JUDGMENT : SANDEEP SHARMA, J. 1. Instant appeal filed under S.173 of Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter, ‘Act’) lays challenge to award dated 28.11.2015, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Shimla, Himachal Pradesh in MAC Case No. 5-S/2 of 2013, whereby learned Tribunal below, while allowing claim petition having been filed by respondent No. 1/claimant (hereinafter, ‘claimant’) directed appellant-insurance company to pay sum of Rs. 8,77,570/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of petition till deposit. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that the claim petition under S.166 of the Act came to be instituted before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh by claimant, seeking compensation on account of injuries/disability suffered by him in road accident involving vehicle bearing Registration No. HP-01A-4268 against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and appellant-insurance company being owner, driver and insurer, respectively of the vehicle involved in the accident. As per claimant, alleged accident took place on 5.11.2012 at about 6.15 p.m. at Hira Nagar, Shimla, while he was standing on the roadside. Vehicle bearing No. HP-01A-4268 being driven by respondent No. 3 in rash and negligent manner, hit the claimant, as a consequence of which he sustained injuries and was taken to hospital. Claimant pleaded that he suffered 30% permanent disability in the accident and on account of his injury, remained under treatment at IGMC from 5.11.2012 to 12.12.2012. Claimant pleaded that on account of accident, his future is in dark and as such, he be granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 30.00 Lakh alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum, from the respondents. 3. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, by way of joint reply, denied the involvement of vehicle bearing Registration No. HP-01A-4268 in the accident, Respondents pleaded that the claimant was already lying on road in injured condition and respondent No. 3 helped him to reach the hospital, however, while admitting the factum with regard to lodging of FIR against them they claimed same to be false. 4. Appellant-insurance company claimed that since vehicle in question was being plied in contravention of Motor Vehicles Act and driver was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question, it cannot be held liable to indemnify the insured. 5. 4. Appellant-insurance company claimed that since vehicle in question was being plied in contravention of Motor Vehicles Act and driver was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question, it cannot be held liable to indemnify the insured. 5. On the basis of pleadings adduced on record by the parties, learned Tribunal below framed following issues: “1. Whether respondent No. 2 was driving vehicle bearing Registration No. HP-01A-4268 on 05.11.2012 at Hira Nagar, Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P. in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in injury to the petitioner? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged? OPR 4. Whether the respondent No. 2 was not holding valid and effective driving licence. To drive the vehicle as alleged? OPR 5. Relief.” 6. Subsequently, vide impugned award dated 28.11.2015, learned Tribunal below, held claimant entitled to Rs. 8,77,570/- on account of injuries sustained by him in the road side accident alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition till realisation. Since the liability to pay compensation came to be fastened upon appellant-insurance company, it has approached this court in the instant proceedings. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-a-vis reasoning assigned by learned Tribunal below in the impugned award, this court finds that, primarily challenge to impugned Award has been laid on following grounds: 1. Learned Tribunal below failed to appreciate that at the time of alleged accident, driver of vehicle was not having valid and effective licence. 2. Learned Tribunal below wrongly assessed income of the claimant at Rs.8000/- per month, especially when no convincing and cogent evidence came to be led on record in this regard. 3. Apart from above, it has been further argued by learned counsel for the appellant that amount awarded under conventional heads needs to be modified in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, AIR 2017 SC 5157 . 8. Mr. 3. Apart from above, it has been further argued by learned counsel for the appellant that amount awarded under conventional heads needs to be modified in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, AIR 2017 SC 5157 . 8. Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate, representing claimant while supporting the impugned Award passed by learned Tribunal below contended that sum of Rs.8000 assessed by learned Tribunal below as monthly income cannot be said to be on higher side, especially in view of injuries and disability suffered by the claimant in the alleged accident. While referring to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited. Learned Counsel appearing for the claimants stated that the plea with regard to driving licence is not sustainable. 9. Since accident as well as injuries therefrom sustained by the claimant, stand duly proved and not disputed by the appellant-insurance company in the instant appeal, there appears to be no reason for this court to refer to the same in the instant order. 10. In the case at hand, claimant claimed that prior to accident, he being a mason, was earning Rs. 18,000/- per month but since he failed to prove his occupation as well as income therefrom, by leading cogent and convincing evidence, learned Tribunal below, while not accepting aforesaid claim, proceeded to apply guess work and assessed the income of claimant to be Rs. 8,000/- per month. 11. Precisely, the case of appellant-insurance company is that since no specific evidence was led on record with regard to occupation and income therefrom by the claimant, learned Tribunal below, while assessing income of the claimant, ought to have taken minimum wages payable to labourer at the relevant time. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate, contends that in the year 2012, when alleged accident took place, daily wages of labourer under Minimum Wages Act were Rs. 150/- but since such plea never came to be raised by appellant-insurance company before learned Tribunal below at the time of disposal of claim petition, appellant-insurance company cannot be allowed to take the same at this stage. However, keeping in view the fact that the income assessed by learned Tribunal below as Rs. 8,000/- is on higher side, this court deems it fit to take monthly income of claimant as Rs. However, keeping in view the fact that the income assessed by learned Tribunal below as Rs. 8,000/- is on higher side, this court deems it fit to take monthly income of claimant as Rs. 6,000/- especially in view of permanent disability suffered by claimant. 12. Thus, in view of above, total loss of income qua the claimant for the period he remained hospitalized would be as under: Monthly income Rs.6000 x 7 = Rs.42,000/- 13. Since claimant is not in regular employment, rather is self employed, he is entitled to an addition of 40% to the established income, on account of loss of future prospects in terms of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, AIR 2017 SC 5157 , wherein, it has been held as under: “47. In our considered opinion, if the same is followed, it shall sub-serve 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 (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, 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 socioeconomic 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. 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 non pecuniary 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. 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.” 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 thinks it appropriate not to add any amount and the same has been approved in Reshma Kumari. 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. 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 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. 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 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.” 14. Since the claimant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 30%, he entitled to be granted amount on account of loss of future prospects, after adding 40% to the established income, on account of loss of future prospects. Thus, the loss of future income would be thus: Total income 6000 Income after addition of 40% 6000x 40/100=2400+6000= 8400 Loss of future income to the extent of 30% 8400x30/100=2520 15. The total loss of future income, after applying multiplier of ‘17’ would be 2,520 x 12 x 17 = 5,14,080. 16. So far amounts under remaining heads are concerned, same call for no interference. However, amount on account of loss of enjoyment appears to be on higher side, which is reduced to 1,50,000/-. 17. In view of detailed discussion made hereinabove, award passed by Tribunal below is modified in the following manners: Head Amount(Rs.) Loss of income for the period claimant could not work 42000 Loss of future income 514080 Pain and suffering 16000 Loss of enjoyment of life 150000 Medial expenses 57977 Traveling expenses 10000 Special diet and attendant charges 48000 Total compensation 838057 18. So far interest rate awarded by learned Tribunal below is concerned, same calls for no interference. 19. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made herein above and law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, present appeal is partly allowed and impugned Award passed by learned Tribunal below is modified to the aforesaid extent only. 20. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are disposed of. Interim directions, if any, are vacated.