JUDGMENT : Sabina, J. Vide this order, above mentioned two appeals would be disposed of. 2. Claimants had filed claim petition, seeking compensation on account of death of Banwari Lal in a motor vehicle accident, which had occurred on 17.8.2014. Vide the impugned award, Tribunal has granted compensation to the claimants to the tune of Rs. 10,82,662/-. Hence, the appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company as well as claimants. 3. Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 189/- per day. Deceased was working as a Mason and in income was liable to be treated as Rs. 400/- per day. In support of his argument, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmidhar Nayak & Ors. v. Jugal Kishore Behera & Ors., MACD 2018 (1) (SC) 94. 4. Learned counsel for Insurance Company has submitted that it was a case of head on collusion. In fact, the deceased was also negligent at the time of the accident. Learned counsel has submitted that the compensation amount granted by the Tribunal was liable to be reduced and was liable to be calculated in terms of the decision of 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. 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, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. 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, 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 (1/5th) 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 not 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 not 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. 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, 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." x x x x "59. 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. x 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 not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not 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 not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, 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 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." 4. In the present case, the deceased was driving a motorcycle at the time of accident. (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." 4. In the present case, the deceased was driving a motorcycle at the time of accident. As per the evidence lead by the claimants deceased was driving motorcycle on his correct side of the road, whereas offending car (Wagon R) driven by Shridhar was coming from the opposite direction and by coming on the wrong side of the road, car driver had struck the car against the motorcycle driven by the deceased. Admittedly, the said fact is duly established from the site plan prepared by the police during investigation of the case. In these circumstances, the learned Tribunal had rightly held that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of Shridhar while driving the vehicle bearing No. RJ-14-CQ-5186. 5. It was the case of the claimants that the deceased was working as a Mason. However, there was no documentary evidence on record this regard. In these circumstances, learned Tribunal rightly calculated the income of the deceased on the basis of the minimum wages fixed by the State. Accident in the present case had occurred in August, 2014. As per the minimum wages fixed by the State, a daily wager was expected to earn Rs. 189 per day/Rs. 4914 per month. Thus, the income of the deceased is liable to be taken as Rs. 4,914/- per month. Keeping in view the number of claimants, 1/4th of the income of the deceased was liable to be deducted for his personal expenses. Deceased was aged 43 years at the time of accident. Hence, the relevant multiplier to work out the dependency of the claimants is 14. Thus, the dependency of the claimants comes to Rs. 3686 x 12 x 14 = 6,19,248/-. Claimants would be further entitled to receive an addition 25% of the said amount towards future prospects of the deceased and the said amount comes to Rs. 1,54,812/-. Claimants would be further entitled to receive Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs. 6,19,248/- + Rs. 1,54,812/- + Rs. 40,000/- + Rs. 15,000/- = Rs. 8,29,060/-. 6. 1,54,812/-. Claimants would be further entitled to receive Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs. 6,19,248/- + Rs. 1,54,812/- + Rs. 40,000/- + Rs. 15,000/- = Rs. 8,29,060/-. 6. Accordingly, the impugned award dated 17.10.2015 is modified to the extent that claimants would be entitled to receive Rs. 8,29,060/- by way of compensation instead of Rs. 10,82,662/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Remaining terms and conditions of the impugned award shall remain unchanged. 7. Consequently, appeal filed by the claimants bearing No. 932/2016 is dismissed, whereas appeal filed by the Insurance Company bearing No. 4713/2015 is allowed.