JUDGMENT : Ram Krishna Gautam, J. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by Prem Singh and 6 others/appellants-claimants against Subhash and 2 others/respondents-opposite parties, against the judgment and award dated 27.11.1999 passed by IIIrd District Judge/Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Muzaffarnagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 234 of 1997 (Prem Singh and six others Vs. Subhash and two others), with this contention that tribunal failed to appreciate the facts and law placed before it. 2. The settled law with regard to determination of prospective age of the deceased has been completely ignored by the Tribunal. Only Rs. 90,000/- has been awarded which is wholly inadequate and against the principle of determination of compensation and also against the evidence on record. The monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 1,250/- as against the unrebutted and proved evidence on record that the monthly income of the deceased was in no way less than Rs. 1,500/-. There was increasing trend in income of the deceased from year to year. The learned Tribunal has erred in holding otherwise. Multiplier of "9" applied by the Tribunal at the place of "18" given in the Schedule is also erroneous. No reason for non grant of consortium and loss of estate has been recorded. The funeral expenses has not been given hence, this appeal for setting aside the impugned award and allowing the claim petition. 3. Heard learned counsels for both sides. 4. From the very perusal of the impugned judgment, it is apparent that claim petition was filed by the parents of deceased Pappu along with the Kallu, Anil, Sanjai, Shakuntala and Pintoo, brothers and sister of deceased Pappu for a compensation of Rs. 9 lacs against owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle on the ground that deceased Pappu was a cleaner, working on truck No. HYL9582. On 26.05.1997 at about 5:00 P.M. while he was on above truck, being driven to Jhunjhun (Rajashtan) from Israna (Haryana) it met with an accident, owing to rash and negligent driving by the driver concerned. Pappu was dead on spot, driver ran from spot. The First Information Report was got lodged at Police Station Jhunjhun against driver Subhash on 27.05.1997. Pappu was of 25 years and was earning Rs. 1,500/- per month by doing his work at above truck. Pappu was dead on spot, driver ran from spot. The First Information Report was got lodged at Police Station Jhunjhun against driver Subhash on 27.05.1997. Pappu was of 25 years and was earning Rs. 1,500/- per month by doing his work at above truck. The claimants were dependent on his earnings, hence, a compensation of Rs. 9 lacs were claimed. 5. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle filed their written statement, Paper No. 8A, admitting Subhash to be the driver of the vehicle and Gur Baksha Singh to be registered owner of the same vehicle, duly and validly insured by Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Panipat, Haryana. The liability, if any, for making compensation was of above insurance company. The fact of accident was denied, rash and negligent driving of the truck was denied. But it was admitted that deceased Pappu was the cleaner of above truck, who died in the accident of above truck, but this was owing to his own negligence. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.-defendant No. 3, in its written statement denied the claim with contention that claimant Nos. 3 to 7 were not dependant upon the deceased, hence, were not entitled for any claim. The monthly income, shown was 1,500/- which was excessive, the truck cleaner used to fetch hardly 900/- per month. The insurance of the vehicle concerned and the same being plied by a driver within the terms of the policy with a valid driving licence was to be proved by the claimants. 6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Tribunal: (1) Whether Pappu died in an accident owing to rashness and negligent driving of truck No. HYL9582 at Jhunjhun Badagav on 26.05.1997? (2) Whether claimants are entitled for any compensation, if yes from whom? (3) Whether Opposite Party No. 1 i.e. driver Subhash was not having valid and effective driving licence and thereby defendant No. 3-Insurance Company was not responsible for making any payment of compensation? (Translated by Court in English) The Tribunal decided Issue No. 1 in favour of claimants. Issue No. 2 was decided in favour of claimants but the monthly income was held to be 900/-, annual income of Rs. 15,000/- as given in the Schedule, the multiplier was held to be nine and insurance company was held to be responsible for making payment and thereby award of Rs. Issue No. 2 was decided in favour of claimants but the monthly income was held to be 900/-, annual income of Rs. 15,000/- as given in the Schedule, the multiplier was held to be nine and insurance company was held to be responsible for making payment and thereby award of Rs. 90,000/- with 12 per cent annual interest was made by the impugned judgment, against which this appeal. 7. In this appeal for enhancement of compensation, learned counsel for the claimants/appellants has argued that the assessment of income of the deceased ought to have been considered on the basis of his actual income which was Rs. 3,000/- per month. Further, the argument advanced is towards future prospects, loss of consortium, love & affection and loss of estate for which no amount has been awarded and for Customary allowance a very meager sum has been awarded. 8. The first argument advanced on behalf of the appellants is that applying the principles regarding assessment of annual income, as laid down by the Apex Court in Laxmi Devi & others v. Mohammad Tabbar & Another, (2008) 12 SCC 165 , the Tribunal ought to have considered Rs. 100/- per day or Rs. 3,000/- per month in the absence of any evidence, taking the deceased to be an unskilled labourer. Computing on the basis of this, the annual income figures out to be Rs. 36,000/-, whereas, Tribunal assessed it to be only Rs. 1,250/- per month. 9. The next argument advanced is that towards the future prospects no compensation has been awarded, whereas, in the light of the judgment of Constitution Bench of Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 decided on 31.10.2017 in Civil Appeal No. 6961 of 2015, the compensation should have also been awarded towards future prospects. In the said judgment, learned counsel for the appellant argued that 25% has been prescribed towards future prospects considering the age of the victim, deceased. 10. The last argument advanced is that towards funeral expenses also, the amount awarded is very less and also the amount towards love and affection nothing has been awarded. 11. Considering the first argument regarding income of the deceased, I find that assumption of income by Tribunal as Rs. 10. The last argument advanced is that towards funeral expenses also, the amount awarded is very less and also the amount towards love and affection nothing has been awarded. 11. Considering the first argument regarding income of the deceased, I find that assumption of income by Tribunal as Rs. 36,000/- of the deceased is in accordance with the principle of law laid down in Laxmi Devi (supra) in which Apex Court has upheld the decision of the High Court to take monthly income of Rs. 3,000/- considering the escalation of prices etc. Thus, in my opinion, in the present case also the monthly income should be taken as Rs. 3,000/- even though there was no evidence led to prove actual monthly income. 12. Now coming to the aspect of future prospects and claim of compensation in that head for those who are self employed. This issue is no more res integra. The Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) vide paras 56 and 57 has held thus: "56. The seminal issue is the fixation of future prospects in cases of deceased who is self-employed or on a fixed salary. Sarla Verma (supra) has carved out an exception permitting the claimants to bring materials on record to get the benefit of addition of future prospects. It has not, per se, allowed any future prospects in respect of the said category. 57. Having bestowed our anxious consideration, we are disposed to think when we accept the principle of standardization, there is really no rationale not to apply the said principle to the self-employed or a person who is on a fixed salary. To follow the doctrine of actual income at the time of death and not to add any amount with regard to future prospects to the income for the purpose of determination of multiplicand would be unjust. The determination of income while computing compensation has to include future prospects so that the method will come within the ambit and sweep of just compensation as postulated under Section 168 of the Act. In case of a deceased who had held a permanent job with inbuilt grant of annual increment, there is an acceptable certainty. But to state that the legal representatives of a deceased who was on a fixed salary would not be entitled to the benefit of future prospects for the purpose of computation of compensation would be inapposite. In case of a deceased who had held a permanent job with inbuilt grant of annual increment, there is an acceptable certainty. But to state that the legal representatives of a deceased who was on a fixed salary would not be entitled to the benefit of future prospects for the purpose of computation of compensation would be inapposite. It is because the criterion of distinction between the two in that event would be certainty on the one hand and staticness on the other. One may perceive that the comparative measure is certainty on the one hand and uncertainty on the other but such a perception is fallacious. It is because the price rise does affect a self-employed person; and that apart there is always an incessant effort to enhance one's income for sustenance. The purchasing capacity of a salaried person on permanent job when increases because of grant of increments and pay revision or for some other change in service conditions, there is always a competing attitude in the private sector to enhance the salary to get better efficiency from the employees. Similarly, a person who is self-employed is bound to garner his resources and raise his charges/fees so that he can live with same facilities. To have the perception that he is likely to remain static and his income to remain stagnant is contrary to the fundamental concept of human attitude which always intends to live with dynamism and move and change with the time. Though it may seem appropriate that there cannot be certainty in addition of future prospects to the existing income unlike in the case of a person having a permanent job, yet the said perception does not really deserve acceptance. We are inclined to think that there can be some degree of difference as regards the percentage that is meant for or applied to in respect of the legal representatives who claim on behalf of the deceased who had a permanent job than a person who is self-employed or on a fixed salary. But not to apply the principle of standardization on the foundation of perceived lack of certainty would tantamount to remaining oblivious to the marrows of ground reality. And, therefore, degree-test is imperative. Unless the degree-test is applied and left to the parties to adduce evidence to establish, it would be unfair and inequitable. But not to apply the principle of standardization on the foundation of perceived lack of certainty would tantamount to remaining oblivious to the marrows of ground reality. And, therefore, degree-test is imperative. Unless the degree-test is applied and left to the parties to adduce evidence to establish, it would be unfair and inequitable. The degree-test has to have the inbuilt concept of percentage. Taking into consideration the cumulative factors, namely, passage of time, the changing society, escalation of price, the change in price index, the human attitude to follow a particular pattern of life, etc., an addition of 40% of the established income of the deceased towards future prospects and where the deceased was below 40 years an addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years would be reasonable." 12. Ultimately, the Court vide para 59 concluded thus: "59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:- 59.1. The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 421 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 v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh (supra) is not a binding precedent. 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. 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." 13. The above legal position has not been disputed and the compensation therefore, is to be awarded after its computation in terms of the judgment in Sarla Verma & Ors v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Reshma Kumari & others v. Madan Mohan & Anr, (2013) 9 SCC 65 in the light of observations made and directions issued by the Apex Court in Constitution Bench judgment in Pranay Seth (supra). 14. Hence, considering the age of the deceased in the present case as per the findings of the Tribunal as 25 years, I am of the opinion that 40% of the income should be added towards future prospects 15. For loss of consortium, no question arises because the deceased was unmarried. 16. In Pranay Sethi (supra) the Constitution Bench vide para 52 held thus: "52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh. It has granted Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/- loss of consortium and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. 16. In Pranay Sethi (supra) the Constitution Bench vide para 52 held thus: "52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh. It has granted Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/- loss of consortium and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to Santosh Devi, it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that 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 principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads." 17. Accordingly, I direct that towards the loss of estate, love and affection and funeral expenses, Rs. 5,000/-, Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 10,000/- respectively shall be paid as compensation. 18. On the point of deduction from income towards personal expenses also the law is almost settled by the Constitution Bench. Vide para 59.5, the Bench has approved paras 30 to 32 of the judgment in Sarla Verma (supra). 5,000/-, Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 10,000/- respectively shall be paid as compensation. 18. On the point of deduction from income towards personal expenses also the law is almost settled by the Constitution Bench. Vide para 59.5, the Bench has approved paras 30 to 32 of the judgment in Sarla Verma (supra). Paras 30, 31 & 32 of the judgment in Sarla Verma (supra) runs as under: "30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra4, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this (2003) 3 SLR (R) 601 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 dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six. 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 parents 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 dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. 32. 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. 32. 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 the family of the bachelor is large and dependent 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." 19. For the purpose of case in hand, admittedly deceased was unmarried, hence, half deduction towards his own expanses and remaining half towards his parents-claimant Nos. 1 and 2 will be thier dependency. 20. The tribunal has held the age of surviving father to be of 50 years and the mother 45 years hence, for applying the multiplier as per Sarla Verma (Supra) case, the factor provided for 46 to 50 years is to be taken into consideration i.e. 13. Hence, the multiplier is to be 13, whereas Tribunal has applied multiplier 9' which is apparently erroneous. 21. Accordingly a total compensation, admissible to the claimants and payable to them is worked out as under: Notional Income Rs. 3,000/- p.m. Rs. 36,000/- p.a. Future Prospects 40% of Rs. 36,000/- Rs. 14,400/- Total Income Rs. 50,400/- Deduction towards personal expenses Half of total income Rs. 25,200/- Dependency 50,400-25,200 Rs. 25,200/- Multiplier 13 Compensation 25,200/- X 13 Rs. 3,27,600/- Loss of Love and Affection Rs. 10,000/- Loss of consortium NIL Funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/- Loss of estate Rs. 5,000/- Total Compensation Rs. 3,52,600/- 22. Thus the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 90,000/- to Rs. 3,52,600/- with simple interest at the rate of 7 % per cent per annum from the date of presentation of petition to the actual payment. 23. In view of the above, the appeal stands allowed. The compensation awarded to the claimants-appellants under the order of Tribunal is accordingly enhanced and award stands modified to the extent indicated hereinabove.