JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Since both, FAO No. 201 of 2015, and, FAO No. 451 of 2015, respectively appertain, to, the, ill-fated mishap, hence involving the offending vehicle concerned, and, when the aggrieved therefrom, the, insurer whereupon whom, the, apposite indemnificatory liability stand fastened, rests, a, common contest qua therewith, in, both the afore appeals, thereupon, both the afore appeals, are, amenable, for, a common verdict being pronounced thereon. 2. In MAC petition No. 0100083 of 2011, wherefrom FAO No. 201 of 2015 has arisen, the learned MACT hence assessed, vis-a-vis, claimants compensation amount, borne in a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/-, and, thereon levied interest, at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of petition, till realization, and, along therewith imposed costs of Rs. 4,000/-, and, in MAC Petition No. 0100082, wherefrom FAO No. 451 of 2015 arisen, the learned MACT assessed, vis-a-vis, claimants compensation amount borne in the sums of Rs. 11,40,000/-, and, thereon levied interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of petition, till realization and along therewith imposed costs of Rs. 4,000/-, and, in both the afore MAC Petitions, the, apposite indemnificatory liability(ies), stood fastened, upon the insurer, of, the offending vehicle. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the insurer, has not projected any resistance, vis-a-vis, the validity, of, the findings, returned by the learned MACT, upon the issue, appertaining to the ill-fated mishap, being a sequel of negligence, on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, rather, the contest, in, both the afore FAOs, is centered upon, (a) with the Registration Certificate, appertaining to the offending vehicle concerned, and, as embodied, in the records of MAC petition No. 0100083 of 2011, as, Ext. R-1, and, in the records, of, MAC Petition No. 0100082,stands embodied, as, Ext. R-1, rather, making reflections, vis-a-vis, the offending vehicle being registered, as, a goods vehicle, (b) thereupon, unless, the deceased were evidently traveling therein, along with their goods, hence laden thereon, (c) thereupon, the, fastening of the apposite indemnificatory liability(s), upon, the insurer being grossly inapt. R-1, and, in the records, of, MAC Petition No. 0100082,stands embodied, as, Ext. R-1, rather, making reflections, vis-a-vis, the offending vehicle being registered, as, a goods vehicle, (b) thereupon, unless, the deceased were evidently traveling therein, along with their goods, hence laden thereon, (c) thereupon, the, fastening of the apposite indemnificatory liability(s), upon, the insurer being grossly inapt. He further contends that, though, the investigation report, as, borne in Mark 'B' in MAC petition No. 0100083 of 2011, and, as borne in Mark 'B' of MAC Petition No. 0100082, respectively, not making disclosures, vis-a-vis, the offending vehicle, at the relevant time, hence carrying any goods, (d) thereupon an inference, is sparked, vis-a-vis, the deceased in both the afore appeals, being aboard, upon, the offending vehicle, as, gratuitous passengers, and, hence, the, fastening of, the, indemnificatory liability, upon, the insurer, being legally frail. However, in making the afore submissions, the learned counsel for the insurer, is grossly unmindful, vis-avis, the recitals, borne in Ext. PW-1/B, and, in Ext. RW-1/C, and, also, vis-a-vis, the recitals borne in Ext. PW-1/C, existing, on, file of MAC petition No. 0100083 of 2011, all exhibit(s) whereof, rather make graphic echoings, vis-a-vis, (a) garlic bags, (b) and, furniture existing, on the relevant spot. Besides with, RW-2 in his deposition, making also echoings, vis-a-vis, the offending vehicle, at the relevant, time being laden, with furniture, owned by deceased Chhaya Ram, and, also qua garlic bags owned, by deceased Roop Lal, also being laden thereon, (c) and, with the afore echoings, borne in the afore exhibits, and, also with the afore testification, rendered by RW-2, rather remaining uneroded, (d) thereupon, the ensuing conclusion, therefrom, is, qua, the afore deceased Chhaya Ram, and, deceased Roop Lal, at the relevant time, being aboard the offending vehicle, not in the capacity, of, gratuitous passengers, rather, theirs travelling, therein alongwith the afore goods, (e) and, thereupon their LRs, on their demise, had a valid right, by respectively constituting claim petitions, for hence there-through, compensation being assessed, qua them, and, also, the, saddling of indemnificatory liability(ies) qua therewith, upon, the insurer of the offending vehicle, given, qua the offending vehicle, standing insured, with the insurance company concerned, being merit worthy. 4. FAO NO. 451 of 2015. 4. FAO NO. 451 of 2015. However, the learned tribunal, in not granting the requisite hikes or accretions towards future prospects, vis-avis, the per mensem income, of, the deceased, in 50% per centum rather has committed, a, gross legal fallacy, given the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, and, encapsulated in a case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) ACJ 2700, the relevant paragraph No.61, extracted hereinafter, hence, permitting, the, meteings, of, afore hikes:- "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. (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 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. 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. " thereupon, and, in consonance therewith the afore deceased Roop Lal, is entitled for meteing(s), of, 40% increase(s), in his apposite per mensem income, as, borne in a sum of Rs.5000/-, increases whereof, are, computed to stand borne, in a sum of Rs.7,000/-. Significantly, the number of dependents, of, the deceased, are, 4, hence, 1/4th deduction, is, to be visited, upon, a sum of Rs.7,000/-, hence, after making, the, aforesaid apt deduction, vis-a-vis, the afore sum, the per mensem dependency, hence comes to Rs. 5250/-. In sequel whereto, the annual dependency, of the dependents, upon, the income of the deceased, is computed, at Rs. 5250/- x 12=Rs.63,000/-. After applying thereto, the apposite multiplier of 16, thereupon, the total compensation amount, is assessed in a sum of Rs.63,000/- x 16=Rs.10,08,000/- (Rs. Ten lakhs, eight thousand only). 5. Furthermore, the quantification, of damages, by the learned Tribunal, vis-a-vis, the widow of the deceased, and, the other claimants (i) under the head, "loss of consortium", "Loss of love and affection", "loss of estate" and "funeral expenses" 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 vis-a-vis the widow of the deceased, 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 determining compensation, under, the aforesaid heads, vis-a-vis, the widow of the deceased, as also, vis-a-vis, the other claimants. Consequently, the award of the learned tribunal is interfered, to the extent aforesaid, of, its determining compensation, under, the aforesaid heads, vis-a-vis, the widow of the deceased, as also, vis-a-vis, the other claimants. Accordingly, in addition to the aforesaid amount of Rs.10,08,000/-, the claimants, are, entitled under conventional heads, namely, loss to estate, loss of consortium, only, vis-avis, the widow of the deceased, and, funeral expenses, sums of Rs.15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively, whereupon, the total compensation where to which, the respondents/claimants, are, entitled to, comes to Rs.10,08,000 + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.40,000/- + Rs.15,000/-= Rs.10,78,000/- (Rs. Ten Lakhs, seventy eight thousand only). 6. FAO No. 201 of 2015 However, the quantification, of damages, by the learned Tribunal, vis-a-vis, the widow of deceased, and, the claimants, in FAO No.201 of 2015, (i) under the head, "loss of consortium", "Loss of love and affection", "loss of estate" and "funeral expenses" 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 vis-a-vis the widow of the deceased, 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 determining compensation, under, the aforesaid heads vis-a-vis the widow of the deceased, as also, vis-a-vis the other claimants. Accordingly, in addition to the compensation amount, as adjudged by the learned tribunal, under the head "loss dependency", and, borne in a sum of Rs.25,38,984/-, the claimants, are, also entitled, under, conventional heads, namely, loss to estate, loss of consortium, only, vis-a-vis, the widow of the deceased, and, funeral expenses, sums of Rs.15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively, whereupon the total compensation wheretowhich the respondents/claimants are entitled comes to Rs.25,38,984/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.40,000/- + Rs.15,000/-= Rs.26,08,984/- (Rs. Twenty six lakhs, eight thousand, nine hundred eight four only). 7. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned awards, are, in the aforesaid manner, hence modified. Accordingly, the claimants/respondents No.1 to 4, in FAO No. 451 of 2015, are, held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.10,78,000/-(Rs. Twenty six lakhs, eight thousand, nine hundred eight four only). 7. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned awards, are, in the aforesaid manner, hence modified. Accordingly, the claimants/respondents No.1 to 4, in FAO No. 451 of 2015, are, held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.10,78,000/-(Rs. Ten Lakhs, seventy eight thousand only) along with interest @ 6%, from, the date of petition till the date, of, deposit, of the compensation amount, and, in FAO No. 201 of 2015, the claimants are held entitled to a total compensation amount of Rs.26,08,984/- (Rs. Twenty six lakhs, eight thousand, nine hundred eight four only) along with interest, at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition, till its realization. 8. The indemnificatory liability, vis-a-vis, the afore compensation amounts, in both the afore FAOs, shall be, vis-a-vis, insurer of the offending vehicle, i.e. appellant herein. The amount of interim compensation, if already awarded, be adjusted in the aforesaid compensation amount, at the time of final payment. The aforesaid amount of compensation, be apportioned, in the manner as ordered by the learned tribunal. The shares of the minor children, shall remain invested, in FDRs, upto, the stage of theirs attaining majority. However, interest accrued thereon, shall be releasable vis-a-vis their mother, only when she explains, of, its being required, for, the upkeep, and, benefit of her minor children. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.