JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The Insurer of the offending vehicle, whereupon whom, the apposite indemnificatory liability, vis-a-vis, the compensation amount, stood fastened, is, aggrieved by the pronouncement, made, by the learned Motor Accident Claim’s Tribunal-II, Mandi, H.P., upon, Claim Petition No. 47 of 2011, (i) where through, compensation amount, comprised, in, a sum of Rs.3,68,500/- alongwith interest accrued thereon, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, and, commencing from, the date of petition till realization thereof, stood assessed, vis-a-vis, the disabled claimant, and, the apposite indemnificatory liability thereof, was, fastened, upon, the insurer/appellant herein. On the other hand, the respondent No.1/cross objector also reared cross-objections, bearing CO No. 32 of 2015, against, the impugned award, wherethrough, he seeks enhancement of compensation amount, in a sum, higher, than, the one assessed qua him, under, the impugned award. 2. The learned counsel, appearing for the aggrieved insurer, does not, contest the validity, of, rendition, of, affirmative findings, upon, the issue appertaining, to, the ill-fated mishap, being a sequel of rash, and, negligent manner, of, driving, of, the offending vehicle, by, respondent No.3 herein. However, his centralized focus, for, his making an onslaught, vis-a-vis, the impugned ward, is, anchored upon, though, the vehicle, as borne, from the apposite registration certificate, embodied in Ex.RW1/B, being categorised, as, a, light goods vehicle, (i) whereas, the driving licence, held, at the relevant time, by respondent No.3 herein, borne in Ex.RW2/A, though, authorised him to drive vehicles carrying, the, classification of "light motor vehicle", and, "light transport vehicle", yet when there is no specific, and, explicit pronouncement, in, Ex. RW2/A, vis-a-vis, respondent No.3 herein, being also authorised to drive, the, offending vehicle, (ii) thereupon, Ex.RW2/A being not construable to be a valid, and, effective driving licence, for, hence, authorising respondent No.3 herein, to, drive the offending vehicle, at the relevant time, (iii) and, has also contended, that, the fastening, of, the apposite indemnificatory liability, upon, the appellant, does also, suffer from, a, fallibility. 3. 3. However, the afore contention, is, per se, ridden, with a gross fallacy, as, a bare scanning, of, Ex.RW2/A, (a) makes, clear revelations qua their occurring, a specific, and, explicit echoing, vis-a-vis, respondent No.3 herein, being authorised to drive, a, "light motor vehicle", and, a "light motor vehicle transport", (b) and, the afore echoings dehors, any further explicit echoing carried therein, vis-a-vis, respondent No.3 herein being authorised to drive a light transport vehicle, rather is sufficient, and, abundant, to constrain this Court, to, conclude qua the respondent No.3 herein, rather holding, an, authorization, through, Ex.RW2/A, to, drive, the, offending vehicle. 4. Be that as it may, the learned counsel appearing for the insurer, has proceeded, to, make a contention before this Court, that, with the report, of, the FSL, bone in Ex. Rx, making, a, pronouncement, vis-a-vis, alcohol being detected in the blood, and, urine samples, of, respondent No.3 herein, (a) and, with the contract of insurance rather barring him to drive the offending vehicle, under, the influence of liquor, (b) whereas, his, at, the relevant time, driving it, in, an intoxicated condition, (b) hence, therethroughs, upon breach of the requisite fundamental condition, borne in the contract, of, insurance, being sparked, hence, the apposite indemnificatory liability, vis-a-vis, compensation amount, being not saddleable, upon, the insurer of the offending vehicle. However, the afore submission, is, rudderless, (c) as, the apposite MLC, occurring at page 102, of, the records of the learned tribunal, makes vivid echoings qua, though, the doctor concerned, at time of his subjecting, respondent No.3 herein, to medical examination, opining qua respondent No.3 consuming alcohol, (d) yet the doctor concerned, also has made further echoings therein qua his being not under, the, influence of liquor, (e) thereupon, the relevant tests for determining qua the ill-fated mishap being sequelled, by, the, gross inebriated condition, of, respondent No.3 herein, rather not holding any sway, for, making any conclusion qua it, constituting the preeminent cause, for, the ill-fated mishap hence being happened, (f) nor also Ex. Rx carries any relevance, vis-a-vis, the afore facet, as it is merely a photo copy of the original, and, further when the author thereof, has not stepped into the witness box, for, proving its contents, (g) and, further with the apt road certificate, being not adduced, into evidence, as also the person, who has carried, the, afore urine, and, blood samples, to the FSL concerned, also not stepping into witness box, for hence this Court, being coaxed, to draw a conclusion, qua dehors Ex. Rx, being, a, photo copy of the original, also with its author, not, stepping into the witness box, it, yet holding an aura of formidability, (h) sequelly, the non stepping into the witness box of the person, who carried, under, the apt road certificate, the blood, and, urine sample, of, respondent No.3 herein, to, FSL concerned, constrains this Court to conclude, that, the blood, and, urine samples, whereon, opinions borne in Ex. Rx, stood rendered, by the FSL concerned, being not, the blood, and, urine sample, of, respondent No.3 herein. Consequently, there is no fundamental breach, of, the terms, and, conditions of the contract of insurance, and, the fastening of the apposite indemnificatory liability, upon the aggrieved insurance, is both apt, and, tenable. 5. The learned tribunal while concluding, that, the disabled claimant, from, his proven avocation, of, a mechanic drawing minimum wages, comprised in a sum of Rs.200/-, per diem, yet with the disability certificate borne in Ex.PW5/A, making portrayals, vis-a-vis, disability, to, the extent of 25% being entailed, upon, the disabled claimant, hence, it, calculated the loss of income, vis-a-vis, deceased, in,25%, vis-a-vis, the per mensem salary, borne in a sum of Rs.6000/-, from, his avocation, of, a mechanic. However, the learned counsel appearing, for, the cross-objections/disabled claimant, had, upon leave, being granted to him, for, proving the pleaded fact, qua, a further disability, of, fracture, of, proximal phalanx of right index finger, and, middle finger, with, stiffness, and, pain of right shoulder, and, fingers, also being encumbered, upon, the disabled claimant, (a) also with the cross-objector casting an averment, vis-a-vis, the afore disability hence holding, a direct, nexus with the injury, initially entailed, upon, his person, in sequel, to, the ill-fated mishap, (b) and, upon, availing the afore leave, his ensuring proof of Ex. AW1/A, wherein, the afore reflections are existing, (c) and, the requisite proof qua therewith standing adduced, by its author one Dr. Devinder Kumar Sharma, (e) and, with AW-1 Dr. Devinder Kumar Sharma, during, the course of his testification making a loud pronouncement, vis-a-vis, the afore reflections existing in Ex.AW1/A, rather holding, a direct, and, close nexus, with the injuries initially encumbered, upon, the disabled claimant, in the ill-fated mishap, (f) hence, involving the offending vehicle, (g) and, when the afore echoings, are construed along with the factum, of, prior thereto, the, disabled claimant performing the avocation, of, a mechanic, and, also when, for, his ably performing, the, callings of his avocation, as, a mechanic, hence, he, was enjoined to hold, the, facile movements of the afore requisite limbs, of, his body, (h) whereas, the afore limbs begetting disempowerments, (i) thereupon, he obviously is rendered permanently incapacitated, to, efficiently perform, the, callings, of, his hitherto avocation, as, a mechanic. Even though this court, was enjoined to, vis-a-vis, the afore factum probandum, ask the learned tribunal, to, make the apposite determination, yet, for precluding, the, procrastination of trial of the lis, and, also with the afore evident fact, rather existing in the testimony of AW-1, (j) thereupon, without remanding the lis, vis-a-vis, the afore factum, hence to the learned tribunal, this, court concludes, that, with a cent per centum, disability being encumbered, upon, the disabled claimant, hence, the takings into account, only 25% per centum of the per mensem wages of the disabled claimant, for computing, the, compensation, vis-a-vis, him, rather by the learned tribunal, is, an unbefitting endeavour, rather he is entitled, to, compensation, vis-a-vis, the fullest proportion, of, his per mensem salary. Furthermore, the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in a case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) ACJ 2700, the relevant paragraph No.61, extracted hereinafter: "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. 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. (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. " hence, permitting, vis-a-vis, the afore perennial loss, of, income, as, evidently visited, upon, a, disabled claimant, to, hence, mete accretions or escalations, vis-a-vis, the, afore hitherto per mensem income of the disabled claimant, as, borne in a sum of Rs.6000/-. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. " hence, permitting, vis-a-vis, the afore perennial loss, of, income, as, evidently visited, upon, a, disabled claimant, to, hence, mete accretions or escalations, vis-a-vis, the, afore hitherto per mensem income of the disabled claimant, as, borne in a sum of Rs.6000/-. Consequently, in, consonance therewith, the disabled claimant, being aged 31 years, at the time, of, happening, of, the ill-fated mishap, hence, is entitled, for,40% increase, in his apposite per mensem income, borne, in a sum of Rs.6000/- ( Rs.200/-x 30 days), increases whereof, are, computed to stand borne in a sum, of, Rs.84,00/-. In sequel whereto, the loss of annual income, of the disabled claimant, upon, his income, is computed, at Rs.8400/- x 12 = Rs.1,00,800/-. After applying thereto, the apposite multiplier of 17, the total compensation amount, is assessed in a sum of Rs.1,00,800/- x 17 = Rs.17,13,600/- (Rs. Seventeen lakh, thirteen thousand, six hundred only). In addition, to the afore amount, the disabled claimant is also held entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- under the head "pain and suffering", and, Rs.37,500/- under head "medical charges", as already adjudged by the learned tribunal. 6. XXX XXX XXX 7. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the insurer is dismissed, whereas, the cross-objections instituted by the disabled claimant/cross-objections, are allowed, and, the impugned award, in, the afore manner, hence, is modified. Consequently, the disabled claimant, is, held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.17,76,100/- (Rs. Seventeen lakh, seventy six thousand, and, one hundred only) alongwith interest accrued thereon, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, and, commencing from, the date of petition till realization thereof. The amount of interim compensation, if awarded, be adjusted in the aforesaid compensation amount, at the time of final payment. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith. The amount of interim compensation, if awarded, be adjusted in the aforesaid compensation amount, at the time of final payment. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith. JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The Insurer of the offending vehicle, whereupon whom, the apposite indemnificatory liability, vis-a-vis, the compensation amount, stood fastened, is, aggrieved by the pronouncement, made, by the learned Motor Accident Claim’s Tribunal-II, Mandi, H.P., upon, Claim Petition No. 47 of 2011, (i) where through, compensation amount, comprised, in, a sum of Rs.3,68,500/- alongwith interest accrued thereon, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, and, commencing from, the date of petition till realization thereof, stood assessed, vis-a-vis, the disabled claimant, and, the apposite indemnificatory liability thereof, was, fastened, upon, the insurer/appellant herein. On the other hand, the respondent No.1/cross objector also reared cross-objections, bearing CO No. 32 of 2015, against, the impugned award, wherethrough, he seeks enhancement of compensation amount, in a sum, higher, than, the one assessed qua him, under, the impugned award. 2. The learned counsel, appearing for the aggrieved insurer, does not, contest the validity, of, rendition, of, affirmative findings, upon, the issue appertaining, to, the ill-fated mishap, being a sequel of rash, and, negligent manner, of, driving, of, the offending vehicle, by, respondent No.3 herein. However, his centralized focus, for, his making an onslaught, vis-a-vis, the impugned ward, is, anchored upon, though, the vehicle, as borne, from the apposite registration certificate, embodied in Ex.RW1/B, being categorised, as, a, light goods vehicle, (i) whereas, the driving licence, held, at the relevant time, by respondent No.3 herein, borne in Ex.RW2/A, though, authorised him to drive vehicles carrying, the, classification of "light motor vehicle", and, "light transport vehicle", yet when there is no specific, and, explicit pronouncement, in, Ex. RW2/A, vis-a-vis, respondent No.3 herein, being also authorised to drive, the, offending vehicle, (ii) thereupon, Ex.RW2/A being not construable to be a valid, and, effective driving licence, for, hence, authorising respondent No.3 herein, to, drive the offending vehicle, at the relevant time, (iii) and, has also contended, that, the fastening, of, the apposite indemnificatory liability, upon, the appellant, does also, suffer from, a, fallibility. 3. 3. However, the afore contention, is, per se, ridden, with a gross fallacy, as, a bare scanning, of, Ex.RW2/A, (a) makes, clear revelations qua their occurring, a specific, and, explicit echoing, vis-a-vis, respondent No.3 herein, being authorised to drive, a, "light motor vehicle", and, a "light motor vehicle transport", (b) and, the afore echoings dehors, any further explicit echoing carried therein, vis-a-vis, respondent No.3 herein being authorised to drive a light transport vehicle, rather is sufficient, and, abundant, to constrain this Court, to, conclude qua the respondent No.3 herein, rather holding, an, authorization, through, Ex.RW2/A, to, drive, the, offending vehicle. 4. Be that as it may, the learned counsel appearing for the insurer, has proceeded, to, make a contention before this Court, that, with the report, of, the FSL, bone in Ex. Rx, making, a, pronouncement, vis-a-vis, alcohol being detected in the blood, and, urine samples, of, respondent No.3 herein, (a) and, with the contract of insurance rather barring him to drive the offending vehicle, under, the influence of liquor, (b) whereas, his, at, the relevant time, driving it, in, an intoxicated condition, (b) hence, therethroughs, upon breach of the requisite fundamental condition, borne in the contract, of, insurance, being sparked, hence, the apposite indemnificatory liability, vis-a-vis, compensation amount, being not saddleable, upon, the insurer of the offending vehicle. However, the afore submission, is, rudderless, (c) as, the apposite MLC, occurring at page 102, of, the records of the learned tribunal, makes vivid echoings qua, though, the doctor concerned, at time of his subjecting, respondent No.3 herein, to medical examination, opining qua respondent No.3 consuming alcohol, (d) yet the doctor concerned, also has made further echoings therein qua his being not under, the, influence of liquor, (e) thereupon, the relevant tests for determining qua the ill-fated mishap being sequelled, by, the, gross inebriated condition, of, respondent No.3 herein, rather not holding any sway, for, making any conclusion qua it, constituting the preeminent cause, for, the ill-fated mishap hence being happened, (f) nor also Ex. Rx carries any relevance, vis-a-vis, the afore facet, as it is merely a photo copy of the original, and, further when the author thereof, has not stepped into the witness box, for, proving its contents, (g) and, further with the apt road certificate, being not adduced, into evidence, as also the person, who has carried, the, afore urine, and, blood samples, to the FSL concerned, also not stepping into witness box, for hence this Court, being coaxed, to draw a conclusion, qua dehors Ex. Rx, being, a, photo copy of the original, also with its author, not, stepping into the witness box, it, yet holding an aura of formidability, (h) sequelly, the non stepping into the witness box of the person, who carried, under, the apt road certificate, the blood, and, urine sample, of, respondent No.3 herein, to, FSL concerned, constrains this Court to conclude, that, the blood, and, urine samples, whereon, opinions borne in Ex. Rx, stood rendered, by the FSL concerned, being not, the blood, and, urine sample, of, respondent No.3 herein. Consequently, there is no fundamental breach, of, the terms, and, conditions of the contract of insurance, and, the fastening of the apposite indemnificatory liability, upon the aggrieved insurance, is both apt, and, tenable. 5. The learned tribunal while concluding, that, the disabled claimant, from, his proven avocation, of, a mechanic drawing minimum wages, comprised in a sum of Rs.200/-, per diem, yet with the disability certificate borne in Ex.PW5/A, making portrayals, vis-a-vis, disability, to, the extent of 25% being entailed, upon, the disabled claimant, hence, it, calculated the loss of income, vis-a-vis, deceased, in,25%, vis-a-vis, the per mensem salary, borne in a sum of Rs.6000/-, from, his avocation, of, a mechanic. However, the learned counsel appearing, for, the cross-objections/disabled claimant, had, upon leave, being granted to him, for, proving the pleaded fact, qua, a further disability, of, fracture, of, proximal phalanx of right index finger, and, middle finger, with, stiffness, and, pain of right shoulder, and, fingers, also being encumbered, upon, the disabled claimant, (a) also with the cross-objector casting an averment, vis-a-vis, the afore disability hence holding, a direct, nexus with the injury, initially entailed, upon, his person, in sequel, to, the ill-fated mishap, (b) and, upon, availing the afore leave, his ensuring proof of Ex. AW1/A, wherein, the afore reflections are existing, (c) and, the requisite proof qua therewith standing adduced, by its author one Dr. Devinder Kumar Sharma, (e) and, with AW-1 Dr. Devinder Kumar Sharma, during, the course of his testification making a loud pronouncement, vis-a-vis, the afore reflections existing in Ex.AW1/A, rather holding, a direct, and, close nexus, with the injuries initially encumbered, upon, the disabled claimant, in the ill-fated mishap, (f) hence, involving the offending vehicle, (g) and, when the afore echoings, are construed along with the factum, of, prior thereto, the, disabled claimant performing the avocation, of, a mechanic, and, also when, for, his ably performing, the, callings of his avocation, as, a mechanic, hence, he, was enjoined to hold, the, facile movements of the afore requisite limbs, of, his body, (h) whereas, the afore limbs begetting disempowerments, (i) thereupon, he obviously is rendered permanently incapacitated, to, efficiently perform, the, callings, of, his hitherto avocation, as, a mechanic. Even though this court, was enjoined to, vis-a-vis, the afore factum probandum, ask the learned tribunal, to, make the apposite determination, yet, for precluding, the, procrastination of trial of the lis, and, also with the afore evident fact, rather existing in the testimony of AW-1, (j) thereupon, without remanding the lis, vis-a-vis, the afore factum, hence to the learned tribunal, this, court concludes, that, with a cent per centum, disability being encumbered, upon, the disabled claimant, hence, the takings into account, only 25% per centum of the per mensem wages of the disabled claimant, for computing, the, compensation, vis-a-vis, him, rather by the learned tribunal, is, an unbefitting endeavour, rather he is entitled, to, compensation, vis-a-vis, the fullest proportion, of, his per mensem salary. Furthermore, the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in a case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) ACJ 2700, the relevant paragraph No.61, extracted hereinafter: "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. 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. (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. " hence, permitting, vis-a-vis, the afore perennial loss, of, income, as, evidently visited, upon, a, disabled claimant, to, hence, mete accretions or escalations, vis-a-vis, the, afore hitherto per mensem income of the disabled claimant, as, borne in a sum of Rs.6000/-. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. " hence, permitting, vis-a-vis, the afore perennial loss, of, income, as, evidently visited, upon, a, disabled claimant, to, hence, mete accretions or escalations, vis-a-vis, the, afore hitherto per mensem income of the disabled claimant, as, borne in a sum of Rs.6000/-. Consequently, in, consonance therewith, the disabled claimant, being aged 31 years, at the time, of, happening, of, the ill-fated mishap, hence, is entitled, for,40% increase, in his apposite per mensem income, borne, in a sum of Rs.6000/- ( Rs.200/-x 30 days), increases whereof, are, computed to stand borne in a sum, of, Rs.84,00/-. In sequel whereto, the loss of annual income, of the disabled claimant, upon, his income, is computed, at Rs.8400/- x 12 = Rs.1,00,800/-. After applying thereto, the apposite multiplier of 17, the total compensation amount, is assessed in a sum of Rs.1,00,800/- x 17 = Rs.17,13,600/- (Rs. Seventeen lakh, thirteen thousand, six hundred only). In addition, to the afore amount, the disabled claimant is also held entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- under the head "pain and suffering", and, Rs.37,500/- under head "medical charges", as already adjudged by the learned tribunal. 6. XXX XXX XXX 7. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the insurer is dismissed, whereas, the cross-objections instituted by the disabled claimant/cross-objections, are allowed, and, the impugned award, in, the afore manner, hence, is modified. Consequently, the disabled claimant, is, held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.17,76,100/- (Rs. Seventeen lakh, seventy six thousand, and, one hundred only) alongwith interest accrued thereon, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, and, commencing from, the date of petition till realization thereof. The amount of interim compensation, if awarded, be adjusted in the aforesaid compensation amount, at the time of final payment. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.