JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. The claimants are the petitioners, who aggrieved by the inadequacy of the award as passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IV, Kangra at Dharamshala, have filed the instant appeal for enhancement of compensation. 2. The facts are not in dispute. The claimants filed a claim petition on account of death of Arun Pathania, who was aged about 31 years at the time of accident and was working as Fireman in Indian Army earning Rs.13,204/- per month. On 1.7.2010, at about 7.45 A.M., the deceased was going as pillion rider on motorcycle No. RJ-19M-3829 from Jaiselmer City to his office at 26 Ammunition Company and when they reached near the road leading to place known as Baba-Babri on Jodhpur-Jaiselmer Road, a truck No. RJ-19GA-4510 came at a high speed and struck against the motorcycle from wrong side, resulting in death of Arun Pathania on the spot. 3. Since there is no dispute about the accident and even the liability to pay the compensation, therefore, the defendce of the Insurance Company, who alone contested the petition need not be adverted to save and except the Insurance Company in its reply took preliminary objections regarding the petition being not maintainable on the general grounds that the driver was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, and as such, there was violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the insured, who had handed over the vehicle to a person, who was not having any valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, no policy particulars were supplied to the Insurance Company either by the claimants or by the owner and driver of the truck and that the vehicle in question was being plied without valid route permit and fitness of registration certificate, therefore, it was not liable to pay any claim. 4. The learned Tribunal after recording the evidence and evaluating the same, vide award dated 11.4.2018 allowed the claim petition and held the claimants to be entitled to get compensation of Rs. 9,00,000/-along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition from respondent No.1-Insurance Company. 5. 4. The learned Tribunal after recording the evidence and evaluating the same, vide award dated 11.4.2018 allowed the claim petition and held the claimants to be entitled to get compensation of Rs. 9,00,000/-along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition from respondent No.1-Insurance Company. 5. Now, as regards the award of compensation, there can be no dispute that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is now required to be determined 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. 6. Why this case came to be referred to the Constitutional Bench, the answer is not difficult to find and the same is set out in para-1 of the judgment itself which 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." 7. 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. (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. (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. 8. 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. 9. 8. 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. 9. 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 Chandras 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. 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. 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. 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 10. Evidently, the judgment in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) has brought about radical and fundamental changes with regard to award of compensation. For this purpose, this Court would deal with the case by drawing a comparative table of the amount actually awarded by the learned Tribunal along with modified award. 11. It needs to be noticed that the claimants are in receipt of family pension and the same while assessing the compensation has been excluded from consideration by the learned Tribunal that too without any rhyme and reason and above all in contravention of the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Indira Srivastava and ors., (2008) 2 SCC 763 , wherein the term "income" was explained in the following manner:- "9. The term 'income' has different connotations for different purposes. A court of law, having regard to the change in societal conditions must consider the question not only having regard to pay packet the employee carries home at the end of the month but also other perks which are beneficial to the members of the entire family. Loss caused to the family on a death of a near and dear one can hardly be compensated on monetary terms. 10. Section 168 of the Act uses the word 'just compensation' which, in our opinion, should be assigned a broad meaning. We cannot, in determining the issue involved in the matter, lose sight of the fact that the private sector companies in place of introducing a pension scheme takes recourse to payment of contributory Provident Fund, Gratuity and other perks to attract the people who are efficient and hard working. Different offers made to an officer by the employer, same may be either for the benefit of the employee himself or for the benefit of the entire family. If some facilities are being provided whereby the entire family stands to benefit, the same, in our opinion, must be held to be relevant for the purpose of computation of total income on the basis whereof the amount of compensation payable for the death of the kith and kin of the applicants is required to be determined. If some facilities are being provided whereby the entire family stands to benefit, the same, in our opinion, must be held to be relevant for the purpose of computation of total income on the basis whereof the amount of compensation payable for the death of the kith and kin of the applicants is required to be determined. For the aforementioned purpose, we may notice the elements of pay, paid to the deceased : "BASIC: 63,400.00 CONVEYANCE ALLOWANCE : 12,000.00 RENT CO LEASE: 49,200.00 BONUS (35% OF BASIC) : 21,840.00 TOTAL : 1,45,440.00 In addition to above, his other entitlements were : Con. to PF 10% Basic Rs. 6,240/- (p.a.) LTA reimbursement Rs. 7,000/- (p.a.) Medical reimbursement Rs. 6,000/- (p.a.) Superannuation 15% of Basic Rs. 9,360/- (p.a.) Gratuity Cont.5.34% of Basic Rs. 3,332/- (p.a.) Medical Policy-self & Family @ Rs.55,000/- (p.a.) Education Scholarship @ Rs.500 Rs.12,000/- (p.a.) Payable to his two children Directly" 11. There are three basic features in the aforementioned statement which require our consideration : 1. Reimbursement of rent would be equivalent to HRA; 2. Bonus is payable as a part of salary; and 3. Contribution to the Provident Fund. 12. We may furthermore notice that apart therefrom, superannuation benefits, contributions towards gratuity, insurance of medical policy for self and family and education scholarship were beneficial to the members of the family." 12. That apart the learned Tribunal while assessing the compensation has not taken into consideration the tax component and in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case, the actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax as would be evident from para 59.3, as extracted above. 13. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it can conveniently be held that the monthly income of the deceased would work out to be Rs. Rs.13,204/- and since the deceased had a permanent job and was aged about 31 years at the time of accident, an addition of 50% of the actual salary would have to be taken towards future prospects and thus, his total monthly income would work out to be Rs. 19,806/- (Rs.13,204 + Rs.6602) and annual income to be Rs.2,37,672/- and after deduction of 10% income tax, annual income would work out to be Rs.2,30,672/- and thereafter, deduction @ 1/3rd towards his personal expenses (Rs. 76,890/-) will have to be taken. 19,806/- (Rs.13,204 + Rs.6602) and annual income to be Rs.2,37,672/- and after deduction of 10% income tax, annual income would work out to be Rs.2,30,672/- and thereafter, deduction @ 1/3rd towards his personal expenses (Rs. 76,890/-) will have to be taken. In this way, the claimants, after applying multiplier of 16 would be entitled to Rs.24,60,512/- (1,53,782 x 16) towards loss of contribution to family. 14. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company would argue that the conventional charges ought to have been awarded by the learned Tribunal to the claimants in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) and not in the manner as awarded in the impugned award. 15. Learned counsel for the claimants would contend that claimant No.3 is mother of the deceased, but she has not been awarded any compensation towards loss of filial as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chandu Ram & Ors, (2018) 11 Scale 263. 16. At this stage, learned counsel for the Insurance Company would dispute that the claimants are entitled to any excess amount other than the one fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case by placing strong reliance upon an unreported judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6020/2019, titled as Cholamandalma M/s General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Aarifa and ors., decided on 1.8.2019, more particularly, paras No. 1 and 2, which read as under: "The challenge to the order of the High Court enhancing compensation, as awarded by the Tribunal, is on the ground that it is far in excess of that to be paid in according with National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . We are not inclined to interfere with the assessment made by the High Court enhancing the monthly income of the deceased. But we do find that grant of future prospects had to be at 40% and not 50%. Likewise compensation under the non-conventional heads could not have been awarded in excess of Rs.70,00/-. Deduction for personal living expenses of the deceased in the facts of the case ought to have been at 1/4th." 17. It would be noticed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while passing the aforesaid order has not even remotely considered or dealt with Magma General Insurance Co. Deduction for personal living expenses of the deceased in the facts of the case ought to have been at 1/4th." 17. It would be noticed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while passing the aforesaid order has not even remotely considered or dealt with Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd.'s case (supra), wherein for the first time the Hon'ble Supreme Court has awarded compensation towards loss of filial and, therefore, reliance placed on Cholamandlam's case (supra) by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company to contend that the filial compensation cannot be awarded is totally misplaced and claimant No.1 being mother of the deceased, would be held entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of filial. 18. Learned counsel for the claimants has fairly conceded that instead of Rs.100,000/- each towards loss of consortium to claimants and Rs.24,000/- towards funeral charges, only a sum of Rs. Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- towards conventional heads, namely, loss to estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses would be admissible to the claimants in view of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra). 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the compensation that would eventually work out is as under:- Sr. No. Award passed by the Tribunal Modified Award by this Court 1. Loss of contribution: 36000x16 = Rs.5,76,000/- Rs. 24,60,512/-(1,53,782 x 16) towards loss of contribution. 2. Loss of consortium =Rs.1,00,000/-each i.e. Rs.3,00,000/-total. Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/-and Rs.15,000/-towards conventional heads, namely, loss to estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. 3. Charges for funeral and last rites = Rs.24,000/-. 5. Rs. 40,000/-towards loss of filial to claimant No.3 6. Total = Rs.9,00,000/- Total = Rs.25,70,512/- 20. As regards rate of interest and liability, since the same have not been questioned, therefore, warrant no interference. 21. The claimants have already received an amount of Rs.9,00,000/-, therefore, they would be entitled to the balance amount of compensation of Rs.16,70,512/-along with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 8.9.2010 till its realization to be apportioned amongst them as ordered by the learned Tribunal. 22. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the award, dated 11.4.2018 passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the above extent. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of. The parties are left to bear their own costs.