JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - Both these appeals arising out from the same award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla, in M.A.C.C. No.1-S/2 of 2014, dated 16.1.2016, whereby the claimants-appellants in FAO No.238 of 2016 and respondents in FAO No.273 of 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'claimant') have been awarded a sum of Rs.14,05,000/-, as compensation. 2. The claimants has maintained an appeal against the owner of the vehicle and National Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent') has maintained an appeal for enhancement of the amount 3. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are : claimants being minor daughter, minor son and husband of Smt. Asha Devi, have maintained the complaint, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, seeking compensation on account of death of Smt. Asha Devi, in a road side accident, which took place on 10.11.2013 involving vehicle bearing No.HP-30-1087 against the respondents being the owner and insurer of the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle has died in the said accident. As per the claimants, deceased Asha Devi, was travelling in the vehicle No.HP-30-1087 being driven by Basant Lal. The accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of Basant Lal. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, Asha Devi, died on the spot. As per the claimant, the age of Asha Devi, at the time of her death was 37 years and she was earning Rs.20,000/-. 4. Respondent No.1 filed separate reply, in which, preliminary objections that the claim petition is not maintainable, have no cause of action, the tribunal has no jurisdiction to try and decide the matter. On merits, the claim petition has been contested, factum of accident in question has not been disputed. 5. Insurance Company has filed its separate reply, in which, the Insurance Company has taken the preliminary objections that the claim petition is not maintainable, the claimants are estoped from filing the present petition due to their own acts and conduct, driver of the vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, the vehicle in question was driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Company, as the vehicle was registered as private vehicle and was not authorized to carry passengers. It has also been pleaded that the seating capacity provided in the registration certificate as well as in the policy was of four persons, whereas, in the vehicle, eight persons were travelling at the time of accident. 6. From the pleadings of parties, the learned Tribunal below framed following issues: "1. Whether Smt. Asha Devi died in a road side accident on 10.11.2013 at about 4:00 p.m. involving vehicle No.HP30-1087 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner ? OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, for what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled and from whom ? OPP. 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable as alleged ? OPR-1. 4. Whether the claimants have no cause of action ? OPR-1. 5. Whether this tribunal has no jurisdiction ? OPR- 1. 6. Whether the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. If so, its effect ? OPR-2. 7. Whether the vehicle in question was permitted to ply in contravention to the provisions of the M.V. Act and terms and conditions of the insurance policy. If so, its effect ? OPR-2. 8. Relief." 7. The learned trial Court after deciding Issues No.1, 2 in affirmative, Issues No.3 to 7 in negative, allowed the petition and awarded a sum of Rs.14,05,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition from the respondents jointly and severally. 8. Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants has argued that the learned Tribunal below has ignored the evidence and documents, which have come on record, show that the income of the deceased was Rs.20,000/- per month, as she was having two cows. He has argued that no compensation has been granted for love and affection to the son and daughter. He has further argued that the husband is unable to do any work, as he has suffered epilepsy attack about 10 to 13 years ago, when he was working in the field and the family was totally dependant upon the deceased, who was doing the work of grazing two cows and selling of milk i.e. 25 litres per day. He has further argued that the husband is unable to do any work, as he has suffered epilepsy attack about 10 to 13 years ago, when he was working in the field and the family was totally dependant upon the deceased, who was doing the work of grazing two cows and selling of milk i.e. 25 litres per day. He has further argued that the Insurance Company cannot maintain an appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, on quantum and as such, the same is not maintainable. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Insurance Company has argued that the learned tribunal below has awarded an amount with respect to some of the heads, which are contrary to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) AIR SC 5157 and submitted that the award amount is required to be reduced. 10. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, I have gone through the entire record of the case carefully. 11. The evidence on record with respect to the age of deceased was her Matriculation Certificate and Pariwar Register, which show that at the time of accident, she was 37 years of age and her age is correctly taken by the learned tribunal below. As far as the evidence of the income is concerned, husband of the petitioner has deposed that she was keeping two cows and daily selling 25 litres of milk. He has further stated that he cannot do anything, as he has suffered epilepsy attack eleven years before, when he has gone to the fields. 12. Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) AIR SC 5157 , has held as under : "[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, (2012) AIR SC 2185 (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. [48] Another aspect which has created confusion pertains to grant of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. In Santosh Devi, (2012) AIR SC 2185 (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, (2009) AIR SC 3104 , 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 socio-economic 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 nonpecuniary 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. 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." [49] Be it noted, Munna Lal Jain, (2015) AIRSCW 3105 (supra) did not deal with the same as the notice was confined to the issue of application of correct multiplier and deduction of the amount. [50] This aspect needs to be clarified and appositely stated. The conventional sum has been provided in the Second Schedule of the Act. The said Schedule has been found to be defective as stated by the Court in Trilok Chandra (supra). Recently in Puttamma and others v. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, it has been reiterated by stating:- " we hold that the Second Schedule as was enacted in 1994 has now become redundant, irrational and unworkable due to changed scenario including the present cost of living and current rate of inflation and increased life expectancy." [51] As far as multiplier or multiplicand is concerned, the same has been put to rest by the judgments of this Court. Para 3 of the Second Schedule also provides for General Damages in case of death. It is as follows:- "3. General Damages (in case of death): The following General Damages shall be payable in addition to compensation outlined above:- (i) Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/ (ii) Loss of Consortium, if beneficiary is the spouse Rs. 5,000/- (iii) Loss of Estate Rs. 2,500/- (iv) Medical Expenses actual expenses incurred before death supported by bills/vouchers but not exceeding Rs. 15,000/-. [52] On a perusal of various decisions of this Court, it is manifest that the Second Schedule has not been followed starting from the decision in Trilok Chandra (supra) and there has been no amendment to the same. The conventional damage amount needs to be appositely determined. As we notice, in different cases different amounts have been granted. A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was granted towards consortium in Rajesh. The justification for grant of consortium, as we find from Rajesh, is founded on the observation as we have reproduced hereinbefore. [53] On the aforesaid basis, the Court has revisited the practice of awarding compensation under conventional heads. As we notice, in different cases different amounts have been granted. A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was granted towards consortium in Rajesh. The justification for grant of consortium, as we find from Rajesh, is founded on the observation as we have reproduced hereinbefore. [53] On the aforesaid basis, the Court has revisited the practice of awarding compensation under conventional heads. [54] 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, (2012) AIR SC 2185 , 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. [55] Presently, we come to the issue of addition of future prospects to determine the multiplicand. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads. [55] Presently, we come to the issue of addition of future prospects to determine the multiplicand. [56] In Santosh Devi, (2012) AIR SC 2185 the Court has not accepted as a principle that a self-employed person remains on a fixed salary throughout his life. It has taken note of the rise in the cost of living which affects everyone without making any distinction between the rich and the poor. Emphasis has been laid on the extra efforts made by this category of persons to generate additional income. That apart, judicial notice has been taken of the fact that the salaries of those who are employed in private sectors also with the passage of time increase manifold. In Rajesh's case, the Court had added 15% in the case where the victim is between the age group of 15 to 60 years so as to make the compensation just, equitable, fair and reasonable. This addition has been made in respect of self-employed or engaged on fixed wages. [57] Section 168 of the Act deals with the concept of "just compensation" and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standard because such determination can never be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect. The aim is to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical precision on the basis of materials brought on record in an individual case. The conception of "just compensation" has to be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non-violation of the principle of equitability. In a case of death, the legal heirs of the claimants cannot expect a windfall. Simultaneously, the compensation granted cannot be an apology for compensation. It cannot be a pittance. Though the discretion vested in the tribunal is quite wide, yet it is obligatory on the part of the tribunal to be guided by the expression, that is, "just compensation". The determination has to be on the foundation of evidence brought on record as regards the age and income of the deceased and thereafter the apposite multiplier to be applied. The formula relating to multiplier has been clearly stated in Sarla Verma, (2009) AIR SC 3104 (supra) and it has been approved in Reshma Kumari, (2013) Supp AIR SC 474 (supra). The formula relating to multiplier has been clearly stated in Sarla Verma, (2009) AIR SC 3104 (supra) and it has been approved in Reshma Kumari, (2013) Supp AIR SC 474 (supra). The age and income, as stated earlier, have to be established by adducing evidence. The tribunal and the Courts have to bear in mind that the basic principle lies in pragmatic computation which is in proximity to reality. It is a well accepted norm that money cannot substitute a life lost but an effort has to be made for grant of just compensation having uniformity of approach. There has to be a balance between the two extremes, that is, a windfall and the pittance, a bonanza and the modicum. In such an adjudication, the duty of the tribunal and the Courts is difficult and hence, an endeavour has been made by this Court for standardization which in its ambit includes addition of future prospects on the proven income at present. As far as future prospects are concerned, there has been standardization keeping in view the principle of certainty, stability and consistency. We approve the principle of "standardization" so that a specific and certain multiplicand is determined for applying the multiplier on the basis of age. [58] The seminal issue is the fixation of future prospects in cases of deceased who is self-employed or on a fixed salary. Sarla Verma, (2009) AIR SC 3104 (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. [59] 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. 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. 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 selfemployed 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. 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. [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, (2009) AIR SC 3104 thinks it appropriate not to add any amount and the same has been approved in Reshma Kumari, (2013) Supp AIR SC 474 . 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 self employed 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, (2012) AIR SC 2185 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, (2009) AIR SC 3104 , 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, (2013) Supp AIR SC 474 , 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 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/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years." 13. I have thoroughly taken into consideration the arguments, as advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company that there is no evidence on record to conclude the breed of cows and how much they were yielding milk each day and where the accounts of the sale of milk, purchase of the fodder etc. etc. I have thoroughly taken into consideration the arguments, as advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company that there is no evidence on record to conclude the breed of cows and how much they were yielding milk each day and where the accounts of the sale of milk, purchase of the fodder etc. etc. The Court also cannot shut its eyes to the fact that cows do not yield some quality of milk throughout the years and the evidence by way of affidavit of the husband of the petitioner-PW-2 is not confidence inspiring, as it lacks material particulars. In these circumstances, this Court finds that income of the deceased as taken by the learned tribunal below cannot said to be on the lower side. 14. Now, coming to the income of the deceased, though the claimants have submitted that she was earning Rs.20,000/- per month for that they had examined the shopkeeper and stated that she was selling cow milk, but there is no such documents to conclude that she was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Even otherwise also as submitted by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the cows do not yield milk in same quantity throughout the year and it decreases with the passage of time. There is no documents in support of their averments in the claim petition, so this Court is unable to accept the income of Smt. Asha Devi was Rs.20,000/-, as claimed in claim petition. Now applying the law as settled in Arun Kumar Aggarwal vs. NIC, (2010) 9 SCC 218 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has taken income of the housewife as Rs.5,000/- per month in the year 2010, but keeping in view the rise in price index, income of the deceased has taken as Rs.6,000/-, as her age was less than 37 years, 40% enhancement is given, so the monthly income comes to Rs.8400/-. 15. In Sarla Verma and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) ACJ 1298 (SC) which read thus:- "14. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandras case, (1996) ACJ 831 (SC), the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. 15. In Sarla Verma and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) ACJ 1298 (SC) which read thus:- "14. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandras case, (1996) ACJ 831 (SC), the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this 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 dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six. 15. 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 parent/s 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 dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependant on the father. 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 family of the bachelor is large and dependant 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. 21. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependant 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. 21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years." 16. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma case (supra) where the number of claimants is 03, the dependency on account of personal expenses ought to have been 1/3rd and such deduction a sum of Rs.8400/-1/3rd i.e. 2800/-, loss of income comes to Rs.5600/- per month. The learned Tribunal below has taken loss of dependency as Rs.6000/-, whereas the same ought to have been Rs.5600/- per month and as such, Rs.5600 x 12 x 15=Rs.10,08,000/-, is the compensation for loss of earning, by applying multiplier 15 in view of the age of the deceased. 17. After going through the entire record, this Court finds that the compensation awarded, under different heads are concerned, the amount awarded on account of the loss of estate is concerned, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.15,000/-, the amount awarded on account of the funeral charges of Rs.50,000/-, is required to be reduced as Rs.15,000/-, the amount awarded loss of consortium of Rs.1,00,000/- is required to be reduced as Rs.40,000/-. The amount as awarded for love and affection by the learned Tribunal below, is not required to be granted, as per the latest law settled by Hon'ble Apex Court (supra) and as such, amount awarded qua the same is quashed and set aside. The amount as awarded for love and affection by the learned Tribunal below, is not required to be granted, as per the latest law settled by Hon'ble Apex Court (supra) and as such, amount awarded qua the same is quashed and set aside. No other points argued so, needs no consideration. 18. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid modifications made hereinabove, now the claimants shall be entitled for compensation as under : (i) Loss of future loss of income Rs. 10,08,000/- (ii) Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- (iii) Funeral charges Rs.15,000/- (iv) Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- Total = Rs. 10,78,000 /- 19. As a result of the above discussion, the claimants are held entitled for an amount of Rs.10,78,000 /- alongwith interest, as awarded by the learned Tribunal below. Both these appeals are disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.