JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. Since both these appeals arise out of the same accident, therefore, they were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by common judgment. 2. FAO(MVA) No. 602/2016 has been filed by the owner of the vehicle against fastening of liability to pay the compensation amount, whereas FAO (MVA) No. 626/2016 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation amount. 3. The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the learned Tribunal seeking compensation on account of death of Gian Chand, in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 13.8.2011. According to them, on 13.8.2011, deceased boarded the bus No. HP14A8461 near Solan and the same met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of its driver leading to grievous injuries to the deceased, who eventually died on 16.8.2011. The deceased was stated to be working as regular beldar and was earning Rs.10,736/per month. 4. The learned Tribunal on the basis of evidence concluded that the vehicle in question was not insured with the Insurance Company and the driver of the vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and therefore, it was the owner who was liable to pay the compensation. 5. The learned Tribunal after taking monthly salary of the deceased to be Rs.10,736/and granting 15% increase towards future prospects and thereafter applying multiplier of 15 awarded a sum of Rs. 11,11,140/towards loss of dependency to the claimants and a sum of Rs.25,000/towards funeral expenses, in total, Rs. 11,36,140/along with interest @ 9% per annum on the said amount from the date of filing of the petition till its deposit. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. FAO No. 602/2016 7. At the outset, it needs to be noticed that during the pendency of the appeal, the owner of the vehicle filed an application for leading additional evidence for proving on record the insurance policy and since the Insurance Company did not dispute the insurance policy or its validity, the application was allowed as is evident from the order dated 31.10.2017. 8. 8. As regards driving licence, it would be noticed that the claimants had initially averred that it was Ramesh Kumar, who was driving the bus at the relevant time and later on, during the pendency of the petition, moved an application for impleadment of one Nitish Sharma, on the basis of FIR that was lodged with regard to the accident wherein it was mentioned that it was Nitish Sharma, who was driving the vehicle in question. 9. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that since Nitish Sharma did not have valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, therefore, it proceeded to fasten liability to pay compensation on the owner of the vehicle. 10. To say the least, the findings rendered by the learned Tribunal are totally perverse. 11. It is not in dispute that as regards Ramesh Kumar, there is no dispute that as on the date of accident, he was having valid and effective driving licence. The position is not different even when the driving licence of Nitish Sharma (Ext. PW4/B) is perused as the licence duly authorizes him to drive LMV w.e.f. 20.10.2008 i.e. prior to the accident. However, the learned Tribunal chose not to rely upon licence (Ext. PW4/B) only because endorsement therein for driving transport vehicle as also PSVBUS was made on 12.12.2011, which was four months after the date of the accident. 12. Adverting to the registration certificate of the vehicle in question, Ext. RW2/C, perusal whereof would go to show that unladen weight of the vehicle is 5470 kg, whereas laden weight is 7500 kg and, therefore, the same is a light motor vehicle as defined in Section 2(21) of the Act. 13. Section 10 of the Act reads as under: Form and contents of licences to drive. (1) Every learner's licence and driving licence, except a driving licence issued under section 18, shall be in such form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (2) A learner’s licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely: (a) motor cycle without gear; (b) motor cycle with gear; (c) adapted vehicle; (d) light motor vehicle; (e) transport vehicle; (i) roadroller; (j) motor vehicle of a specified description. 14. 14. It would be noticed that Section 10 of the Act requires only a driver to hold a licence with respect to the class of vehicles and not with respect to the type of vehicles. Therefore, in one class of vehicles, there may be different kinds of vehicles and if they fall in the same class of vehicles, no separate endorsement is required to drive such vehicles as light motor vehicle includes transport vehicle also. This has been authoritatively held by the Three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, AIR 2017 SC 3668 , wherein it was observed as under: 46. Section 10 of the Act requires a driver to hold a licence with respect to the class of vehicles and not with respect to the type of vehicles. In one class of vehicles, there may be different kinds of vehicles. If they fall in the same class of vehicles, no separate endorsement is required to drive such vehicles. As light motor vehicle includes transport vehicle also, a holder of light motor vehicle licence can drive all the vehicles of the class including transport vehicles. It was pre-amended position as well the post amended position of Form 4 as amended on 28.3.2001. Any other interpretation would be repugnant to the definition of “light motor vehicle” in section 2(21) and the provisions of section 10(2)(d), Rule 8 of the Rules of 1989, other provisions and also the forms which are in tune with the provisions. Even otherwise the forms never intended to exclude transport vehicles from the category of ‘light motor vehicles’ and for light motor vehicle, the validity period of such licence hold good and apply for the transport vehicle of such class also and the expression in Section 10(2)(e) of the Act ‘Transport Vehicle’ would include medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle which earlier found place in section 10(2)(e) to (h) and our conclusion is fortified by the syllabus and rules which we have discussed. Thus we answer the questions which are referred to us thus: (i) ‘Light motor vehicle’ as defined in section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in section 2(21) read with section 2(15) and 2(48). Thus we answer the questions which are referred to us thus: (i) ‘Light motor vehicle’ as defined in section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in section 2(21) read with section 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No.54/1994. (ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, ‘unladen weight’ of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of “light motor vehicle” as provided in section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or roadroller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form. (iii) The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54/1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h) of section 10(2) which contained “medium goods vehicle” in section 10(2)(e), medium passenger motor vehicle in section 10(2)(f), heavy goods vehicle in section 10(2)(g) and “heavy passenger motor vehicle” in section 10(2)(h) with expression ‘transport vehicle’ as substituted in section 10(2)(e) related only to the aforesaid substituted classes only. It does not exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of section 10(2)(d) and section 2(41) of the Act i.e. light motor vehicle. (iv) The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of “transport vehicle” is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of “light motor vehicle” continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect. 15. 15. In this background, once it is conceded that the vehicle in question was duly insured with the Insurance Company and the driver was possessing valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, then obviously liability to pay the compensation has to be fastened upon the Insurance Company as per the insurance policy. Ordered accordingly. FAO No. 626/2016 16 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 redetermined in accordance with the decision in Pranay Sethi's case. 17. 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.” 18. 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. 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. (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 (iii) to (viii) are relevant for the adjudication of this case. 19. (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 (iii) to (viii) are relevant for the adjudication of this case. 19. 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.(iii) to (viii) which except for conclusions No.(v) and (vi) are self-speaking. 20. 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 Chandra’s 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. 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 M17 for 26 to 30 years, M16 for 31 to 35 years, M15 for 36 to 40 years, M14 for 41 to 45 years, and M13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M11 for 51 to 55 years, M9 for 56 to 60 years, M7 for 61 to 65 years and M5 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 21. 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. 22. As regards income of the deceased, the claimants have examined Devinder Singh, official from IPH Department, Solan Division, as PW5, who proved on record monthly salary of the deceased to be Rs.10,736/vide salary slip, Ext. PW5/A qua which there is no rebuttal at the instance of Insurance Company. Thus, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.10,736/. 23. 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.10,736/per month and since the deceased was aged about 38 years at the time of accident, an addition of 50% of the established income would have to be taken towards future prospects and thus, his total monthly income would work out to be Rs. 16,104/( Rs.10736+Rs.5368) and after deduction of 50% of the income towards his personal expenses (Rs.8052/), annual income would work out to be Rs.96,624/( Rs.8052 x12). In this way, the claimants, after applying multiplier of 15 would be entitled to Rs.14,49,360/towards loss of dependency to family. 24. Learned counsel for the 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 in view of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra). 25. That apart, claimants No.1 and 2 being parents of the deceased have 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 & Ors 2018 (11) SCALE 263. Therefore, claimants No. 1 and 2 would be held entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/each towards loss of filial. 26. 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.11,11,140/ Loss of dependency to the family: Rs.14,49,360/- 2 Funeral expenses: Rs.25,000/ Funeral expense: Rs.15,000/ 3. Loss of estate: Rs.15,000/ 4. 26. 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.11,11,140/ Loss of dependency to the family: Rs.14,49,360/- 2 Funeral expenses: Rs.25,000/ Funeral expense: Rs.15,000/ 3. Loss of estate: Rs.15,000/ 4. Loss of filial to claimants No.1 and 2: Rs.40,000/each 6 Total = Rs.11,36,140/ Total = Rs.15,59,360/ 27. In view of aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the claimants is allowed and the award, dated 30.6.2016, passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would now be entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.15,59,360/instead of Rs.11,36,140/along with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition till its realization from the Insurance Company. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. The parties are left to bear their own costs.