JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. 1. Instant appeal filed under S.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, lays challenge to Award dated 30.6.2014 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Sirmaur District at Nahan in MAC Petition No. 01-MAC/2 of 2008, whereby learned Tribunal below, while allowing claim petition having been filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 5/claimants (hereinafter, 'claimants') under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter, 'Acf), directed the appellant-Insurance Company to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.7,73,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition till realisation, to claimants Nos. 1 to 4. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that a petition under S. 166 of the Act came to be instituted at the behest of the claimants before learned Tribunal below, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 15.00 Lakh on account of death of Ajay Kumar i.e. husband of claimant No. 1, father of claimants Nos. 2 and 3 and son of claimants Nos. 4 and 5. It is averred in the petition that on 30.11.2007, at 8.00 pm, deceased was going from kala Amb to his village on foot and when he reached near curve at Main Thapal, a tractor bearing registration No. HR-04B-8093 (Tmp. No. PH-12ST-Temp-5258) being driven by respondent No.7 (respondent No.2 before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) came in a rash and negligent manner and hit deceased, who was crushed under the vehicle and died on the spot. Deceased was said to be the sole bread-winner of the family earning Rs.5,000/- as salary from M/s Wonder Products (P) Ltd. Salani and further Rs.4000/- from agriculture pursuits. It is further averred that the deceased was 32 years of age at the time of accident and since claimants were stated to be dependent upon Ajay Kumar, claim petition was filed seeking compensation as stated above. 3. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 contested the petition by filing reply, admitting the factum of accident. However, factum with regard to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.2 was denied. 4. Appellant-Insurance Company, contested the petition by filing separate reply, taking preliminary objections of nonjoinder of parties, maintainability, validity of driving licence, offending vehicle being plied without valid permit and collusion between claimants and respondent No.1. However, factum with regard to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.2 was denied. 4. Appellant-Insurance Company, contested the petition by filing separate reply, taking preliminary objections of nonjoinder of parties, maintainability, validity of driving licence, offending vehicle being plied without valid permit and collusion between claimants and respondent No.1. It is alleged that the deceased was traveling as a gratuitous passenger in the vehicle and his risk was not covered by the insurance policy. 5. On the basis of pleadings adduced on record, learned Tribunal below framed following issues on 5.3.2009: "1. Whether Ajay Kumar died due on account of rash and negligent driving of tractor No. HR-04b-8093 by respondent No.2 on 30-11-2007 at about 8.00 PM at village Main Thapal, as alleged? OPP 2. In case issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the respondent No.2 was not having a valid and effective driving licence. At the time of accident, as alleged? OPR-3 4. Whether the vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy, as alleged? OPR-3 5. Whether the petition is not maintainable against respondent No.3, as alleged? OPR-3 6. Whether the petition has been filed by the petitioners in collusion with respondents No. 1 and 2, as alleged? 7. Relief." 6. Subsequently, vide Award dated 30.6.2014, learned Tribunal below allowed the claim petition, thereby holding claimants Nos. 1 to 4 entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.7,73,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realisation. In the aforesaid background, appellant-Insurance Company has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside the impugned award being on higher side/excessive. 7. Today the case was listed before this Court for disposal on the basis of mention memo filed by Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, whereby this Court has been informed that the parties to the lis have entered into compromise, whereby both the parties have agreed to settle their dispute for a total amount of Rs.7,29,800/- in stead of Rs.7,73,000/-, awarded by learned Tribunal below vide impugned award dated 30.6.2014. 8. Mr. 8. Mr. Deepak Kaushal, learned counsel for the claimants, while fairly acknowledging the factum with regard to compromise arrived inter se parties, contends that since in terms of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , an addition of 40% to the established income of deceased was required to be made on account of loss of future prospects, while determining total loss of dependency, claimants have agreed for reduction in the amount awarded by learned Tribunal below. 9. At this stage, it would apt to take note of law laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (supra), wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "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. 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." 10. It is apparent from aforesaid law that in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be given where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. In the case at hand, deceased was 32 years of age at the time of accident and was in private employment, as such, while calculating loss of dependency, increase of only 40% ought to have been given by learned Tribunal below, on account of loss of future prospects. Since the parties are ad-idem on this aspect of the matter and no other ground has been pressed by Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, as such, keeping in view of the understanding between the parties and with the consent of parties, present appeal deserves to be disposed of in the above terms. 11. In view of above, loss of dependency on account of death of deceased may be calculated thus: Established monthly income of 3000 deceased Income after deducting 174th towards 2250 self expenses Addition of 40% i.e. 2250x 40 / 100 900 Net monthly income 3150 Total loss of dependency = 3150x 604800 16x12 12. Since Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has not agitated grant of amounts under other heads, as such, same are not being interfered with. In view of aforesaid discussion, Award is modified in the following manner: Head Amount (Rs.) Loss of dependency (to claimants Nos. Since Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has not agitated grant of amounts under other heads, as such, same are not being interfered with. In view of aforesaid discussion, Award is modified in the following manner: Head Amount (Rs.) Loss of dependency (to claimants Nos. 1 to 4) 604800 Funeral expenses 25000 Total 629800 Loss of consortium payable to claimants Nos. 1 and 4 @ Rs.50000 each 100000 Total compensation 729800 13. So far rate of interest on the aforesaid amount is concerned, same calls for no interference as such, same is upheld. 14. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made herein above and law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, present appeal is disposed of and impugned award passed by learned Tribunal below is modified to aforesaid extent only. The apportionment of amount shall be as under: 1. Petitioner No. 1 (wife) Rs. 3,25,000 2. Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 (children) Rs. 1,50,000/- each 3. Petitioner No. 4 (mother) Rs. 1,04,800 15. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. Interim directions, if any, are vacated.