JUDGMENT : VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J. 1. Heard Sri. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Vidya Kant Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondents no. 1 to 8. 2. Present appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 21.2.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, Kanpur Nagar/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur Nagar in M.A.C. No. 737 of 2015. 3. The award is being challenged on the ground of excessive compensation awarded to the claimants. 4. Shorn of details, facts of the case are that on 17.6.2015 at about 10 p.m. on GT road near R.K. Hospital, P.S. Chaubeypur, district Kanpur when the deceased Jai Prakash was coming alongwith his friend on Motorcycle No. UP-77Q-5127 he was hit by Truck No. UP-78AT-2282 which was allegedly being driven rashly and negligently. He was taken to the Hospital and ultimately he died due to injuries suffered in the accident. It was claimed that he was aged about 35 years and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month as self-employed tailor working from home. 5. In view of the ground taken in the appeal this Court is concerned with Issue no. 2 which is to the effect as to what compensation the claimants are entitled for? 6. The appellant-Company is not challenging its liability as apparently there was no breach of policy conditions. Per month income of the deceased was assessed and presumed @ Rs. 6,000/- by the learned Tribunal is also not under challenge. However, learned counsel for the appellant submits that 1/4th amount is to be deducted towards personal expenditure of the deceased and not 1/5th. The Tribunal has committed mistake in making deduction of 1/5th only towards personal expenditure of the deceased on the ground that there are eight dependents. He submits that the minors are to be taken as half unit and therefore, the total unit comes to 5 and 1/2 only and accordingly 1/4th deduction has to be made towards personal expenditure. The multiplier applied is not in issue. However, he submits that only 40% could have been awarded towards future prospects and 50% has been incorrectly awarded. It was further submitted that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 3093 of 2020, New India Assurance Company vs. Pinki only Rs. The multiplier applied is not in issue. However, he submits that only 40% could have been awarded towards future prospects and 50% has been incorrectly awarded. It was further submitted that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 3093 of 2020, New India Assurance Company vs. Pinki only Rs. 40,000/- should be awarded towards love and affection and consortium and separate amount cannot be awarded to different individuals. Submission, therefore, is that the compensation awarded is highly excessive. 7. Per-contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondents has supported the impugned award, however, he submitted that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : 2009 (2) TAC 677 the learned Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/5th towards personal expenditure of the deceased taking dependency of eight persons. He further submitted that 50% has rightly been awarded towards future prospects. He further submits that the award is not liable to be disturbed and justified amount has been awarded. 8. I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record. 9. In Sarla Verma (supra) in paragraph 42 it was held as under:- “42. 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.” 10. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : 2017 (4) TAC 673 in paragraphs 39, 40, 41, 42 and 59 it was held as under:- “39. In Reshma Kumari, the three-Judge Bench, reproduced paragraphs 30, 31 and 32 of Sarla Verma and approved the same by stating thus:- “41. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : 2017 (4) TAC 673 in paragraphs 39, 40, 41, 42 and 59 it was held as under:- “39. In Reshma Kumari, the three-Judge Bench, reproduced paragraphs 30, 31 and 32 of Sarla Verma and approved the same by stating thus:- “41. The above does provide guidance for the appropriate deduction for personal and living expenses. One must bear in mind that the proportion of a man's net earnings that he saves or spends exclusively for the maintenance of others does not form part of his living expenses but what he spends exclusively on himself does. The percentage of deduction on account of personal and living expenses may vary with reference to the number of dependent members in the family and the personal living expenses of the deceased need not exactly correspond to the number of dependants. 42. In our view, the standards fixed by this Court in Sarla Verma on the aspect of deduction for personal living expenses in paras 30, 31 and 32 must ordinarily be followed unless a case for departure in the circumstances noted in the preceding paragraph is made out.” 40. The conclusions that have been summed up in Reshma Kumari are as follows:- “43.1. In the applications for compensation made under Section 166 of the 1988 Act in death cases where the age of the deceased is 15 years and above, the Claims Tribunals shall select the multiplier as indicated in Column (4) of the Table prepared in Sarla Verma read with para-42 of that judgment. 43.2. In cases where the age of the deceased is up to 15 years, irrespective of Section 166 or Section 163-A under which the claim for compensation has been made, multiplier of 15 and the assessment as indicated in the Second Schedule subject to correction as pointed out in Column (6) of the Table in Sarla Verma should be followed. 43.3. As a result of the above, while considering the claim applications made under Section 166 in death cases where the age of the deceased is above 15 years, there is no necessity for the Claims Tribunals to seek guidance or for placing reliance on the Second Schedule in the 1988 Act. 43.4. 43.3. As a result of the above, while considering the claim applications made under Section 166 in death cases where the age of the deceased is above 15 years, there is no necessity for the Claims Tribunals to seek guidance or for placing reliance on the Second Schedule in the 1988 Act. 43.4. The Claims Tribunals shall follow the steps and guidelines stated in para-19 of Sarla Verma for determination of compensation in cases of death. 43.5. While making addition to income for future prospects, the Tribunals shall follow para-24 of the judgment in Sarla Verma. 43.6. Insofar as deduction for personal and living expenses is concerned, it is directed that the Tribunals shall ordinarily follow the standards prescribed in paras 30, 31 and 32 of the judgment in Sarla Verma subject to the observations made by us in para-41 above.” 41. On a perusal of the analysis made in Sarla Verma which has been reconsidered in Reshma Kumari, we think it appropriate to state that as far as the guidance provided for appropriate deduction for personal and living expenses is concerned, the tribunals and courts should be guided by conclusion 43.6 of Reshma Kumari. We concur with the same as we have no hesitation in approving the method provided therein. 42. As far as the multiplier is concerned, the claims tribunal and the Courts shall be guided by Step 2 that finds place in paragraph 19 of Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of the said judgment. For the sake of completeness, paragraph 42 is extracted below:- “42. 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.” 59. 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 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.” 11. (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.” 11. A reference may also be made to law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Company vs. Somwati, 2020 Legal Eagle (SC) 541 : 2020 SCC Online SC 720, paragraph 63 whereof is quoted as under: “63. At this stage, we consider it necessary to provide uniformity with respect to the grant of consortium and loss of love and affection. Several Tribunals and High Courts have been awarding compensation for both loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), has recognized only three conventional heads under which compensation can be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.” 12. In this case “loss of consortium” is “loss of love and affection” has been dealt with in detail and it was held that consortium is to include loss of love and affection and if consortium is awarded to all the amount that can be awarded under the same head cannot exceed Rs. 40,000/-. 13. In such view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive in nature and the same is to be re-assessed which can be done in this appeal as well. 14. In so far as the award of deduction of 1/5th of the amount towards personal expenditure is concerned, in view of the fact that the total amount is being reduced ultimately, I am not inclined to interfere in the said deduction made by the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. In so far as the award towards future prospects to the extent of 50% is concerned, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) and Pranay Sethi (Supra) the same is to be reduced from 50% to 40% and is accordingly reduced. 16. In so far as the amount awarded towards love and affection to three persons at the rate of Rs. 16. In so far as the amount awarded towards love and affection to three persons at the rate of Rs. 1 lakh each that is to be reduced to Rs. 40,000/- maximum as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Somwati (Supra), however, a sum of Rs. 70,000/- is to be awarded to the maximum under all such head which includes loss of love and affection and funeral future expenses also. In view thereof, the total amount which can be granted under this head is modified to Rs. 70,000/-. Therefore, the amount is now to be calculated in the following manner:- Income Rs. 6,000 x 12 Rs. 72,000.00 40% future prospects Rs. 2400 x 12 Rs. 28,800.00 = Rs. 1,00,800.00 1/5 Deduction for personal expenses - Rs. 20,160.00 Multiplier Rs. 80,640.00 x 17 Medical Bills Rs. 13,70,880.00 + 1,12,176.00 + 70,000.00 Conventional Head as per Pranay Sethi Rs. 15,53,056.00 17. The awarded compensation is accordingly reduced from Rs. 20,13,376/- to Rs. 15,53,056/- as calculate above, however, the aforesaid amount shall carry interest as directed by the learned Tribunal. 18. The appeal, accordingly, stands partly allowed.