JUDGMENT : 1. Heard, Shri Rajesh Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Mahesh Kumar Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Shri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants/ claimants for enhancing the compensation by modification of judgment and award dated 27.09.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Faizabad (here-in-after referred to as 'Tribunal') in Claim petition No. 84 of 2010; Ram Bihari and Anr. versus I.C.I.C.I General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. along with the interest at the present bank rate. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the son of the appellants/ claimants namely Santosh Kumar was coming from Maya Bazar to his home after giving the high school examination by his motorcycle having Registration No. UP32CF/8398 on 18.03.2010. As he reached village Mariyawa at about 11.00 A.M. under police station Maharajganj, District Faizabad, the driver of the truck having Registration No. UP42B/7507, driving rashly and negligently with a high speed coming from opposite direction, smashed the vehicle of Santosh Kumar. Santosh Kumar and the pillion rider his friend Mahendra Chauhan were seriously injured in the accident. They were taken to the Primary Health Centre, Maya Bazar for treatment where Santosh Kumar died during treatment. Consequently, the claim petition No. 84 of 2010 was filed claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,36,000/-along with interest @ 12 percent. The respondent No. 1 i.e. the Insurance Company had filed its written statement. The respondent no. 2 had neither appeared before the Tribunal nor before this Court. 4. On the basis of pleadings of parties, four issues were framed. The copy of the First Information Report., Postmortem Report, Registration Certificate, Insurance, D.L. and Permit were filed by the appellants/ claimants. Sri Ram Bihari as C.P.W.-1 and Jitendra Chauhan as C.P.W.-2 were got examined as witnesses. No oral or documentary evidence were produced by the respondents. 5. After hearing the counsel for both the parties and considering the evidence and material on record the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition and awarded an amount of Rs. 83,000/-alongwith interest at the rate of 7 % per annum and directed the respondent-Insurance Company to pay the same. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed for enhancement of the compensation. 6. 83,000/-alongwith interest at the rate of 7 % per annum and directed the respondent-Insurance Company to pay the same. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed for enhancement of the compensation. 6. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the age of the deceased was 18 years as has been accepted by the learned Tribunal though as per the high school mark-sheet filed before the Tribunal, the age of the deceased Santosh Kumar comes to 15 years at the time of accident on 18.03.2010. But the learned Tribunal has allowed the multiplier of 16 while it should have been 18 as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court. He next submitted that the learned tribunal has wrongly awarded the compensation on the basis of notional income of Rs. 15,000/-per annum under Schedule-II of Section 163 A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which was inserted in the year 1994 while the claim petition was filed under Section 166. The notional income of the deceased has been assessed as Rs. 15,000/-while it should have been 36,000/-as per judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Laxmi Devi and others Versus Mohammad Tbbar and Another; (2008) 12 Supreme Court Cases 165. 7. He further submitted that the deceased was a bachelor, therefore, the deduction of 2/3rd has wrongly been made while it should have been 1/2 i.e. 50 %. No future prospects have been allowed while the appellants/ claimants are entitled for the future prospects even if the income was assessed and there was no definite income. Lastly, he submitted that the appeal is liable to be allowed and the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is liable to be enhanced to the extent of claim made by the appellants/ claimants along with interest. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 submitted that the deceased was a minor of 15 years of age at the time of accident and he was doing high school but it has not been considered by the learned Tribunal. He further submitted that there was no income of the deceased as such the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed income of the deceased to the tune of Rs. 15,000/-. 9. He further submitted that there was no income of the deceased as such the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed income of the deceased to the tune of Rs. 15,000/-. 9. Further relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Puttamma and others v. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another; AIR 2014 SC 706 , learned counsel for respondents submitted that at the most, the appellants/ claimants are entitled for a fixed compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Lastly, he submitted that the amount under the conventional head has rightly been awarded in accordance with 220(A) of Motor Vehicle Rules, 2011. However, there is no error in the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal. 10. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the lower court Record. 11. The factual finding in regard to the accident on account of rash and negligent driving of truck no. UP42B/ 7507 recorded by the learned Tribunal has not been challenged. The instant appeal has been filed for enhancement of the compensation. Perusal of the Claim Petition indicates that the application for compensation on account of death of deceased Santosh Kumar in the accident was filed by the appellant/ claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 while Second Schedule for compensation for third party fatal injury claim cases is in respect of Section 163 A in which no fault liability has been provided, which is a special provision for payment of compensation on structured formula basis. Paragraph no. 56 of the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the respondent in the case of Puttamma and others v. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another (Supra) is in regard to Section 163 A of the Act of 1988, therefore, it is not applicable in the present case. 12. So far as the case of Laxmi Devi and others Versus Mohammad Tbbar and Another (Supra) relied by learned counsel for appellants is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court has approved the income of Rs. 3000/-per month in regard to the deceased who was working and it was nobody's case that he was not working at all. Therefore, the Apex Court has held that even if we ignore the exaggeration figure arrived at by the High Court, Rs. 3000/-per month appears to be correct. 3000/-per month in regard to the deceased who was working and it was nobody's case that he was not working at all. Therefore, the Apex Court has held that even if we ignore the exaggeration figure arrived at by the High Court, Rs. 3000/-per month appears to be correct. But in the present case, it is an admitted case of the appellants/ claimants that the deceased Santosh Kumar was not working and earning nothing at the time of death. Therefore, the appellants/ claimants cannot be said to be entitled for the benefit of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, the question arises as to what should be the assessed income of the deceased at the time of his death and method of calculation of compensation. 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of R.K. Malik and another Vs. Kiran Pal and others; (2009) 14 SCC 1 , has held that even when compensation is payable under Section 166 read with Section 168 of the Act, deviation from the structured formula as provided in the Second Schedule is not ordinarily permissible, except in exceptional cases. 14. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others; (2017) 16 SCC 680 , after considering several judgments, recorded its conclusion in Paragraph no. 59 regarding determination of the compensation which is reproduced as under:- "59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:- 59.1. 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. 59.2. 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. 59.3. 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. 59.3. 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. 59.4. 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. 59.5. 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. 59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment. 59.7. The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. 59.8. 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." 15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid Constitution Bench judgment of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Prany Sethi and Others (Supra) has held that the selection of multiplier should be as indicated in the table in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another; (2009) 6 SCC 121 read with Paragraph no. 42 of that judgment which provides multiplier for the age group starting from 15 years of age. Therefore also the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent for fixed compensation cannot be accepted in the case of the deceased, who was 15 years of age at the time of accident on account of which, he died. 42 of that judgment which provides multiplier for the age group starting from 15 years of age. Therefore also the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent for fixed compensation cannot be accepted in the case of the deceased, who was 15 years of age at the time of accident on account of which, he died. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/-per month on the principle of Second Schedule. The relevant paragraph 42 is reproduced as under:- "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." 16. It is not in dispute that as per the mark-sheet of the deceased Santosh Kumar, he was 15 years of age, therefore, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another (Supra), the multiplier of 18 would be applicable in place of 16. 17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (Supra) has held that in regard to deduction for personal and living expenses, the Tribunal should be guided by conclusion in Paragraph no. 43.6 of Reshma Kumari & Ors. Versus. Madan Mohan and Anr; (2013) 9 SCC 65 . Paragraph no. 43.6 of the said judgment provides that insofar as deduction for personal and living expenses is concerned, it is directed that the Tribunals shall ordinarily follow the standards prescribed in paragraphs 30, 31 and 32 of the judgment in Sarla Verma (Smt.) (Supra). 18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Others Vs. Paragraph no. 43.6 of the said judgment provides that insofar as deduction for personal and living expenses is concerned, it is directed that the Tribunals shall ordinarily follow the standards prescribed in paragraphs 30, 31 and 32 of the judgment in Sarla Verma (Smt.) (Supra). 18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another (Supra) has held that where the deceased was the bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction should be 50% in place of 2/3rd. Therefore, deduction in the present case would be 50% in place of 2/3rd towards personal and living expenses. The relevant paragraph 31 is reproduced as under:- "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 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." 19. Perusal of the impugned judgment and award of learned Tribunal indicates that the learned Tribunal has allowed nothing towards the future prospects whereas the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others (supra) has held in paragraph 59.4 that 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. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hemraj Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others (supra) has held in paragraph 59.4 that 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. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hemraj Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others; (2018) 4 TAC 32 (SC) has held that there can not be distinction where there is positive evidence of income and where minimum income is determined on guesswork in the facts and circumstances of the case and both the situations stand at the same footing. Accordingly, this court is of the view that the appellants/ claimants are entitled for addition of 40% towards the future prospects. 20. Perusal of the impugned judgment and award indicates that Rs. 3,000/-has been allowed towards funeral expenses under the conventional head while in Paragraph 59.7 of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Prany Sethi and Others (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the requisite figures of conventional heads namely loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/-and 15,000/-respectively with a future enhancement at the rate of 10% in every three years. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the appellants/ claimants are entitled for Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/-and Rs. 15,000/-towards loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses respectively in place of Rs. 3000/- for the funeral expenses. 21. The learned Tribunal has allowed the simple interest @ 6% per annum which this court finds on the lesser side and the adequate interest would be 9 % per annum which has been allowed by three judge bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sube Singh & Another Vs. Shyam Singh (Dead) & Others; 2018 (1) CRC 598. Thus the rate of interest is modified to 9% per annum in place of 6 % per annum. 22. In view of above, this court is of the considered opinion that the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is liable to be modified and the appellants/ claimants are held entitled to a compensation, which is calculated as follows:- 1. Income Rs.15,000/- 2. Deduction @ 50% Rs.7,500/- 3. Multiplier : (18) 7,500/- x 18 Rs.1,35,000/- 4. Future prospects(40%) Rs.54,000/- 5. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- 6. Loss of Consortium Rs.40,000/- 7. Income Rs.15,000/- 2. Deduction @ 50% Rs.7,500/- 3. Multiplier : (18) 7,500/- x 18 Rs.1,35,000/- 4. Future prospects(40%) Rs.54,000/- 5. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- 6. Loss of Consortium Rs.40,000/- 7. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Total(3+4+5+7) Rs.2,59,000/- 23. Thus the First Appeal From Order No. 6 of 2011 is partly allowed and the judgment and award dated 27.09.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Faizabad in Claim petition No. 84 of 2010 is modified accordingly as indicated in Paragraph no. 22 above. The respondent No. 1 i.e ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd is directed to make the payment of Rs. 2,59,000/-alongwith interest @ 9% per annum after adjusting the amount already paid, if any, to the appellants/ claimants. within a period of eight weeks from today. 24. No order as to costs. 25. The lower court record shall be remitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.