JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The instant appeal, stands directed, by the aggrieved insurer/appellant herein, against the award pronounced, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, District Solan, H.P. camp at Nalagarh, H.P., upon, MAC Petition No. 23-NL/2 of 2014, where under, compensation amount comprised, in, a sum of Rs. 40,68,604/- along with interest accrued thereon, at the rate of 8% per annum, commencing, from, the date of petition till realization thereof, stood, assessed, vis-a-vis, the claimants, and, the apposite indemnificatory liability thereof, was, fastened upon the insurer. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the insurer, (i) does not contest, the, validity, of the, affirmative findings rendered, upon, issue No.1, appertaining to the demise, of, deceased Lal Bahadur, being a sequel of rash and negligent manner of driving, of the offending vehicle, by its driver, respondent No.4 herein, (ii) nor he contests, the validity, of, the disaffirmative findings rendered, upon, issue No.4 appertaining to the driver of the offending vehicle, at the relevant time, not, holding a valid, and, effective driving licence, (iii) nor he obviously contests the fastening, of, the apposite indemnificatory liability, upon, the insurer. 3. However, the learned counsel appearing for the insurer, has with much vigour contended (i) that the sustenance meted upon Ex.P5/A, and, upon Ex.PW5/B, by the learned tribunal, wherein, the last drawn salary, of, the deceased is reflected, rather being, grossly fallacious, (ii) given, the afore exhibits being computer generated, (iii) hence, with signatures of their author being not borne thereon, whereas, proof qua authorship(s) thereof, hence, was imperative for meteing credence thereto. However, the afore submission, is, rudderless, (iv) as both the afore exhibits are proven by an employee, of the company concerned, whereat the deceased was employed, and, when during the course of his cross-examination by the counsel for the insurer, a, suggestion was metered thereat, (a) vis-a-vis, the salary register being maintained in the records of the company, (b) and, his thereafter making a disclosure qua his not bringing, the salary register, whereafter, though the counsel for the insurer was enjoined to elicit the scribed records, appertaining to the salary of the deceased, (v) and, apparently, with the afore endeavour remaining un-recoursed by the insurer, thereupon, it is invincible to conclude that dehors Ex.PW5/A, and, Ex.PW5/B, being computer generated documents, rather theirs acquiring immense evidentiary worth or in other words, theirs rather being amenable to be construed, to, emanate, hence from the salary register, as, maintained in the company concerned, whereat the deceased was employed. In sequel, the dependence made thereon, by the learned tribunal concerned, for computing the last drawn salary, of the deceased, is, both apt and valid. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the insurer has contended with much vigour before this Court, that the meteing of hikes in a 50 per centum, vis-a-vis, the last drawn salary of the deceased, and, its working towards future incremental prospects, is, beyond the domain of the mandate of the Hon''ble Apex Court, rendered in case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 . The afore submission as made before this Court, has vigour, given the Hon''ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi''s case (supra) expostulating (i) that where the deceased concerned, was self employed or on a fixed salary, as, is the apt employment, of, the deceased, (ii) thereupon, hikes or accretions, on anvil of future incremental prospects, and, emphatically, vis-a-vis, the last salary drawn by him, at the time contemporaneous, to, the ill fated mishap, from his employer, being also meteable thereto. However, before applying the afore mandate, borne in the judgment supra, it is significant to also bear in mind, the age of the deceased, (ii) since the postmortem report reflects, the deceased, at the relevant time, to be, hene, aged 28 years, thereupon, with the mandate encapsulated in Pranay Sethi''s case (supra), qua accretions towards future incremental prospects, visa-vis, the last drawn salary of the deceased, being enjoined to be pegged upto 40% thereof, besides being tenably meteable, vis-a-vis, the apposite last drawn salary. Consequently, after meteing 40% increase(s), vis-a-vis, the apposite last drawn salary, thereupon, the relevant last gross salary, of, the deceased is recoknable to be Rs. 25,691/-, [Rs.18351/-(last drawn salary of the deceased) + Rs.7,340/-(40% of the last drawn salary). Significantly, the number of dependents, of, the deceased, are, two, hence,1/3rd deduction is to be visited, upon, a sum of Rs. 25,691/-, hence, after making, the, apt aforesaid deduction vis-a-vis Rs. 25,691/-, the per mensem, dependency hence comes to Rs. 17,128/-. In sequel whereto, the annual dependency, of the dependents, upon, the income of the deceased is computed, at Rs. 17,128 x12=2,05,536/-. After applying thereon, the apposite multiplier of 17, the total compensation amount, is assessed in a sum of Rs. 2,05,536/- x 17 = Rs.34,94,112/- (Rs. Thirty four lacs, ninety four thousand, one hundred twelve only). 5. Furthermore, the quantification, of damages, by the learned Tribunal in a sum of Rs. 1 lac each, vis-avis, the claimants, (i) under the head, "loss of love, and affection", (ii) and quantification, of a sum of Rs. 25,000/-, vis-a-vis, the claimants, under the head, "Funeral Charges", is in, conflict with the mandate of the Hon''ble Apex Court rendered in Pranay Sethi''s case (supra), (iii) wherein, it has been expostulated, that reasonable figures, under conventional heads, namely, loss to estate, loss of consortium, vis-a-vis, the widow of the deceased, and, funeral expenses being quantified only upto Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/-, and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. Accordingly, in addition to the aforesaid amount of Rs. 34,94,112/-, the petitioners No.2 and 3/claimants/respondents No.2 and 3, are, entitled under conventional heads, namely, loss to estate, loss of consortium (only vis-a-vis the widow of the deceased), and, funeral expenses, sums of Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively, as such, the total compensation to which the petitioners are entitled comes to Rs. 34,94,112/- + Rs. 15,000/- + Rs. 40,000/- + Rs. 15,000/-= Rs. 35,64,112/-(Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively, as such, the total compensation to which the petitioners are entitled comes to Rs. 34,94,112/- + Rs. 15,000/- + Rs. 40,000/- + Rs. 15,000/-= Rs. 35,64,112/-(Rs. Thirty five lacs, sixty four thousand, one hundred twelve only). 6. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the insurer is partly allowed, and, the impugned award, is, in the aforesaid manner, hence modified. Accordingly, the petitioners, are, held entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 35,64,112/-(Rs. Thirty five lacs, sixty four thousand, one hundred twelve only) along with interest @ 8 %, from, the date of petition till the date, of, deposit, of the compensation amount. The amount of interim compensation, if awarded, be adjusted in the aforesaid compensation amount, at the time of final payment. The afore compensation amount be apportioned amongst the claimants Maya Devi and Veena Devi in the hereinafter extracted manner: (i) Claimant Maya Devi being the widow of the deceased shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 32,64,112/-(Rs. Thirty two lacs, sixty four thousand, one hundred twelve only). (ii) Claimant Veena Devi being the unmarried sister of the deceased shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rs. Three lacs only). All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith. Order accordingly.