JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Lalchhanliana Khiangte, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 8. No one appears for the respondent No. 9, who is the owner of the accident vehicle. 2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant Insurance Company against the impugned Judgment & Award dated 18.10.2017 passed by the MACT Aizawl in MACT Case No. 38/2016, by which the compensation amount of Rs. 19,70,000/-along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing till payment was directed to be made to the respondent Nos. 1 to 8/claimants. 3. The brief facts of the case is that on 08.05.2016, a motor vehicle (Tata Sumo) bearing Registration No. MZ-01-J-8927, belonging to the instant respondent No. 8 and driven by one Lalrintluanga, S/o Lalnghilhlova of Ramhlun North, Aizawl, Mizoram, met with an accident at Chiehruphi village, East Jaintia Hills District, Meghalaya while proceeding towards Guwahati from Aizawl. The accident resulted in the death of two (2) persons out of the nine (9) passengers, which included the 22 year old son of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Respondent No. 3 is the sister of the deceased, while respondent Nos. 4 & 5 are the brothers of the deceased. The parents of respondent Nos. 6 & 7 are still alive. Respondent No. 6 is the niece of the deceased and daughter of respondent No. 3 and her husband. Respondent No. 7 is the nephew of the deceased and son of respondent No. 4 and his wife (respondent No. 8). The said accident vehicle was validly insured with the instant appellant at the time of the accident. The respondent Nos. 1-8/Claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 claiming compensation before the MACT, Aizawl. After taking evidence and hearing the parties, the MACT, Aizawl passed its Judgment & Award dated 18.10.2017 in MACT Case No. 38 of 2016, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded the respondent Nos. 1-8/Claimants compensation amounting to Rs. 19,70,000/-(Rupees nineteen lakhs seventy thousand only) with interest @ 7% calculated from the date of filing i.e., 06.09.2016, till final payment. 4. Mr. After taking evidence and hearing the parties, the MACT, Aizawl passed its Judgment & Award dated 18.10.2017 in MACT Case No. 38 of 2016, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded the respondent Nos. 1-8/Claimants compensation amounting to Rs. 19,70,000/-(Rupees nineteen lakhs seventy thousand only) with interest @ 7% calculated from the date of filing i.e., 06.09.2016, till final payment. 4. Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submits that amongst the various grounds of challenge taken up by the appellant, the appellant would not like to press the ground that there was no rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the accident vehicle, inasmuch as, the said issue has been decided by this Court in analogous matters, i.e. in MAC Appeal No. 12/2019 “The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. V.Siami & 7 Ors.” and MAC Appeal No. 3/2018 “Smt. V.Siami & 6 Ors. Vs. Shri. R. Lalthlengliana & Anr.”, vide common Judgment & Order dated 16.10.2020. 5. The appellant’s counsel submits that there are three other grounds of challenge to the impugned judgment and award. Firstly, the learned Tribunal erred in deducting the personal expense of the deceased @ 1/3rd of his income instead of 50% of his income, keeping in view of the fact that the deceased was a Bachelor. Secondly, the future prospects of the deceased should have been calculated on the basis of 40% of his income instead of 50% of his income, by taking into consideration the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . Thirdly, in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), the learned Tribunal could not have awarded compensation towards “loss of love and affection” and due to “loss of expectation of life”. He submits that this Court, in the common Judgment & Order dated 16.10.2020 passed in the analogous appeals, i.e. MAC Appeal No. 12/2019 and MAC Appeal No. 3/2018, has held that in view of Pranay Sethi & Ors.(Supra), no compensation can be awarded for “loss of love and affection” and “loss of expectation of life”. He submits that this Court, in the common Judgment & Order dated 16.10.2020 passed in the analogous appeals, i.e. MAC Appeal No. 12/2019 and MAC Appeal No. 3/2018, has held that in view of Pranay Sethi & Ors.(Supra), no compensation can be awarded for “loss of love and affection” and “loss of expectation of life”. The learned counsel for the appellant thus prays for a modification of the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the learned Trial Court, by taking into consideration the above grounds of challenge made to the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 6. Mr. Lalchhanliana Khiangte, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 8 submits that he has no quarrel with the submission made by the appellant’s counsel that the learned Tribunal had erred in deducting 1/3rd of the income of the deceased on account of personal expense. He fairly submits that the learned Tribunal should have deducted 50% of the income, as the deceased was a Bachelor. 7. The counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 8 however submits that the other grounds of challenge taken up by the appellant with regard to the compensation computed for “future prospects”, “loss of love and affection” and “loss of expectation of life” is not sustainable, keeping in view the fact that the judgment of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi & Ors.(Supra),which was delivered on 31.10.2017 could not be retrospectively applied to the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal on 18.10.2017. In this regard, the learned counsel has relied upon the Judgment & Order dated 02.02.2021 passed by this Court in MAC Appeal No. 36/2017 “Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Lalawmpuii & Anr.”, which was decided vide Judgment & Order dated 02.02.2021 and also in view of the Judgment & Order dated 12.07.2018 passed in Review Petition No. 3/2018 “Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shri R. Zokhuma & Anr.” 8. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 9. The deceased along with one Rasa Chozah died due to Tata Sumo bearing No. MZ-01-J-8927 having met with an accident at Chiehruphi Village, East Jaintia Hills, Meghalaya. The respondent Nos. 1 to 8 herein filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal which was registered as MACT Case No. 38/2016, while the wife and children of Rasa Chozah (L) filed MACT Case No. 47/2016. The respondent Nos. 1 to 8 herein filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal which was registered as MACT Case No. 38/2016, while the wife and children of Rasa Chozah (L) filed MACT Case No. 47/2016. The learned Tribunal disposed of the MACT Case No. 38/2016 vide Judgment & Award dated 18.10.2017 by awarding compensation as follows:- (1) Annual income Rs. 7500x12 90000 (2) Addition of 50% of future prospect Rs. 90000x50 100 45000 (3) Loss of income 90000+45000x18x2 3 1620000 (4) Loss of love and affection for parents Rs. 1,00,000 (5) Funeral Expenses Rs. 50,000 (6) Loss of Estate Rs. 1,00,000 (7) Loss of expectation of life Rs. 1,00,000 Total Compensation Awarded Rs. 19,70,000/- (Rupees nineteen lakhs seventy thousand) only. 10. The learned Tribunal disposed of MACT Case No. 47/2016 vide Judgment & Award dated 14.12.2017, by awarding Rs. 10,43,920/- as compensation to the claimants. Being aggrieved by the same, MAC Appeal No. 12/2019 was filed by the appellant Insurance Company, while MAC Appeal No. 3/2018 was filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation amount. This Court, vide common Judgment & Order dated 16.10.2020 disposed of the above two MAC Appeal No. 12/2019 and MAC Appeal No. 3/2018, by modifying the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal. 11. This Court in its common Judgment & Order dated 16.10.2020 passed in MAC Appeal No. 12/2019 and MAC Appeal No. 3/2018 came to a finding that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the Sumo vehicle. Besides the above finding made, this Court in the common Judgment & Order dated 16.10.2020 also held that compensation for “loss of love and affection” and for “loss of expectation of life” could not have been awarded, as the same had not been provided for by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi & Ors.(Supra). 12. In the case of Pranay Sethi & Ors.(Supra),the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has held that future prospects should be given by taking into consideration 40% of the income of the deceased, if the deceased was below 40 years of age and was having a fixed income. 13. It is also seen that the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1 lakh each to the claimants on account of “loss of love and affection” and “loss of expectation of life”. 14. 13. It is also seen that the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1 lakh each to the claimants on account of “loss of love and affection” and “loss of expectation of life”. 14. The question that would have to be decided in this case is as to whether the directions passed in Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra)could be applied to the present case, keeping in view the fact that MACT Case No. 38/2016 had been disposed of vide the impugned Judgment & Award dated 18.10.2017, while the case of Pranay Sethi &Ors.(Supra),had been decided on 31.10.2017. 15. This Court vide Judgment & Order dated 02.02.2021 passed in MAC Appeal No. 36/2017 “Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Lalawmpuii & Anr.” has held that there cannot be any retrospective application of the judgment of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi & Ors.(Supra)when a challenge is made to a compensation amount awarded by a Tribunal at an earlier point of time, i.e. before 31.10.2017, the date of the Apex Court Judgment in Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra). 16. It is settled law that an appeal is a continuation of a suit, as a result of which a change in law will become applicable on the date of the appellate decree, provided that no vested right is taken away. This has been the law reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Ferrodous Estates (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. P. Gopirathnam (Dead) & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 13516/2015, which was decided vide Judgment dated 12.10.2020. In the case of Lakshmi Narayan Guin & Ors. Vs. Niranjan Modak, reported in (1985) 1 SCC 270 , the Apex Court has held that a change in the law during the pendency of an appeal has to be taken into account and will govern the rights of the parties. 17. In the case of Sudarsan Puhan Vs. Jayanta Ku. Mohanty & Ors., reported in (2018) 10 SCC 552 , the Apex Court has held that an appeal under Section 173 of the MV Act is essentially in the nature of first appeal alike Section 96 of the Code and, therefore, the High Court is equally under legal obligation to decide all issues arising in the case both on facts and law after appreciating the entire evidence. This Court is also of the view that the admission of a first appeal amounts to re-opening and re-visiting the entire matter afresh. In the case of Dayawati Vs. Inderjit, AIR (1966) SC 1423, the Apex Court held as follows:- “If the new law speaks in language, which, expressly or by clear intendment, takes in even pending matters, the court of trial as well as the court of appeal must have regard to an intention so expressed, and the court of appeal may give effect to such a law even after the judgment of the court of first instance.” 18. This Court, in its Judgment & Order dated 12.07.2018 passed in Review Petition No. 3/2018 “Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shri R. Zokhuma & Anr,” has held that when a judgment and order has been passed in appeal, prior to the judgment of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), on the basis of the law already laid down by the Apex Court in (i) Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors., 2013 (3) T.A.C. 697 (SC), (ii) Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65 and (iii) Kalpanaraj & Ors. Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, 2014 (3) T.A.C. 707 (SC), the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), which was decided subsequently on 31.10.2017, could not have retrospective effect. The Judgment & Order dated 12.07.2018 passed in Review Petition No. 3/2018, in the opinion of this Court, is not in contradiction to the judgments of the Apex Court in Ferrodous Estates (Pvt.) Ltd. (Supra) and Lakshmi Narayan Guin & Ors. (Supra). The reason being that the Review Petition No. 3/2018 had filed against the Judgment & Order dated 03.10.2017 passed in MAC Appeal No. 26/2017 and at the time of disposal of the MAC Appeal No. 26/2017, the Apex Court had not passed its judgment in Pranay Sethi & Ors.(Supra). As such, the continuation of the original MACT Case No. 15/2016 by way of MAC Appeal No. 26/2017 ended on 03.10.2017. Thus, there was no apparent error or mistake on the date when the MAC Appeal No. 26/2017 had been disposed of, as the Apex Court had delivered its judgment in Pranay Sethi & Ors.(Supra), only subsequent to the disposal of MAC Appeal No. 26/2017. Thus, there was no apparent error or mistake on the date when the MAC Appeal No. 26/2017 had been disposed of, as the Apex Court had delivered its judgment in Pranay Sethi & Ors.(Supra), only subsequent to the disposal of MAC Appeal No. 26/2017. In view of the above reasons, this Bench is bound to follow the decisions of the Apex Court, as mentioned aforesaid and the Judgment & Order dated 02.02.2021 of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in MAC Appeal No. 36/2017, cannot be applied as it is not in consonance with the Apex Court judgments. 19. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Ferrodous Estates (Pvt.) Ltd. (Supra) and Lakshmi Narayan Guin & Ors. (Supra), this Court holds that as the present appeal is a continuation of MACT Case No. 38/2016, this Court would have to apply the law laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), for computing the compensation payable to the claimants. Further, assuming that the Apex Court renders a new judgment by a Bench consisting of more than 5 Judges of the Apex Court, in the matter of computing compensation to claimants, which is more advantages/beneficial to the claimants during the pendency of this appeal, this Court would have to apply the new law, inasmuch as, an appeal is a continuation of a suit/claim. 20. As can be seen from the foregoing paragraphs, the counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 8/claimants has admitted and agreed to the submission made by the appellant’s counsel that the learned Tribunal had erred in deducting 1/3rd of the income of the deceased, on account of personal expense, though the deceased was a bachelor. Thus, the learned Tribunal should have deducted 50% of the income as personal expense of the deceased. In the case of Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr., reported in (2013) 9 SCC 65 , the Apex Court has held that 50% of the income of the deceased should be deducted as personal expense, if the deceased was a Bachelor. 21. In the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. In the case of Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr., reported in (2013) 9 SCC 65 , the Apex Court has held that 50% of the income of the deceased should be deducted as personal expense, if the deceased was a Bachelor. 21. In the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs DTC & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the Apex Court has held that even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependent and 50% would be treated as a personal and living expense of the bachelor and 50% as a contribution to the family. In the present case, the siblings of the deceased have all attained the age of majority. 22. The remaining issues that have to be decided is whether the future prospects of the deceased should have been calculated on the basis of 40% of his income or on the basis of 50% of his income. Secondly, whether the learned Tribunal erred in awarding compensation towards “loss of love and affection” and due to “loss of expectation of life”. 23. In the case of Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors., reported in 2013 3 TAC 697 (SC), the Apex Court has held that in the case of persons who are self-employed or earning fixed wages, where the deceased victim was below 40 years of age, there must be addition of 50% of the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. On the other hand, in the case of Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), the Apex Court has held that in case the deceased was self employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income would be the warranted, where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. 24. In the case of Kalpanaraj & Ors. Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, reported in 2014 (3) TAC 707(SC), the Apex Court has awarded 1 lakh towards loss of expectation of life of the deceased. 25. The decision in Rajesh &Ors.(Supra)was given by a three Judges Bench of the Apex Court and the decision in Kalpanaraj & Ors.(Supra)was given by a two Judges Bench of the Apex Court. In the five Judges Bench decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi & Ors. 25. The decision in Rajesh &Ors.(Supra)was given by a three Judges Bench of the Apex Court and the decision in Kalpanaraj & Ors.(Supra)was given by a two Judges Bench of the Apex Court. In the five Judges Bench decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), the Apex Court has not provided for payment of compensation against other heads except for “loss of estate”, “loss of consortium” and “funeral expenses”. Further, this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. V. Siami, MAC Appeal No. 12/2019 has held in its Judgment & Order dated 16.10.2020 that as no compensation amount has been fixed by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra), in respect of “loss of love and affection” and “loss of expectation of life”, the learned Tribunal erred in awarding compensation on the above heads. 26. For the reasons stated earlier, this Court would have to be abide by the judgment given by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra). Accordingly, this Court holds that the future prospects of the deceased, who is a bachelor, would have to be calculated on the basis of 40% of his income not on the basis of 50% of his income. Secondly, no compensation could have been awarded on account of “loss of love and affection” and due to “loss of expectation of life”. Further, the compensation for the purpose for funeral expenses and loss of estate would have to be @ Rs. 15,000/-each in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi & Ors.(Supra). 27. In view of the reasons stated above, the compensation payable would be as follows:- (1) Annual income Rs. 7500x12 90000 (2) Addition of 40% of future prospect Rs. 90000x40 100 36000 (3) Loss of income 90000+36000x18x2 3 15,12,000 (4) Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000 (5) Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000 Total Compensation Awarded Rs. 15,42,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs forty two thousand) only. 28. The appellant Insurance Company is accordingly directed to deposit the compensation amount of Rs. 15,42,000/-along with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition, i.e. 06.09.2016 till final payment is made to the learned Tribunal, in favour of the Presiding Officer, MACT Aizawl for onward disbursement to the claimants. 29. The further issue that has to be decided is whether the respondent Nos. 15,42,000/-along with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition, i.e. 06.09.2016 till final payment is made to the learned Tribunal, in favour of the Presiding Officer, MACT Aizawl for onward disbursement to the claimants. 29. The further issue that has to be decided is whether the respondent Nos. 3 to 8 are entitled to any compensation and as to whether they are dependents of the deceased. The relationship of the respondent Nos. 1 to 8 with the deceased are as follows:- Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are the mother and father of the deceased respectively. Respondent No. 3 is the sister of the deceased, while respondent Nos. 4 & 5 are the brothers of the deceased. The parents of respondent Nos. 6 & 7 are still alive. Respondent No. 6 is the niece of the deceased and daughter of respondent No. 3 and her husband. Respondent No. 7 is the nephew of the deceased and son of respondent No. 4 and his wife (respondent No. 8). 30. This Court does not find any evidence to show that the respondent Nos. 3 to 8 are dependents of the deceased and as such, the compensation amount shall be disbursed by the learned Tribunal only to the mother and father of the deceased, i.e. the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 after proper identification. The other respondent Nos. 3 to 8, shall have no right or interest to receive or claim a part of the compensation amount to be disbursed in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. 31. The impugned Judgment & Award dated 18.10.2017, passed by the MACT Aizawl in MACT Case No. 38/2016, is accordingly modified to the extent indicated above. Send back the LCR. 32. Registry to return the statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/-to the appellant with interest, if any.