JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The Insurer of the offending vehicle, has, instituted the instant appeal before this Court, where through, it, casts, a, challenge, upon, the award pronounced by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, H.P., upon, Claim Petition No. 1-S/2 of 2013, where under, compensation amount comprised, in, a sum of Rs.29,85, 568/- along with interest accrued thereon, at the rate of 9% per annum, and, 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/appellant herein. 2. The learned counsel appearing or the appellant/insurer, (i) does not contest, the validity of affirmative findings, rendered by the learned tribunal, upon, the issue, appertaining to the relevant accident, being, a, sequel of rash, and, negligent manner, of, driving of the offending vehicle, by Prithvi Singh, respondent No.5 herein, (ii) also the postmortem report, borne in Ex.PW2/A, proven by PW-2, supports the factum, of, the demise of the afore, being sparked, by the injuries sustained by him, in the accident hence involving the offending vehicle, driven by respondent No.5 herein. 3. However, the learned counsel appearing for the insurer has contended (i) that the per mensem income, of the deceased, as, stands computed in a sum of Rs.13,042/-, and, with, computation thereof, being anvilled, upon, mark-A, mark whereof, is a copy of income tax return, filed by the deceased, rather being stained with a vice, of, infirmity given (a) the afore mark not being proven in accordance with law, (b) and, no supportive document standing appended therewith, in personification of the income tax return, filed by the deceased, appertaining to his deriving income, from his running, a tea shop, under certificates/licences, respectively borne in Ex.PW3/B, and, in Ex.PW3/C, (c) thereupon, no reliance was assignable thereto nor any derivation of income, by the deceased, from, his afore pleaded avocation, enjoys any formidable evidentiary worth or probative vigour. However, the afore contention as addressed, before this Court, (d) is, blunted by the factum qua Mark-A, being tendered, during, the course of examination-in-chief of PW-3, (e) and, when thereafter, the appellant, had, the opportunity to adduce evidence in rebuttal thereto, and, when thereat, it was also befitting for the learned counsel, for the insurer, appearing before the learned tribunal, to, elicit from income tax department, all documents appended therewith, (f) and, also to elicit original of Mark A. However, all, the afore endeavours remained evidently un-recoursed, by the counsel for the insurer, thereupon, an inference, is, sparked qua hence Mark-A, being acquiesced by the appellant. More so, when only upon the afore evidence being elicited, by the counsel for the insurer, a concomitant conclusion, was hence drawable qua Mark-A, rather being doctored, and, invented, (g) and, whereas, omission(s) whereof when construed in coagulation, with, the deceased, being issued licences, borne in Ex.PW3/B, and, in Ex.PW3/C, thereupon, a firm conclusion, is engendered qua the returns of income, enclosed in Mark A, rather appertaining to the income, derived by the deceased, from, his running a tea stall, rather, under the afore valid licences being granted to him, by the authorities concerned, (h) besides, reiteratedly, when hence the reflections borne therein, dehors it, not comprising the original, hence assume an aura of solemnity or sanctity, thereupon, assigning of vigour thereto, is, merit worthy. 4. The learned counsel, appearing for the insurer has contended, that, the, meteing of 50% hikes, vis-a-vis, the afore sum also meriting interference, (a) given it being beyond the domain of the verdict 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 contention of the learned counsel has strength, given, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the afore verdict mandating qua rather it being permissible, for meteing, of 40% hikes, vis-a-vis, the deceased, who, was self employed or on a fixed salary, and, was below the age of 40 years. Since the postmortem report reflects, the deceased being aged 29 years, at the relevant time, hence, with, the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court, encapsulated in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), mandating, qua accretions towards future incremental prospects, vis-a-vis, the per mensem income of the deceased, being pegged, upto 40% thereof, besides being tenably meteable, vis-a-vis, the apposite per mensem income. Since the postmortem report reflects, the deceased being aged 29 years, at the relevant time, hence, with, the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court, encapsulated in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), mandating, qua accretions towards future incremental prospects, vis-a-vis, the per mensem income of the deceased, being pegged, upto 40% thereof, besides being tenably meteable, vis-a-vis, the apposite per mensem income. Consequently, after meteing 40% increase(s) vis-a-vis the apposite per mensem income, thereupon, the relevant per mensem income, of, the deceased, is, recoknable to be Rs.18,258/-/-, [Rs.13042/- (per mensem income of the deceased)+Rs.5,216/-(40% of the per mensem income). Significantly, the number of dependents, of, the deceased, are, three, hence, 1/3rd deduction is to be visited, upon, a sum of Rs.18,258/-. Consequently, the per mensem dependency, including the future hikes towards future prospects, after meteing the afore 1/3rd deduction, is, worked out, now at Rs.18,258/- – Rs.6086/- = Rs.12,172/-. In sequel whereto, the annual dependency, of the dependents, upon, the income of the deceased is computed, at Rs.12,172/- x 12= Rs.1,46,064/-. After applying the apposite multiplier of 17, the total compensation amount, is assessed in a sum of Rs.24,83,088/- (Rs. Twenty four lacs, eighty three thousand and eighty eight only). 5. Furthermore, the quantification, of damages, by the learned Tribunal in a sum of Rs.1 lacs each, vis-a-vis, the claimants, (i) under the head, “loss of consortium and loss of estate””, (ii) and, quantification, of compensation, borne in a sum of Rs. 1 lac, vis-a-vis, claimant No.1, under the head, “loss of love and affection”, and, further quantification of compensation, borne in a sum of Rs. One lac, vis-a-vis, petitioners/claimants No.2 and 3, as also, funeral expenses borne in a sum of Rs.25,000/-, is (a) in, conflict with the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), (b) wherein, it has been expostulated, that reasonable figures, under conventional heads, namely, loss to estate, loss of consortium, and, funeral expenses being quantified only upto Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/-, and Rs.15,000/- respectively, (iii) and, with no expostulation occurring therein vis-a-vis the compensation amounts, being awardable, to the off springs of the deceased, especially under the head, “loss of love and affection”, hence reliefs in respect thereto being impermissibly granted. Consequently, the award of the learned tribunal is also interfered, to the extent aforesaid, of, its determining compensation, under, the aforesaid heads vis-a-vis, claimants. Consequently, the award of the learned tribunal is also interfered, to the extent aforesaid, of, its determining compensation, under, the aforesaid heads vis-a-vis, claimants. Accordingly, in addition to the aforesaid amount of Rs.24,83,088/-, the claimants, are, entitled under conventional heads, namely, loss to estate, loss of consortium, 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.24,83,088/-+15,000/- +40,000/- 15,000/-= Rs.25,53,088/-(Rs. Twenty five lacs, fifty three thousand and eighty eight 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 claimants/petitioners, are, held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.25,53,088/--, along with pending and future interest @9 % per annum, 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. Compensation amount be apportioned, amongst the claimants in the hereinafter extracted manner:- Petitioner No.1 Rs. 15,53,088/- Petitioner No.2 Rs. 5,00,000/- Petitioner No.3 Rs.5,00,000/- All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.