JUDGMENT : Ram Krishna Gautam, J. This first appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by claimant-appellant Smt. Rajaniya against Mohd. Iqbal and New India Insurance Company Limited against judgment and award dated 14.02.2003, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Kaushambi in Claim Petition No. 90 of 2011 in between Smt. Rajaniya and Mohd. Iqbal and another with this contention that Tribunal failed to appreciate the facts and law placed before it. 2. Deceased Ram Charan was doing job of Cobbler (Mochigiri) besides having agricultural land and income, hence he was earning Rs.3,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has conceded Rs.60/- per day amounting to Rs.18,00/- per month without any basics or reason. The Tribunal has disbelieved income of Rs.3,000/- per month of the deceased, which was proved by oral evidence on record. The Tribunal applied multiplier of 12 for the age of 40 years, whereas it should have been adopted multiplier of 16. Loss of future prospects of income of deceased was not taken into consideration. The Tribunal has not considered for consortium to wife of deceased nor the compensation towards funeral expenses. Loss of love and affection of the appellant has not been taken into consideration. The case laws furnished were not considered. The amount of compensation awarded i.e. Rs.1,72,800/- is quite low considering the age and nature of work of deceased. The interest awarded at the rate of Rs.6% was very low and insufficient. Hence, this appeal. 3. Heard learned counsel for both sides and gone through the impugned judgment. 4. Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 90 of 2001 was filed by Smt. Rajaniya, wife of deceased Ram Charan, against Mohd. Iqbal, owner of offending vehicle, and the New India Insurance Company Limited, insurer of the offending vehicle, in the Court of District Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaushambi with contention that deceased Ram Charan was a Cobbler doing work of Mochigiri; he was having agricultural land also with him and he was earning Rs.3,000/- per month; on 09.10.1998 at about 5.30 P.M. he was on his way by his bye-cycle to his home from Manjhanpur, when Jeep bearing No. UP-77/6777, owned by Mohd. Iqbal, being driven rashly and negligently coming from Saini towards Sirathu, dashed him. He was crushed by the above Jeep. Death was instant. Driver ran from the spot. Iqbal, being driven rashly and negligently coming from Saini towards Sirathu, dashed him. He was crushed by the above Jeep. Death was instant. Driver ran from the spot. Mubarak Hussain lodged report at Police Station Saini on the same day at 6.00 P.M. after the death of Ram Charan. The claimants left with no means of livelihood. Deceased had left his elder daughter Km. Rama aged about 19 years, younger daughter Nanki, aged about 15 years, son Jay Singh, aged about 17 years, hence a claim of Rs.10,05000/- along with interest was made. The written statement, paper No.19A of opposite party No. 1 Mohd. Iqbal, owner of the offending vehicle was of this effect that he was the registered owner of Jeep bearing No. UP-77/6777 and it was being driven by driver Maan Singh and the same was validly and effectively insured by New India Insurance Company Limited. Hence, liability, if any, was of Insurance Company concerned. 5. The written statement of Insurance Company was to this effect that claimant or owner of vehicle is to prove the facts mentioned by them, but the claim was excessive and driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence. 6. On the basis of pleadings, following issues were framed by Tribunal:- (i) Whether death of Ram Charan Singh, S/o Mahgu had occurred in an accident at 5.30 PM on 09.10.1998 near Ram Lal Ka Purwa within the area of Police Station Saini, District Kaushambi, caused by rash and negligent driving of the Jeep bearing Registration No. UP-77/6777? (ii) Whether Jeep was being driven by a driver having valid and effective driving licence at the time of above accident? (iii) Whether Jeep was validly and effectively insured by New India Insurance Company Limited? (iv) Whether claimants given in Para-7 of the petition were dependents of deceased Ram Charan? (v) Whether claimants are entitled to get compensation? If yes, how much and from whom? (Translation has been made by the Court itself) 7. The claimants examined PW-1 Mubarak Hussain, an eye witness account of this accident, PW-2 Rajaniya, wife of deceased. No oral evidence by defendants were adduced. (v) Whether claimants are entitled to get compensation? If yes, how much and from whom? (Translation has been made by the Court itself) 7. The claimants examined PW-1 Mubarak Hussain, an eye witness account of this accident, PW-2 Rajaniya, wife of deceased. No oral evidence by defendants were adduced. The documentary evidence, in the form of carbon copy of First Information Report paper No. 12C/2, which was registered at 18.05 PM on 09.10.1998 against driver of Jeep registration No. UP-77/6777 at Police Station Saini for an offence of rash and negligent driving of Jeep, causing death of deceased punishable under Sections 279, 304A, 427 I.P.C. Paper No. 12C/3 is the charge sheet filed by Investigating Officer as a result of investigation of above case crime number against Driver Maan Singh, S/o Krishna, R/o Chakia, Police Station Khakhreru, Fatehpur. The site plan of place of occurrence of accident Paper No. 13C/2 was prepared during the course of investigation of above case crime number. Paper No. 14C/1 is the inquest report of deceased Ram Charan having the mention that death occurred due to injuries received in roadside accident. Paper No. 14C/4 is the autopsy examination report, prepared by Dr. P.P. Singh of dead body of deceased Ram Charan, having mention that age of deceased was about 50 years, Paper No. 14C/6 is the insurance policy having mention that insurance was effective from 07.01.1998 to 06.01.1999 of Commander Jeep No. UP-77/6777 of registered owner Mohd. Iqbal, R/o 8/72 Panki House, Kanpur. Paper No. 14C/7 driving licence of Maan Singh for light motor vehicle effective from 13.08.1997 to 09.07.2005. The Tribunal decided the petition in favour of claimants thereby held the income at the rate of Rs.18,00/- per month with a dependency of claimants for Rs.1200/- per month. The multiplier was 12 given for age group 50 years thereby award was prepared for grant of compensation of Rs.1,72,800/- with interests of 6% per annum, against which this enhancement appeal. 8. In this appeal for enhancement of compensation, learned counsel for the claimant/appellant has argued that the assessment of income of the deceased ought to have been considered on the basis of his actual income which was Rs. 3,000/- per month. Further, the argument advanced is towards future prospects, loss of consortium, love & affection, loss of estate and funeral expenses, no amount has been awarded. 9. 3,000/- per month. Further, the argument advanced is towards future prospects, loss of consortium, love & affection, loss of estate and funeral expenses, no amount has been awarded. 9. The first argument advanced on behalf of the appellant is that applying the principles regarding assessment of annual income, as laid down by the Apex Court in Laxmi Devi & others v. Mohammad Tabbar & Another, (2008) 12 SCC 165 , the Tribunal ought to have considered Rs. 100/- per day or Rs. 3,000/- per month in the absence of any evidence, taking the deceased to be an unskilled labourer. Computing on the basis of this, the annual income figures out to be Rs. 36,000/-, whereas, Tribunal assessed it to be only Rs.14,400/- per annum and awarded compensation accordingly. 10. The next argument advanced is that towards the future prospects no compensation has been awarded, whereas, in the light of the judgment of Constitution Bench of Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 decided on 31.10.2017 in Civil Appeal No. 6961 of 2015, the compensation should have also been awarded towards future prospects. In the said judgment, learned counsel for the appellant argued that 10% has been prescribed towards future prospects considering the age of the victim, deceased. 11. Considering the first argument regarding income of the deceased, I find that assumption of income by Tribunal as Rs. 36,000/- of the deceased is in accordance with the principle of law laid down in Laxmi Devi (supra) in which Apex Court has upheld the decision of the High Court to take monthly income of Rs. 3,000/- considering the escalation of prices etc. Thus, in my opinion, in the present case also the monthly income should be taken as Rs. 3,000/- even though there was no evidence led to prove actual monthly income. 12. Now coming to the aspect of future prospects and claim of compensation in that head for those who are self employed. This issue is no more res integra. The Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) vide paras 56 and 57 has held thus: "56. The seminal issue is the fixation of future prospects in cases of deceased who is self-employed or on a fixed salary. Sarla Verma (supra) has carved out an exception permitting the claimants to bring materials on record to get the benefit of addition of future prospects. The seminal issue is the fixation of future prospects in cases of deceased who is self-employed or on a fixed salary. Sarla Verma (supra) has carved out an exception permitting the claimants to bring materials on record to get the benefit of addition of future prospects. It has not, per se, allowed any future prospects in respect of the said category. 57. 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. 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 in apposite. It is because the criterion of distinction between the two in that event would be certainty on the one hand and static ness 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 self-employed is bound to garner his resources and raise his charges/fees so that he can live with same facilities. Similarly, a person who is self-employed 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. 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." 13. Ultimately, the Court vide para 59 concluded thus: "59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:- 59.1. The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 421 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. 59.2. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench. 59.2. As Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh (supra) is not a binding precedent. 59.3. 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. 59.4. 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. 59.5. 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. 59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment. 59.7. The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. 59.8. 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." 14. 59.7. The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. 59.8. 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." 14. The above legal position has not been disputed and the compensation therefore, is to be awarded after its computation in terms of the judgment in Sarla Verma & Ors v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Reshma Kumari & others v. Madan Mohan & Anr, (2013) 9 SCC 65 in the light of observations made and directions issued by the Apex Court in Constitution Bench judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra). 15. Hence, considering the age of the deceased in the present case as per the findings of the Tribunal as 50 years, I am of the opinion that 10% of the income should be added towards future prospects. 16. For loss of consortium, love and affection also, some considerable amount ought to have been awarded. In Pranay Sethi (supra) the Constitution Bench vide para 52 held thus: "52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh. It has granted Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/- loss of consortium and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to Santosh Devi, it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that 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 principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads." 17. Accordingly, I direct that towards the loss of estate, loss of consortium, love & affection and funeral expenses, Rs. 5,000/-, Rs. 20,000/-, Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- respectively shall be paid as compensation. 18. On the point of deduction from income towards personal expenses also the law is almost settled by the Constitution Bench. Vide para 59.5, the Bench has approved paras 30 to 32 of the judgment in Sarla Verma (supra). Paras 30, 31 & 32 of the judgment in Sarla Verma (supra) runs as under: "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 (2003) 3 SLR (R) 601 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. 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." 19. For the purposes of case in hand, para 30 is relevant. The dependents are the wife (widow), two minor daughters and a minor son, therefore, 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses will be valid. 20. Accordingly a total compensation admissible to the claimants and payable to them is worked out as under: Notional Income Rs.3,000/- p.m. Rs.36,000/- p.a. Future Prospects 10% of Rs. 36,000/- Rs.3600/- Total Income Rs.39,600/- Deduction towards personal expenses 1/3rd of total income Rs.13,200/- Dependency 39,600-13,200 Rs.26,400/- Multiplier 12 21. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.1,72,800/- to Rs.3,61,800/- with simple interest at the rate of 7 % per cent per annum from the date of presentation of petition to the actual payment. 22. In view of the above, the appeal stands allowed. The compensation awarded to the claimants-appellant under the order of Tribunal is accordingly enhanced and award stands modified to the extent indicated herein-above.