JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant appeal, is directed by the insurer of the offending vehicle, against the impugned award, rendered by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-1, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. (for short ‘MACT’) upon, MAC Petition No. 96-MAC/2 of 2014, (a) where-through, hence compensation amount borne, in a sum of Rs. 20,36,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, commencing from the date of the impugned award, till its realization, stood in toto assessed, as compensation, vis-a-vis the dependents of deceased one Ram Pal and the apposite indemnificatory liability was fastened, upon the insurer of the offending vehicle. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant, has, with much vigour, contended before this Court, that, the learned MACT concerned, has untenably irrevered the factum, of non-echoings in the FIR, embodied in Ex. RW-1/A and as stood lodged with respect, to the relevant occurrence, vis-a-vis, the color and description, of the offending vehicle: (a) has also untenably irrevered the enunciations borne in the apt final report comprised in Ex. RW-1/B, filed by the Investigating Officer concerned, before the learned Trial Magistrate concerned, with, voicings therein, vis-a-vis for want of evidence, (b) hence suggestive of the involvement of the offending vehicle concerned in the relevant collision, which purportedly occurred, at the relevant time, inter-se the motor cycle driven, by the deceased, and the offending vehicle driven by its driver, rather thereupon constraining him, to file an untraced report. He also proceeds to contend that the deference meted, by the learned MACT concerned, to, the testification rendered, by an ocular witness of the occurrence, who stepped into the witness box, as PW-3 being also likewise frail: (i) as, the color of the offending vehicle mentioned by him in his testification, stands echoed as "white" whereas, the, registration certificate appertaining, to the offending vehicle discloses its color to be, silver Grey. 3. 3. However, for all the reasons, to be assigned hereinafter, the afore submissions, cannot, be accepted by this Court, as, the non-echoing in the FIR borne in RW-1/A, as stood lodged, with respect to the relevant occurrence, vis-a-vis, the type, number and description of the offending vehicle concerned and also in subsequent thereto rather in tandem therewith, the apposite final report, borne in Ex.RW-1/B, rather not overruling the testification, of PW-3 (Shri Naresh Kumar) an ocular witness, to the occurrence, (a) nor, the latter's testification hence making pointed echoings, vis-a-vis, the tort of negligence, hence being committed by the driver of the offending vehicle, also is obviously rather not discardable, (b) as, the learned MACT in meteing deference to his testification, has, acted within the domain of its jurisdiction, hence permitting it, to receive testifications of an ocular witness, to the occurrence, dehors, the FIR as well as the untraced report not disclosing, the type and description, of the offending vehicle. Conspicuously, also when even upon, a, verdict, of, acquittal standing pronounced upon the accused, also being rather not a sufficient piece of evidence, to, discard, credible ocular account, vis-a-vis, the occurrence, whereupon the testification of PW-3, an ocular witness to the occurrence, cannot be discarded. Even if PW-3, has made a mis-description, vis-a-vis the color of the offending vehicle, however, the afore mis-description, is to be construed, to ensue from the immense delay, which occurred, inter-se, the happening of, the relevant mishap, and, his testification being recorded, before the Court concerned, (c) besides when he evidently holds his abode in proximity to the location, whereat, the relevant accident took place in aftermath, the afore submission addressed before this Court, by the learned counsel, for the appellant addressed before this Court, is rejected. 4. The learned counsel for the insurer, has also contended that co-claimant No. 2, one Nishant, is not dependent, upon, the income of his deceased father and no amount of compensation is required to be assessable, vis-a-vis, him. However, the afore contention has no weight, given, the insurer not adducing any evidence, vis-a-vis, co-claimant No. 2, at the relevant time, being gainfully employed. 5. The deceased was admittedly, as, reflected by salary certificate, borne in PW-1/B, hence drawing a salary of Rs. 28,573/- per mensem, from his relevant employment. However, the afore contention has no weight, given, the insurer not adducing any evidence, vis-a-vis, co-claimant No. 2, at the relevant time, being gainfully employed. 5. The deceased was admittedly, as, reflected by salary certificate, borne in PW-1/B, hence drawing a salary of Rs. 28,573/- per mensem, from his relevant employment. Even though, the respondent/claimants, have not filed any cross appeal hence seeking, there-through, the apt meteings of hikes towards future incremental gains qua the afore figures of per mensem salary, hence within the domain of a verdict recorded by the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) ACJ 2700, (i) yet merely on the afore omission, this Court would not deprive the claimants, rather, the apt benefits, of accretion towards future incremental prospects, being meted to the afore figure of per mensem salary drawn, by the deceased from his relevant employment. In making the afore decision, the age of the deceased is important. 6. The deceased, uncontrovertedly pleaded to be aged 56 years, at the relevant time. With the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) ACJ 2700, the relevant paragraph No. 61, extracted hereinafter: "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. 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 42 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/- and Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years." Expostulating (i) that where the deceased concerned, was a self employed or on a fixed salary, as is, the apt employment, of, the deceased, (a) thereupon, hikes or accretions, on anvil of future incremental prospects, vis-a-vis, the salary drawn by him, at the time contemporaneous, to, the ill fated mishap, from his employer, being also meteable thereto. However, before applying the mandate of the aforesaid relevant paragraph, borne in the judgment supra, it is significant to also bear in mind, the age of the deceased, (ii) since the deceased being aged 56 years, at the relevant time, hence with the afore extracted paragraph, mandating, of, accretions towards future incremental prospects, vis-a-vis, the salary last drawn, by the deceased, being pegged upto 15% thereof, besides being tenably meteable, vis-a-vis, the apposite last drawn salary. The last drawn salary of the deceased at the time of his death has been held to be Rs. 28,000/- (round off) per mensem. The last drawn salary of the deceased at the time of his death has been held to be Rs. 28,000/- (round off) per mensem. Consequently, after meteing 15% apt increases, vis-a-vis, the apposite last drawn salary, thereupon, the relevant last drawn salary, of, the deceased, is recoknable to be Rs. 32,200/- [Rs. 28,000/- (last drawn salary of the deceased) + Rs. 42,00/- 15% 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. 32,200/- hence, after making, the apt aforesaid deduction, vis-a-vis, the afore sum, the per mensem dependency, comes to Rs. 21467/- (round off). In sequel whereto, the annual dependency, of the dependents, upon, the income of the deceased, is computed, at Rs. 21,467/- x 12 = Rs. 2,57,604/-. After applying thereto, the apposite multiplier of 8, the total compensation amount, is assessed in a sum of Rs. 2,57,604 x 8 = Rs. 20,60,832/-. 7. However, the quantification, of damages, by the learned Tribunal in a sum of Rs. 10,000/- vis-a-vis, the under the head, loss of consortium, and, quantification of compensation in a sum of Rs. 10,000/- under the head "funeral charges" 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 of consortium, vis-a-vis, the widow of the deceased, funeral expenses, and, loss of estate, being quantified only upto Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. 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, the widow of the deceased, as also, vis-a-vis the other claimants. Accordingly, in addition to the aforesaid amount of Rs. 20,60,832/- the claimants, are, entitled under conventional heads, namely, loss of consortium, vis-a-vis, the widow of the deceased, funeral expenses, and, loss of estate, sums of Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively, as such, the total compensation whereto which the appellants/claimants, are entitled, comes to Rs. 20,60,832 + 40,000 + 15,000 + 15,000 = Rs. 21,30,832/-. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal stands disposed of, and, the impugned award, is in the aforesaid manner, hence modified. Accordingly, the claimants/appellants, are, held entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 15,000/- respectively, as such, the total compensation whereto which the appellants/claimants, are entitled, comes to Rs. 20,60,832 + 40,000 + 15,000 + 15,000 = Rs. 21,30,832/-. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal stands disposed of, and, the impugned award, is in the aforesaid manner, hence modified. Accordingly, the claimants/appellants, are, held entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 21,30,832/- along with interest @ 7.5% from, the date of petition till the date, of, deposit, of the compensation amount. The indemnificatory liability, vis-a-vis, the afore compensation amount, shall be, of the insurer of the offending vehicle. The amount of interim compensation, if awarded, be adjusted in the aforesaid compensation amount, at the time of final payment. The aforesaid amount of compensation be apportioned in the manner as ordered by the learned tribunal. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.