JUDGMENT : SABINA, J. 1. Vide this order above mentioned four appeals would be disposed of as they have arisen out of one accident and common award dated 11.10.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 2. Claimants had filed two claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 seeking compensation on account of death of Omprakash in the motor vehicle accident which had occurred on 06.05.2013 and injuries suffered by claimant Savitri Devi. Both the claim petitions were clubbed together. Vide award dated 11.10.2018, learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petitions filed by the claimants and in the death case, learned Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.25,44,938/-, whereas, in the injury case, learned Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 67,212/-. Hence, corporation has filed two appeals seeking dismissal of the claim petitions, whereas, the claimants have filed two appeals seeking enhancement of compensation amount. 3. Learned counsel for the Corporation has submitted that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Sunil, who was driving the Alto Car bearing registration No. HR-26-BA-2721. Hence, the claim petitions filed by the claimants against the corporation were liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel has further submitted that the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal was on a higher side and required to be reduced. 4. Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Rajasthan Roadways Bus bearing registration No. RJ-14-PB-0570. The Bus had struck against the Alto Car, in which the deceased as well as the injured were travelling, from behind. Moreover, the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal was on a lower side and required to be enhanced. 5. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi and others AIR 2017 (SC) 4973 , 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. 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. 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 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 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 nonearning 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.” xxxx “44. 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 nonearning 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.” xxxx “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.” xxxx “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. xxxx “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 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.” 6. In order to prove the manner of accident, claimants examined Savitri Devi as AW-1 and Vinod Kumar as AW-3. 7. Claimant Savitri Devi while appearing in the witness box deposed that on 06.05.2013, she was travelling in Alto Car bearing registration No. HR-26-BA-2721 alongwith her husband and other relatives. In order to prove the manner of accident, claimants examined Savitri Devi as AW-1 and Vinod Kumar as AW-3. 7. Claimant Savitri Devi while appearing in the witness box deposed that on 06.05.2013, she was travelling in Alto Car bearing registration No. HR-26-BA-2721 alongwith her husband and other relatives. At about 7.00 a.m., when they reached National Highway No. 8, Rajasthan Roadways Bus bearing registration No. RJ-14-PB-0570 came from behind and struck against their Alto Car. As a result, occupants of the Alto Car suffered injuries. Her husband Omprakash died on account of injuries suffered by him on 07.05.2013. On 13.05.2013 her son went to the police station to lodge the FIR but it was not registered by the police officials. Thereafter, her son approached Superintendent of Police on 23.05.2013 and FIR was registered on 13.06.2013. The delay in approaching the police had occurred as her family members, were busy in performing the last rites of her husband. She had also suffered serious injuries in the occurrence. However, in her cross-examination, she deposed that since, she was feeling of sleepy, she could not tell as to how the accident had occurred and she could not tell, who was at fault, at the time of accident. 8. AW-3, Vinod Kumar deposed that on 16.05.2013, he was travelling in Alto Car bearing registration No. HR-26-BA-2721 alongwith his parents and relatives. At about 7.00 a.m. when they reached National Highway No. 8, Rajasthan Roadways Bus bearing registration No. RJ-14-PB-0570 came from behind and struck against their Alto Car. As a result, his parents and relatives suffered injuries. Accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Rajasthan Roadways Bus bearing registration No. RJ-14-PB-0570. In his cross-examination, he stated that the Bus had struck against the Alto Car from behind as it was coming at a fast speed. He admitted that there was a traffic jam at the place of accident. 9. In rebuttal, driver of the bus appeared in the witness box as NAW-1 and deposed that accident had occurred as the driver of the Alto Car had suddenly applied brakes. 10. Thus, in the present case, the factum of accident is not in dispute. Hence, the delay in lodging the FIR loses its significance. 11. 9. In rebuttal, driver of the bus appeared in the witness box as NAW-1 and deposed that accident had occurred as the driver of the Alto Car had suddenly applied brakes. 10. Thus, in the present case, the factum of accident is not in dispute. Hence, the delay in lodging the FIR loses its significance. 11. The question that requires consideration is as to whether, the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Bus driver or the Alto Car driver. 12. In the present case, driver of the offending Bus has also stated that there was some traffic jam at the place of the accident and the said fact has also been admitted by AW-3 Vinod Kumar in his cross-examination. Since, there was a traffic jam at the place of the accident, driver of the bus was required to take due care and caution, and should have maintained respectable distance behind his vehicle and the vehicle driven ahead of him. Had the driver of the Bus maintained respectable distance between the Alto Car going ahead of him and his Bus, the accident could have been avoided. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned Tribunal has rightly held that the accident-in-question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Bus. 13. The next question that requires consideration is with regard to the amount of compensation liable to be received by the claimants. 14. Compensation amount liable to be received by the claimants on account of death of Omprakash in the motor vehicle accident, which had occurred on 06.05.2013:- Deceased Omprakash was aged about 56 years, at the time of accident. Hence, appropriate multiplier to work out the amount of compensation would be ‘9’. 15. Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.42,415/- per month and the said amount has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the claimants. Annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.5,08,980/-. Out of the said amount, Rs.2,00,000/- was liable to be deducted with regard to exemption granted by the Income Tax Department. Thus, the taxable income comes to Rs.3,08,980/-. 16. As per Exhibit-30, salary certificate of the deceased, it is evident that the deceased was depositing Rs.5,400/- towards General Provident Fund. Thus, the annual deposit of the deceased comes to Rs.64,800/- towards General Provident Fund. 17. Thus, the taxable income comes to Rs.3,08,980/-. 16. As per Exhibit-30, salary certificate of the deceased, it is evident that the deceased was depositing Rs.5,400/- towards General Provident Fund. Thus, the annual deposit of the deceased comes to Rs.64,800/- towards General Provident Fund. 17. Hence, it can be presumed that the deceased must have been making savings to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- to seek exemption from payment of income tax. Thus, 10% of tax is liable to be deducted with regard to the remaining income of Rs.208,980/-. Thus, the income tax liable to be paid by the deceased can be taken as Rs.21,000/-. Hence, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.5,08,980 - Rs.21,000 = Rs.4,87,980/-. 18. Claimants are the widow and married children of the deceased aged about 29 to 35 years. Hence, learned Tribunal has rightly deducted half out of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. 19. Thus, the dependency of the claimants comes to Rs.2,43,990/- X 9 = Rs.21,95,910/-. Claimants would be further entitled to receive an addition of 15% of the said amount towards loss of future earnings/prospects of the deceased and the said amount comes to Rs.3,29,386/-. Claimants would be further entitled to receive Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. 20. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to receive, in all, Rs.21,95,910/- + Rs.3,29,386/- + Rs.40,000/- + Rs.15,000/- = Rs.25,80,296/-. 21. Compensation amount liable to be received by claimant Savitri Devi with regard to the injuries suffered by her:- Claimant Savitri Devi was aged about 56 years, at the time of accident. Hence, appropriate multiplier to work out the amount of compensation would be ‘9’. 22. In the absence of any documentary evidence on record with regard to the income of the claimant Savitri Devi, the same is liable to be taken as Rs.4316/- per month in view of the minimum wages fixed by the State, at the relevant time. 23. As per Exhibit-28, disability certificate Savitri Devi has suffered permanent physical disability to the extent of 10%.The said certificate has been issued by the Medical Board of Doctors and there is no reason to doubt the genuineness of the same. As per the said certificate, claimant Savitri Devi has suffered fracture of right rib and head injury. 24. 23. As per Exhibit-28, disability certificate Savitri Devi has suffered permanent physical disability to the extent of 10%.The said certificate has been issued by the Medical Board of Doctors and there is no reason to doubt the genuineness of the same. As per the said certificate, claimant Savitri Devi has suffered fracture of right rib and head injury. 24. Thus, the claimant Savitri Devi would be entitled to receive Rs.4,316/- x 12 x 9 x 10% = Rs.46,612/- by way of compensation vis-à-vis permanent disability suffered by her. Claimant Savitri Devi would be further entitled to receive an addition of 10% of the said amount towards loss of his future earning/prospects and the said amount comes to Rs.4,661/-. 25. Learned counsel for the claimant has submitted that the claimant Savitri Devi had remained admitted in the hospital for 2 days. Hence, claimant Savitri Devi would be entitled to receive Rs.1,000/- towards hospitalization expenses. 26. Admittedly, medical bills proved on record by claimant Savitri Devi with regard to the expenses incurred by her on her treatment are to the tune of Rs.6,80/-. Claimant Savitri Devi would be further entitled to receive Rs.10,000/- towards transportation expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards special diet etc. Claimant Savitri Devi would be entitled to receive Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering. 27. Thus, claimant Savitri Devi would be entitled to receive, in all, Rs.46,612/- + Rs.4,661/- + Rs.1,000/- + Rs.6,80/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.25,000/- = Rs.97,953/-. 28. Accordingly S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 294/2019 and S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 293/2019 filed by the Corporation are dismissed, whereas, S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 255/2019 and S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 312/2019 filed by the claimants are allowed. Impugned award dated 11.10.2018 is modified to the extent that in the claim petition filed by the claimants seeking compensation on account of death of Omprakash they would be entitled to receive Rs.25,80,296/- by way of compensation instead of Rs.25,44,938/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Claimant Savitri Devi would be entitled to receive Rs.97,953/- by way of compensation instead of Rs.67,212/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Remaining terms and conditions of the award shall remain unchanged.