, the relevant last per mensem income of the deceased, is recoknable to be borne in a sum of Rs.8400/- [Rs.6000/- (notionally assessed per mensem income of the deceased)+Rs.2400/-(40% of the notionally assessed per mensem income of the deceased). Significantly, the deceased was a bachelor, hence, ½ deduction is to be visited upon a sum of Rs.8400/-, deducted amount whereof, is calculated at Rs.4200/- per mensem. Consequently, the annual dependency, including the incremental hikes, towards, future prospects, is, worked out, now at Rs.8400–Rs.4200= Rs.4200/-. In sequel whereto, the annual dependency, of the dependents, upon, the income of the deceased is computed, at Rs.4200x12= Rs.50,400/-. Thereupon, applying the apposite multiplier of 18, the total compensation amount, is assessed in a sum of Rs.50,400x 18=Rs.9,07,200/- (Rs. Nine lakhs, seven thousands and two hundred only). 6. However, the quantification, of compensation under other heads by the learned Tribunal vis-a-vis the claimants 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, and, funeral expenses being quantified only upto Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/-, and Rs.15,000/- respectively. Consequently, the award of the learned tribunal is interfered, to the extent aforesaid, of, its erroneously determining compensation, under, the aforesaid heads vis-a-vis the claimants. Accordingly, in addition to the aforesaid amount of Rs.9,07,200/-, the appellants, 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 appellants are entitled comes to Rs.09,07,200/- + 15,000/- + 40,000/- + 15,000/-= Rs.9,77,200/-(Rs. Nine lakhs, seventy seven thousands, two hundred only only). 7. For the foregoing reasons, the instant appeal is allowed and the impugned award, is, in the aforesaid manner, hence modified. Accordingly, the petitioners/appellants, are, held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.9,77,000/-, along with pending and future interest @7.5 %, 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. Compensation amount be apportioned, amongst the claimants/appellants No.1 and 2 in the ratio 40:60. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.