JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - Since both these appeals arise out of the same accident and are between the same parties, therefore, they were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by common judgment. 2. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the award, the claimants have filed FAO No. 29/2013,whereas aggrieved by the fastening of liability to pay the major part of the award, owner of the bus i.e. HRTC has filed FAO No. 4034/2013. 3. The claimants, who are widow, minor daughter and mother of the deceased, Suresh Kumar, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the learned Tribunal seeking compensation on account of untimely demise of their sole bread earner on 4.7.2011 at 8.15 A.M., near Bayana Mor on Chamba Salooni Main Road, District Chamba. According to them, the deceased was aged about 37 years at the time of accident. He was running business of selling garments and was also an agriculturist and as such, was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. On 4.7.2011 at about 8.15 A.M., when the deceased had been travelling on his motor cycle bearing No. HP-48-8369 and coming towards Salooni, he was hit by bus bearing No. HP-73- 1022 being driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver, Sukh Dev. The deceased sustained multiple injuries and died at CHC Salooni. The accident came to be reported at Police Station Kihar vide FIR No. 75/2011 on 4.7.2011 itself, wherein the accident was attributed to the rash and negligent driving of Sukh Devi. It was averred that due to untimely and unexpected death, the claimants had suffered great mental agony, pain and had been deprived of financial support and thus claimed a sum of Rs.20 lac towards compensation. 4. The owner of the bus, i.e. HRTC contested the petition by filing reply, wherein preliminary objections regarding maintainability and cause of action were raised. On merits, it was alleged that the accident had taken place due to own rashness and negligence of the deceased, who was driving his motorcycle, therefore, the claimants were not entitled to any compensation. 5. Similar reply was filed on behalf of the driver of the bus, wherein he alleged that it was the deceased, who was driving his motorcycle in a very rash and negligent manner and the same then struck against the bus resulting in the death of the motorcyclist. 6. 5. Similar reply was filed on behalf of the driver of the bus, wherein he alleged that it was the deceased, who was driving his motorcycle in a very rash and negligent manner and the same then struck against the bus resulting in the death of the motorcyclist. 6. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned tribunal 5.1.2012 framed the following issues: 1. Whether deceased Suresh Kumar died on 4.7.2011 at about 1.15 A.M. near Baina on Chamba Salooni main road because of rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No. HP-73-1022 by respondent No.3 as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in the affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, how much and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR 4. Whether the petitioners have no cause of action to file the present petition as allege? OPR 5. Whether the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of motor cycle by the deceased himself as alleged, if so, its effect? OPR 6. Whether the deceased was driving the motor cycle in question without driving licence at the time of accident in question, if so, its effect? OPR3 5. Relief. 7. After recording the evidence and evaluating the same, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that it was on account of contributory negligence of the deceased himself that the accident had taken place and while assessing the total compensation to be Rs. 12,20,000/-, 25% of the compensation amount was deducted towards negligence of the deceased and the claimants were held entitled to get compensation of Rs.8,20,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization thereof from the owner of the bus, i.e. HRTC. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. FAO No. 4034/2013 9. At the outset, it needs to be noticed that the learned Tribunal on the basis of some evidence, which has come on record, came to the conclusion that since the deceased was not wearing helmet at the time of accident, to that limited extent the deceased was negligent and thus, it was a case of contributory negligence. 10. At the outset, it needs to be noticed that the learned Tribunal on the basis of some evidence, which has come on record, came to the conclusion that since the deceased was not wearing helmet at the time of accident, to that limited extent the deceased was negligent and thus, it was a case of contributory negligence. 10. I really wonder how such findings have been arrived at by the tribunal, when the plea of contributory negligence has not been specifically raised by the owner of the bus i.e. HRTC in reply to the claim petition. 11. The law is fairly well settled that the party, who wants to plead contributory negligence should specifically plead the facts constituting contributory negligence and only thereafter the party has a right to establish the same during trial. Merely because two vehicles are involved in an accident,it cannot be inferred that it is a case of contributory negligence and it is for this precise reason that the plea of contributory negligence has to be raised in the pleadings. 12. It this context, it would be necessary to refer to the relevant pleadings as contained in paras 10 and 24 of the reply filed by the owner of the bus, wherein plea of negligence (not plea of contributory negligence) against the deceased has been raised and the same read as under:- 10. That the para No. 10 of the petition is incorrect hence denied. To the contrary, the deceased was driving his motor cycle in a very rash and negligent manner and while doing so, he could not keep his vehicle in the left side of road and struck it against the bus. Thus the alleged accident is result of own rash and negligent driving of motor cycle by the deceased himself. 24. That the para No. 24 of the petition is incorrect hence denied. To the contrary, the deceased was driving his motor cycle in a very rash and negligent manner and while doing so, he could not keep his vehicle in the left side of the road and struck it against the bus. Thus the alleged accident is result of own rash and negligent driving of motor cycle by the petitioner himself. 13. To the contrary, the deceased was driving his motor cycle in a very rash and negligent manner and while doing so, he could not keep his vehicle in the left side of the road and struck it against the bus. Thus the alleged accident is result of own rash and negligent driving of motor cycle by the petitioner himself. 13. Once the plea of contributory negligence had not been raised, then obviously no amount of evidence beyond pleadings could have been looked into by the tribunal as it is well settled that the evidence adduced beyond the pleading would not be admissible nor can any evidence be permitted to be adduced, which is at variance with the pleadings. The Court at the later stage of the trial as also the Appellate Court having regard to the rule of pleading would be entitled to reject the evidence wherefor there does not exist any pleading. (Refer: Harihar Prasad Singh vs. Balmiki Prasad Singh, (1975) 1 SCC 212 , Ram Sarup Gupta vs. Bishun Narain Inter College, (1987) 2 SCC 555 , M. Chinnasamy vs. K. C. Palanisamy, (2004) 6 SCC 341 and Ramesh Kumar vs. Furu Ram, (2011) 8 SCC 613 ) . 14. As regards contention of the owner of the bus that the deceased himself was driving the motorcycle in a very rash and negligent driving, to say the least, there is no evidence whatsoever led in support of such contention. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company being devoid of any merit is dismissed. FAO No. 29/2013 15. Now adverting to the appeal filed by the claimants, it would be noticed that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is not in tune 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 , therefore, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is now required to be re-determined in accordance with the decision in Pranay Sethi''s case. 16. Ltd. versus Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) ACJ 2700 , therefore, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is now required to be re-determined in accordance with the decision in Pranay Sethi''s case. 16. 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." 17. 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. (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. 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 (iv) to (viii) are relevant for the adjudication of this case. 18. 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.(iv) to (viii) which except for conclusions No.(v) and (vi) are self-speaking. 19. 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. 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. 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. 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, M14 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 20. Evidently, the judgment in Pranay Sethi''s case (supra) has brought about radical and fundamental changes with regard to award of compensation. 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. 21. As regards income of the deceased, the claimants have proved on record copies of income tax returns for the year 2009-10, Ext. PW3/A and for the year 2010-11 Mark X to establish that he was running the business. As per income tax return 2009-10, Ext.PW3/A, the gross income of the claimant in the year 2009-10 was Rs. 1,37,500/- per annum, whereas as per income tax return for the year 2010-11, Mark X, the gross income of the deceased was to be Rs. 1,30,500/- per annum. Since the accident took place on 4.7.2011, therefore, it would not be unreasonable to assess the income of the deceased to be Rs. 1,30,500/- per annum or to say Rs. 10875/- per month as income tax return for the year 2010-11. 22. 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.10875/- per month and since the deceased was aged about 37 years at the time of accident, an addition of 40% of the established income would have to be taken towards future prospects and thus, his total monthly income would work out to be Rs. 15225/- (Rs.10875+Rs.4350) and after deduction of 1/3rd of the income towards his personal expenses (Rs.5075/-), annual income would work out to be Rs.1,21,800/- (Rs.10,150/- x12). In this way, the claimants, after applying multiplier of 15 would be entitled to Rs.18,27,000/- towards loss of dependency to family. 23. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has fairly conceded that a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses would be admissible to the claimants and a sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium would be admissible to claimant No.1 being widow of the deceased, in view of decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi''s case (supra). 24. That apart, claimant No.3 being mother of the deceased has not been granted any compensation by the learned Tribunal towards loss of filial as held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Co. 24. That apart, claimant No.3 being mother of the deceased has not been granted any compensation by the learned Tribunal towards loss of filial as held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chandu Ram and Ors,2018 11 Scale 263. Therefore, the claimant would be held entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of filial. 25. 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 dependency to the family: Rs.12,00,000/- Loss of dependency to the family: Rs.18,27,000/- 2 Conventional charges including funeral expense and loss of consortium: Rs. 20,000/- Loss of estate: Rs.15,000/- 3 Funeral charges: Rs.15,000/- 4 Loss of consortium to claimant No.1: Rs.40,000/. 5 Loss of filial to claimant No.3: Rs.40,000/- 6 Total = Rs.12,20,000/-( after deducting 25% of the compensation towards contributory negligence = Rs. 8,20,000/- Total = Rs.19,37,000/- 26. In view of aforesaid discussion, FAO No. 4034/2013 filed by the owner-HRTC is dismissed and FAO No. 29/2013 filed by the claimants is allowed and the award, dated 21.7.2012, passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would now be entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.19,37,000/- instead of Rs.8,20,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition till its realization from owner-HRTC. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. The parties are left to bear their own costs.