ORDER : 1. The present appeal by the appellant-insurance company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against judgment and award dated 02nd May, 2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.5) at Anjar-Kutch in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 1675 of 2015 (Old No. 11 of 2013). 2. The operative order passed by the claims tribunal reads as under: “(1) The Claim petition is hereby partly allowed. (2) The opponents, either jointly or severally, are hereby directed and ordered to pay the compensation of Rs. 12,88,400/- to the applicants with the proportionate cost and with the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of accident till realization. (3) The opponents, either jointly or severally, are hereby directed and ordered to deposit the awarded amount within 30 days from the date of this order. (4) On deposition of the amount in the registry it is hereby directed to deduct the deficit court fees, if found anything due with the claimants. (5) On deposition of amount, 50% amount shall be paid to the claimants by way of account payee cheque and remaining 50% amount shall be kept as Fixed Deposit Receipt in any Nationalized/Scheduled Bank of their choice of the claimant, for the period of 5 years. The claimant shall be entitled to receive monthly interest on the said Fixed Deposit Receipt. The concerned bank shall not advance any loan or enter into any transaction with regard to the said Fixed Deposit Receipt. (6) The insurance company is free to deduct the chargeable tax as “Tax Deducted at Source” as provided U/s 194A(3)(ix) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if the amount of interest does exceeds Rs. 50,000/- in any financial year. (7) Award be drawn accordingly.” 3. The claimant in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Act, are the heirs of the deceased one Mr. Rohit Dhimant Somaiya who died in a vehicular accident which took place on 15th October, 2012 at about 2105 hours at a place described as near Gokul Company Holiday Resort on the Anjar-Galapadar Road. It was the case that due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle Trailer bearing registration No. RJ-01-GA-2949, the deceased suffered injuries and while being taken to hospital he succumbed to the injuries. The deceased was 21 years old. First Information Report was registered in respect of the accident. It was the case that due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle Trailer bearing registration No. RJ-01-GA-2949, the deceased suffered injuries and while being taken to hospital he succumbed to the injuries. The deceased was 21 years old. First Information Report was registered in respect of the accident. The claim petition filed by the father of the victim, amount of Rs. 28,83,000/- with interest was claimed. 3.1 The Tribunal held that it was proved upon analysis of the relevant evidence that the accident had occurred due to negligent and rash driving of the driver of the offending vehicle the Trailer. Tribunal held upon considering the documentary evidence (Exh.21A) and more particularly the deposition of one Mayur Mohanlal Tank that the monthly income of the deceased at the time of accident was Rs. 7,000/-. The Tribunal thereafter added future prospective income at 40% to arrive at a figure of Rs. 9,800/-. Multiplier of 18 was adopted and after deducting personal expenses, compensation of Rs. 10,58,400/- was assessed. Thereafter added were the amounts of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- under the heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses and towards consortium respectively. Thus, the total compensation of Rs. 12,88,400/- with interest at 7.5% from the date of application till realisation came to be awarded by the Tribunal. 4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Rathin Raval for the appellant insurance company and learned advocate Mr. Hemal Shah for the original claimant. 4.1 It may be noted that since the dispute in the present appeal raised by the appellant company was with regard to the quantum of compensation only, for determination of which the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2006) 9 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 are to be applied, the other parties namely the driver and the owner, were rendered to be not necessary party, the present appeal could be taken up for final consideration, when the claimant has been represented. 4.2 It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the Tribunal had committed a clear error in awarding total Rs. 2,30,000/- towards loss of estate, funeral expenses and consortium and that the total amount on those counts could not have exceeded Rs. 30,000/- in view of what is laid down in Pranah Sethi (supra). 4.2 It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the Tribunal had committed a clear error in awarding total Rs. 2,30,000/- towards loss of estate, funeral expenses and consortium and that the total amount on those counts could not have exceeded Rs. 30,000/- in view of what is laid down in Pranah Sethi (supra). It was urged that the awarded amount is required to be reduced to such extent. 4.3 On the other hand, learned advocate for the claimant vehemently submitted that judgment and award and further submitted that in light of the decision of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Limited vs. Nanu Ram, 2018 ACJ 2782 , the claimant was entitled to loss of estate and consortium, etc. under the conventional heads and that the Tribunal has properly awarded the amounts under those heads. 5. As far as the reliance placed on behalf of the claimant in Magma General Insurance (supra), the said decision stands divergent to the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra). The decision in Prayan Sethi (supra) is by Five Judges Bench whereas the decision in Magma General Insurance (supra) is a decision by Three Judges. The binding law of precedent would mandate that this Court follows the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) which is a decision by the Bench comprising of greater strength. 5.1 In Pranay Sethi (supra), the Supreme Court approved the calculation of multiplicand suggested by Sarla Verma (supra) and recorded its further conclusions as under: “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. (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/- and Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.” 5.2 The monthly income of the deceased who was a skilled workers, was rightly assessed at Rs. 7,000/- by the Tribunal. Since in the present case, the age of the deceased was 21 years, the Tribunal was right in adopting multiplier of 18 as per the decision in Sarla Verma (supra). The Tribunal however fell in error on two counts. The prospective income of the 21 years bachelor deceased was required to be added at 50% in view of the guidelines in Pranay Sethi (supra), instead of 40% as adopted by the Tribunal. 5.3 On the other hand, about awarding of total Rs. The Tribunal however fell in error on two counts. The prospective income of the 21 years bachelor deceased was required to be added at 50% in view of the guidelines in Pranay Sethi (supra), instead of 40% as adopted by the Tribunal. 5.3 On the other hand, about awarding of total Rs. 2,30,000/- in respect of the heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses and consortium, the submission on part of learned advocate for the appellant insurance company could be well countenanced in view of what is held in Pranay Sethi (supra). As per Pranay Sethi (supra), total amount under the conventional heads awardable would be Rs. 70,000/- in case of married person and total Rs. 30,000/- when the deceased was bachelor. In the present case, therefore, in respect of the death of the bachelor-Rohit Dhimant Somaiya, only Rs. 30,000/- would have to be added in total on the conventional heads. 5.4 In view of above, the just and reasonable compensation for the claimant could be arrived at as under: Rs. 7,000 monthly income + Rs. 3,500/- (50% towards future loss). One-half would be deducted to bring the amount of Rs. 5,250/- which would be multiplied by 12 and further multiplied by the multiplier 18 to bring the amount of Rs. 11,34,000/- and adding thereto Rs. 30,000/- towards the conventional heads, the total amount comes to Rs. 11,64,000/-. 6. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 12,88,400/-. The difference comes to Rs. 1,24,400/- which would be amount by which the judgment and award would be reduced and the said amount have to be refunded to the insurance company. 7. As a result of above discussion, the present appeal of the insurance company stands partly allowed in the following terms: (i) The appellant company is held entitled to be refunded Rs. 1,24,400/- with proportionate cost and interest. (ii) Accordingly, the Tribunal shall refund such amount to the appellant company within eight weeks. (iii) The judgment and award dated 02nd May, 2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.5) at Anjar-Kutch in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 1675 of 2015 (Old No. 11 of 2013) shall stand modified to the above extent with reduction in the awarded amount. (ii) Accordingly, the Tribunal shall refund such amount to the appellant company within eight weeks. (iii) The judgment and award dated 02nd May, 2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.5) at Anjar-Kutch in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 1675 of 2015 (Old No. 11 of 2013) shall stand modified to the above extent with reduction in the awarded amount. (iv) The resultant amount to be awarded to the claimant by way of compensation shall be dealt with for the purpose of investment and disbursement in the same terms as directed by the Tribunal in its judgment and award. (v) It is true that the Tribunal has directed the investment and disbursement in the ratio of 50:50. The said ratio is however maintained considering the fact that claimant is 58 years old father who lost his only son in the vehicular accident. 8. Appeal stands disposed of as partly allowed in the above terms. ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION: The present Civil Application which is for stay of the impugned judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal would not survive in view of the order passed in the First Appeal.