JUDGMENT : SANDEEP SHARMA, J. 1. By way of instant appeal having been filed by the appellant-Oriental Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter, 'appellant-Insurance Company') challenge has been laid to Award dated 23.5.2017 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahar, H.P. in MAC Petition No. 37-R/2 of 2016/2015 titled Smt. Manjani Kumari and others vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and another, whereby learned Tribunal below, while allowing the claim petition having been filed by respondents No.1 to 3-claimants held the appellant-Insurance Company liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.19,61,000/- to respondents No.1 to 3/claimants, alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition and till the final realisation of the amount. Though the learned Tribunal below held appellant-Insurance Company and respondent No.4 jointly and severally liable, but the appellant-Insurance Company being insurer, has been directed to indemnify the claimants. 2. Briefly stated the facts as emerge from the record are that respondents No.1 to 3 being legal representatives of deceased Sher Singh, filed a petition under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahar, H.P., alleging therein that on 16.9.2014, deceased Sher Singh, while coming alongwith other persons from Rampur after unloading and selling milk, in vehicle bearing registration No. HP-06A-3682, met with an accident, as a consequence of which he suffered serious injuries resulting into his death. Respondents-claimants averred in the petition that the vehicle was being driven by the deceased Driver, Govind Ram. In the aforesaid accident, Sher Singh and other two occupants died on the spot. Since deceased Sher Singh was head of the family and was the only bread earner of the family, respondents-claimants, by way of the claim petition as referred to above, claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.30.00 Lakh. 3. Appellant-Insurance Company resisted the claim petition on the ground that the respondents/claimants have filed the claim petition in collusion with respondent No.4, Gian Dass, owner of vehicle bearing registration No. HP-06A-3682. Appellant-Insurance Company also claimed before the learned Tribunal below that the deceased Driver Govind Ram was not having an effective and valid driving licence and vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, as such, appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured. Appellant-Insurance Company also claimed before the learned Tribunal below that the deceased Driver Govind Ram was not having an effective and valid driving licence and vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, as such, appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured. Apart from above, appellant-Insurance Company also claimed that the deceased Sher Singh was traveling as a gratuitous passenger in the ill-fated vehicle, as such, no compensation is liable to be paid by the appellant-Insurance Company on account of his death in the alleged accident. 4. Respondent No.4 Gian Dass, by way of a separate reply, while placing on record Insurance Policy issued by the appellant-Insurance Company, claimed that the amount claimed by the respondents/claimants is excessive and without any basis. 5. Learned Tribunal below, on the basis of the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, framed following issues on 4.1.2016 : "1. Whether Sh. Sher Singh had died in a motor vehicle accident on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.HP-06A-3682 being driven by its Driver? OPP 2. Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the deceased at the relevant time was traveling as unauthorized gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle, as alleged? ..OPR-1 4. Whether the petition has been filed in collusion with respondent No.2, as alleged? ..OPR-1 5. Whether the Driver of the offending vehicle at the relevant time was not holding a valid and effective driving licence, as alleged? ....OPR-1 6. Whether the offending vehicle at the relevant time was being plied in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged? ....OPR-1 7. Relief." 6. Subsequently, learned Tribunal below, vide Award dated 23.5.2017, held the claimants entitled to a sum of Rs.19,61,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation of the whole amount. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahar, the appellant-Insurance Company has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to quash the Award. 7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahar, the appellant-Insurance Company has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to quash the Award. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record vis- -vis reasoning assigned by the learned Tribunal below, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that the Award passed by the learned Tribunal below is not based upon proper appreciation of the facts as well as evidence led on record by the respective parties, rather, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal below has not only minutely and carefully examined the evidence, but has appreciated the same in right perspective, as such, there is no scope, if any, for this Court to interfere with the same. 8. Respondents/Claimants by way of cogent and convincing evidence successfully proved on record that on the date of alleged accident, the offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by deceased Driver, Govind Ram. 9. Pw-1, Smt. Manjini Devi proved on record copy of FIR Ext. PW-1/B and post-mortem report, Ext. PW-1/C, perusal whereof clearly reveals that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased, Govind Ram, who at the relevant time was driving the offending vehicle bearing registration No. HP-06A-3682. Similarly, perusal of post-mortem report clearly reveals that the deceased Sher Singh died on account of injuries caused in the motor vehicle accident. 10. Pw-2 Tikkam Ram who happens to be an eye-witness of the alleged accident, testified that on 16.9.2014, he alongwith deceased and Sher Singh had gone to Rampur in the offending vehicle alongwith their milk. Govind Ram was driving the vehicle. They sold their milk at Rampur and when they were returning to their home, vehicle in question met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the Driver, in which Sher Singh and the deceased died. In his cross-examination, this witness denied the suggestion put to him that the accident had not taken place due to mistake of the Driver. 11. In his cross-examination, this witness denied the suggestion put to him that the accident had not taken place due to mistake of the Driver. 11. Interestingly, no evidence in rebuttal, if any, came to be led on record by respondent No. 4 or the appellant-Insurance Company to rebut the aforesaid evidence led on record by the claimants, as such, there appears to be no illegality committed by the learned Tribunal below while returning the findings on the issue of rash and negligent driving by deceased Driver, Govind Ram. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, while inviting attention of this Court to the statement of RW-1, Akash K. Verma, a representative of the appellant-Insurance Company, strenuously argued that since it stood duly proved on record that the deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger, there was no occasion for the learned Tribunal below to entertain the claim petition having been filed by respondents No.1 to 3/claimants. However, after having carefully examined the evidence led on record by the respective parties qua aforesaid aspect of the matter, this Court is not inclined to agree with the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, because bare perusal of the statement of Akash Kumar, RW-1, nowhere proves the case of the appellant-Insurance Company that the deceased was traveling in the vehicle as a gratuitous passenger, rather, there is overwhelming evidence led on record by the claimants that the vehicle in question was registered as a 'Goods' vehicle and deceased alongwith other persons, had been taking his milk to the Milk Plant regularly in the offending vehicle. 13. Rw-2 Tilak Ram, while admitting that he was working as an In-charge at Milk Plant, Kepu, fairly stated before the learned Tribunal below that as per record maintained in the Milk Plant upto 16.9.2014, 342 Litre milk was received in the Milk Plant from the vehicle of Gian Dass (respondent No.4) and thereafter from 17.9.2014, no milk was received and on 18.9.2014 and onwards, milk was received through another vehicle. This witness in his cross-examination admitted that they do not maintain the record of sellers of the milk individually and separately. This witness also admitted that the Chilling Plant had agreement with Govind Ram, for transportation of Milk. 14. This witness in his cross-examination admitted that they do not maintain the record of sellers of the milk individually and separately. This witness also admitted that the Chilling Plant had agreement with Govind Ram, for transportation of Milk. 14. Evidence on record clearly reveals that the deceased used to collect milk and sell the same in Chilling Plant alongwith other persons. Deceased alongwith other persons of the Village had hired the vehicle of Gian Dass, respondent No.4, for Rs.200/- per day. Mere statement of RW-1, Akash Kumar, representative of the appellant-Insurance Company is not sufficient to conclude that the deceased at the time of alleged accident was traveling as a gratuitous passenger. This witness in his cross-examination fairly admitted that he did not witness the accident. Though this witness stated that the Company had appointed Investigator after the accident but report of said Investigator never came to be produced on record. In view of aforesaid discussion, this Court sees no merit in the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that the deceased was traveling in the ill-fated vehicle as a gratuitous passenger, as such, same rightly came to be rejected accordingly. 15. Having carefully perused the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal below under various heads, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal below. erred while awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.1.00 Lakh on account of loss of consortium to petitioner No.1 and Rs.25,000/- on account of funeral expenses. Similarly, no amount could be awarded on account of loss of love and affection to claimants No.2 and 3. Learned Tribunal below further erred in granting Rs.1.00 Lakh on account of loss of estate as such, there appears to be force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that in view of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) AIR SC 5157, learned Tribunal below has wrongly awarded amounts under various other heads i.e. loss of consortium, loss of estate, loss of love and affection and funeral charges and, as such, impugned Award to that extent needs to be modified. 16. At this stage, it would be profitable to reproduce following paragraphs of aforesaid judgment herein below: "47. 16. At this stage, it would be profitable to reproduce following paragraphs of aforesaid judgment herein below: "47. In our considered opinion, if the same is followed, it shall subserve the cause of justice and the unnecessary contest before the tribunals and the courts would be avoided. 48. Another aspect which has created confusion pertains to grant of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. In Santosh Devi (supra), the two-Judge Bench followed the traditional method and granted Rs. 5,000/- for transportation of the body, Rs. 10,000/- as funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- as regards the loss of consortium. In Sarla Verma, the Court granted Rs. 5,000/- under the head of loss of estate, Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of Consortium. In Rajesh, the Court granted Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses. It also granted Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The Court enhanced the same on the principle that a formula framed to achieve uniformity and consistency on a socioeconomic issue has to be contrasted from a legal principle and ought to be periodically revisited as has been held in Santosh Devi (supra). On the principle of revisit, it fixed different amount on conventional heads. What weighed with the Court is factum of inflation and the price index. It has also been moved by the concept of loss of consortium. We are inclined to think so, for what it states in that regard. We quote:- "17. ... In legal parlance, "consortium" is the right of the spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate. That non-pecuniary head of damages has not been properly understood by our courts. The loss of companionship, love, care and protection, etc., the spouse is entitled to get, has to be compensated appropriately. The concept of non pecuniary damage for loss of consortium is one of the major heads of award of compensation in other parts of the world more particularly in the United States of America, Australia, etc. English courts have also recognised the right of a spouse to get compensation even during the period of temporary disablement. The concept of non pecuniary damage for loss of consortium is one of the major heads of award of compensation in other parts of the world more particularly in the United States of America, Australia, etc. English courts have also recognised the right of a spouse to get compensation even during the period of temporary disablement. By loss of consortium, the courts have made an attempt to compensate the loss of spouse's affection, comfort, solace, companionship, society, assistance, protection, care and sexual relations during the future years. Unlike the compensation awarded in other countries and other jurisdictions, since the legal heirs are otherwise adequately compensated for the pecuniary loss, it would not be proper to award a major amount under this head. Hence, we are of the view that it would only be just and reasonable that the courts award at least rupees one lakh for loss of consortium." 60. The controversy does not end here. The question still remains whether there should be no addition where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Sarla Verma thinks it appropriate not to add any amount and the same has been approved in Reshma Kumari. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that salary does not remain the same. When a person is in a permanent job, there is always an enhancement due to one reason or the other. To lay down as a thumb rule that there will be no addition after 50 years will be an unacceptable concept. We are disposed to think, there should be an addition of 15% if the deceased is between the age of 50 to 60 years and there should be no addition thereafter. Similarly, in case of selfemployed or person on fixed salary, the addition should be 10% between the age of 50 to 60 years. The aforesaid yardstick has been fixed so that there can be consistency in the approach by the tribunals and the courts. 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. 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. (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 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." 17. (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." 17. This court having perused the aforesaid judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others (supra) is in agreement with learned counsel representing the appellant-Insurance Company that amounts awarded by the learned Tribunal below, on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate, loss of love and affection and funeral charges need to be reassessed. In view of the law laid down in Pranay Sethi (Supra), Rs.40,000/- ought to have been awarded on account of loss of consortium, Rs. 15,000/- each on account of loss of estate and funeral charges and no amount could have been awarded on account of loss of love and affection. So far income of the deceased and loss of dependency are concerned, this Court does not see any irregularity in the amount so assessed by the learned Tribunal below. Similarly, this court finds no illegality in the multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal below, which has rightly been applied as per law. 18. Consequently, in view of aforesaid modification made herein above, respondents No.1 to 3/ claimants are held entitled to following amounts under various heads: 1. Loss of dependency 15,36,000 2. Loss of consortium to petitioner No. 1 40,000 3. Loss of estate 15,000 4. Funeral charges 15,000 Total 16,06,000 19. This Court however does not see any reason to interfere with the rate of interest awarded on the amount of compensation and as such, same is upheld. Apportionment shall be made as under: Respondent No.1 Rs.6,06,000/- Respondent No.2 Rs.5,00,000/- Respondent No.3 Rs.5,00,000/- The amounts falling to the shares of respondent No.3 be invested in the Fixed Deposits for a period of five years. 20. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made herein above and law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, present appeal is partly allowed and Award passed by learned Tribunal below is modified to the above extent only. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of. Interim directions, if any, are vacated.