JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The parents, of, the deceased namely one Ramna Devi, through, the impugned verdict, pronounced, upon MACP No. 23-D/III/2011, by, the learned MACT concerned, (i) became hence awarded compensation, borne in a sum of Rs. 10,20,000/-, and, whereon stood levied interest, at the rate of 9% per annum, hence commencing from the date of petition, till realization thereof, (ii) and, the afore awarded compensation amount awarded, was ordered, to be apportioned equally, amongst, the co-claimants, and, the compensation received, under, Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, was, ordered to be adjusted, from, the afore determined compensation amount. The, apposite idemnificatory liability(ies), became jointly, and, severally encumbered, upon, the registered owner, of, the offending vehicle, and, upon, the insurer, of, the offending vehicle. 2. Xxx XXX XXX 3. The registered owner, of, the offending vehicle, and, also the insurer of the offending vehicle, both became aggrieved, from, the impugned award, and, through, theirs respectively instituting, FAO No. 619 of 2018, and, FAO No. 487 of 2017, before this Court, hence cast challenge(s), upon, the afore award. 4. The learned counsel for the insurer, has vigorously contended, before this Court, (i) that, the relevant collision, which occurred, inter-se the offending vehicle, and, the scooter, driven at the relevant time, by, the deceased, being a sequel of contributory negligence, of both the drivers, of, the afore vehicles, (ii) and, thereupon, the claim petition becoming mis-constituted, hence for, non-joinder of the owner, of, the scooter, as, also it becoming mis-constituted, for, non-joinder, of, insurer thereof. However, for, the afore submission hence becoming accepted by this Court, (iii) rather enjoined them, to, adduce evidence, making trite unfoldings, vis-a-vis, the deceased while driving the afore scooter, his also, contributing, to, the collision, which occurred inter-se, it, and, the offending vehicle, driven at the relevant time, by respondent No.1. However, a perusal, of, the testification, rendered by PW3, an eye witness, to the occurrence, rather unfolds, visa-vis, the scooter becoming parked, on the kutcha portion of the road, and, also he makes further bespeakings, qua the collision occurring, inter-se it, and, the offending vehicle becoming sequelelled, by the rash, and, negligent manner of driving, of, the latter vehicle, by, respondent No.1. Since the afore recorded deposition, of, the afore ocular witness, to the occurrence, remained unscathed, vis-a-vis, its vigor, despite, his becoming inexorably cross-examined, (iv) thereupon the afore testification, rendered by PW-3, in his examination-in-chief, moreso, when no cogent evidence in rebuttal thereto, became adduced, by respondent No.1, hence acquires, an, aura of credence. Consequently, the returning, of, findings upon issue No.1, warrant no interference, and, also the afore espousal(s), made before this Court, are rudderless. 5. Since the deceased Ramna Devi, stands proven, by consistent, and, inter-se corroborative, depositions, hence rendered by the claimants'' witnesses, vis-a-vis, hers drawing rather, a, per mensem salary, of, Rs. 5000/-, from, hers'' rendering employment, with V. K. Flower Nursery at Gaggal, (i) thereupon the afore per mensem salary, drawn by her, from hers rendering employment, with, V. K. Flower Nursery at Gaggal, is, to be concomitantly concluded, to be her, apt per mensem salary therefrom. However, even though, the claimants omit, to, constitute any motion before this Court, for, seeking therethrough, enhancement, of, the determined compensation amount, vis-a-vis, them, (i) yet the afore omission would not estop the meteings, of, tenable hikes, and, escalations, towards future prospect, and, also rather, bestowable, upon, the afore per mensem salary, as became, drawn by the deceased, (ii) given the afore meteings rather falling, within, the ambit of Pranay Sethi''s judgment. For, meteings, vis-a-vis, the afore per mensem salary, drawn by the deceased, hence, apposite hikes, and, escalations, rather towards future prospects, obviously, the age of the deceased, at the time, of the accident, assumes insignificance. Since, the, deceased was at the relevant time, hence aged 22 years, thereupon 40% hikes or enhancements, vis-a-vis the afore per mensem salary, is, to be meted thereon. The relevant paragraph No.61, of, verdict (supra) also extracted hereinafter, hence, permits, the, meteings, of, the afore hikes:- "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. " (i) thereupon, and, in consonance therewith the afore deceased Ramna Devi, is entitled for meteing(s), of, 40% increase(s), in his apposite per mensem income, as, borne in a sum of Rs. 5000/-, increases whereof, are, computed to stand borne, in a sum of Rs.7,000/-. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. " (i) thereupon, and, in consonance therewith the afore deceased Ramna Devi, is entitled for meteing(s), of, 40% increase(s), in his apposite per mensem income, as, borne in a sum of Rs. 5000/-, increases whereof, are, computed to stand borne, in a sum of Rs.7,000/-. Significantly, the number, of, dependents, of, the deceased, are, two, hence, 1/3rd deduction, is, to be visited, upon, a sum of Rs.7,000/-, hence, after making, the, aforesaid apt deduction, vis-a-vis, the afore sum, the per mensem dependency, hence comes, to, Rs. 4667/-. In sequel whereto, the annual dependency, of, the dependents, upon, the income of the deceased, is computed, at Rs. 4667/- x 12=Rs.56004/-. After applying thereto, the apposite multiplier of 18, thereupon, the total compensation amount, is assessed in a sum of Rs.56004/- x 18=Rs.10,08,072/- (Rs. Ten lakhs, eight thousand and seventy two only). 6. Furthermore, the determination, of, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-, vis-a-vis, the claimants, under the head, loss of consortium, is, beyond the ambit of the verdict, pronounced in Pranay Sethi''s case, and, the compensation amount, as, determined, under, the afore head is quashed and set aside. Furthermore, in consonance with the verdcit of the hon''ble Apex Court, rendered in Pranay Sethi''s case (supra), the claimants are also held entitled to compensation, under, conventional heads, namely, loss to estate, and, funeral expenses, borne, in, sums Rs.15,000/-, and, Rs. 15,000/- respectively, whereupon, the total compensation wheretowhich, the respondents/ claimants, are, entitled to, comes to Rs.10,08,072/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/- = Rs.10,38,072/-(Rs. Ten Lakhs, thirty eight thousand, seventy two only). 7. However, the learned MACT concerned, has proceeded to conclude, vis-a-vis, respondent No.1, at the relevant time, rather possessing a valid, and, effective driving license, to, drive the offending vehicle, and, when the latter vehicle, was validly insured, with the insurer, hence it burdened the apposite indemnificatory liability, upon, the insurer of the offending vehicle. The reasons assigned by the learned Tribunal concerned, in saddling, the, afore indemnificatory liability, vis-a-vis, the compensation amount, upon, the insurer, appears , to, stand generated, (i) from, the respondent, despite opportunities becoming afforded to them, yet the insurer, not placing on record, the driving license, of, respondent No.1. The reasons assigned by the learned Tribunal concerned, in saddling, the, afore indemnificatory liability, vis-a-vis, the compensation amount, upon, the insurer, appears , to, stand generated, (i) from, the respondent, despite opportunities becoming afforded to them, yet the insurer, not placing on record, the driving license, of, respondent No.1. However, the learned Tribunal, in making the afore conclusion, hence swerved away, from, the law appertaining, to, commencement, of, proof, visa-vis, the issue appertaining, to, respondent No.1, at the relevant time, not possessing a valid, and, effective driving license hence to drive it, (ii) rather beginning, upon, adduction, of the driving license, of, the driver concerned rather being, the, driver nor has borne in mind the qua therewith, rather the apposite discharging evidence, becoming thereafter hence adduced by the insurer, of, the offending vehicle. Imperatively, the afore discharging evidence, commences, only, upon, respondent No.1, or, the registered owner, of, the offending vehicle, tendering into evidence, the photocopy of the apposite driving license, (iii) and, whereafter alone, the respondent insurer, could proceed, to adduce discharging evidence, vis-a-vis, upon, verification thereof, or, upon adduction, of, the relevant records qua therewith, from the RLA concerned, it hence becoming proven, to stand not issued therefrom, nor hence it acquiring any aura of validity. However, respondent No.1, never placed on record, the, photocopy of, the, driving license, held by him, at the relevant time, for his hence becoming authorized to drive the vehicle, nor hence it became encumbered, upon, the insurer to engage itself, in, adducing rather evidence, vis-a-vis, efficacy thereof, nor hence it became encumbered, to adduce, discharging evidence, vis-a-vis, fictitiousness, or, authenticity thereof. Consequently, also it was not open, for, the learned Tribunal concerned, to, conclude qua an adverse inference becoming drawn against, the, insurer, rather it was incumbent, upon, the learned Tribunal, to, allow the application cast therebefore, under the provisions of Section 169, of, the Motor Vehicle Act, hence by the insurer, (iv) wherethrough, a direction was espoused, to, hence became pronounced, upon, the driver, and, the owner of the offending vehicle, to place on record, the, driving license, held by respondent No.1, and, only thereafter it became validly enjoined, to, adduce the apposite therewith hence discharging evidence. However, even the learned Tribunal concerned, has omitted to make, an order thereon, and, rather merely, on, the, afore flimsy reasons, has drawn an inference, vis-a-vis, respondent No.1, at the relevant time, holding a valid driving license, to drive the offending vehicle. Consequently, for enabling the learned Tribunal, hence returning, apt findings, appertaining to respondent No.1, hence holding, at, the relevant time, a, valid driving license, the lis is remanded, to, the learned MACT concerned, to after it ensuring, vis-a-vis, respondent No.1, placing on record, the apposite driving license, issued qua him, vis-a-vis, the offending vehicle, or vis-a-vis, the category, within ambit whereto, it falls, its ensuring, the, apt discharging evidence, becoming adduced thereon, rather, by the insurer also the registered owner, of, the offending vehicle being permitted, to, step into witness box, to, depose, vis-a-vis, his holding the capacity, to take, the, apposite leverage, from, the verdict pronounced, by, the Apex Court, in, Pranay Sethi''s case. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned awards, are, in the aforesaid manner, hence modified. However, in view of the afore observations, the matter is remanded to the learned MACT concerned, for, the latter rendering fresh findings, qua, issue No.6 and accordingly render hence findings, vis-a-vis, the issue appertaining, to, the saddling of indemnificatory liability, qua, the afore, compensation of amount, respectively, upon, the registered owner, or upon, the insurer. The parties are directed to appear before the learned MACT concerned, on 2.1.2020. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.