JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. No one turns up on behalf of the respondent no.1- the owner of the vehicle in-spite of repeated calls. Hence, this appeal is heard exparte against the respondent no.1. 3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 28.09.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Chatra in Claim Case No.23 of 2007 by which the learned Tribunal under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act has awarded a compensation of Rs.2,88,000/- to the claimants to be paid by the owner of the vehicle. 4. The brief facts of the case is that when the deceased Ranjit Bhuiyan aged about 20 years on 08.02.2007 was going by a tractor as a labourer, due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor, the said tractor turned turtle causing injuries to the deceased and he succumbed to the M.A. No. 12 of 2013 said injuries. It is stated that the deceased was earning monthly income of Rs.3,100/-. The insurance company opposed the claim for compensation on various technical grounds and claimed that the deceased was travelling in the tractor as a gratuitous passenger hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation amount. The learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- and applied the multiplier 16. 5. In view of the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal settled the following six issues:- (i) Is the claim petition maintainable in its present form? (ii) Whether Ranjit Bhuiyan died due to injuries caused in the accident by tractor bearing registration no. BR-26-3084 which occurred on 08.02.2007 at 11:00 A.M. at Dulariya bridge P.S. Pratappur, District- Chatra? (iii) Was the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the said tractor? (iv) Whether the tractor bearing registration no. BR-26- 3084 was insured with O.P. No.2 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited at the time of accident and owned by O.P. No.1? (v) Whether there was any breach of condition of policy? (vi) Are the claimants entitled for compensation? 6. The learned Tribunal first took up issue nos. ii and iii together and came to the conclusion that the deceased- Ranjit Bhuiyan died due to the accident by the offending tractor which was rashly and negligently driven by its driver and decided the issue nos. ii and iii in favour of the claimants. 6. The learned Tribunal first took up issue nos. ii and iii together and came to the conclusion that the deceased- Ranjit Bhuiyan died due to the accident by the offending tractor which was rashly and negligently driven by its driver and decided the issue nos. ii and iii in favour of the claimants. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal took up issue no. i and iv and held that the claim application is maintainable and the offending vehicle was insured with the opposite party no.2- insurance company. Lastly, the learned Tribunal took up issue nos. v and vi and held that the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation and directed the opposite party no.1- owner of the vehicle to pay the compensation amount. 7. Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants submits that though the appellants have agitated several grounds in this appeal memo but the appellants confine their prayer for enhancement of compensation on the following grounds only while abandoning the rest of the grounds:- (i) In view of the principle of law settled in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others reported in, (2017) 16 SCC 680 paragraph no.59 of which reads as under :- “59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusion: 59.1. The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi [Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 421 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 726 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 167] 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 [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002], 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. 59.2. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench. 59.2. As Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari [Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 191 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 826], which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] is not a binding precedent. 59.3. 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. 59.4. 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. 59.5. For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paras 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] which we have reproduced hereinbefore. 59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] read with para 42 of that judgment. 59.7. 59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] read with para 42 of that judgment. 59.7. The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. 59.8. 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.” The learned Tribunal erred by not adding 40% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects and the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.70,000/- towards conventional head.. (ii) In view of the settled principle of law in the case of Sarla Verma (SMT) And Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation And Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the learned Tribunal erred by not applying the multiplier 18 instead of 16 which is applicable to the facts of the case 8. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2- insurance company has no serious objection to the prayer for enhancement of the compensation amount. 9. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, the only point for determination that crop up in this appeal is:- “Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is to be enhanced?” 10. Now coming to the facts of the case, in view of the settled principle of law, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Tribunal erred by not adding 40% of the income of the deceased towards his future prospects in view of the principle of law settled in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others (supra), and basing upon the said principles of law settled, the claimants are entitled to Rs.70,000/- under the conventional head and in view of the principle of law settled in the case of Sarla Verma (SMT) And Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation And Another (supra), the learned Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier 16 and this is a fit case where the multiplier 18 is to be applied in quantifying the compensation amount. Thus, adding 40% to the annual income of the deceased of Rs.36,000/- towards future prospects, the total annual income comes out to Rs.50,400/-. Deducting 50% of the same towards his personal expense, keeping in view the fact that the deceased was a bachelor, his annual contributory component to the family comes out to Rs.25,200/-. Now applying the multiplier 18, the total compensation amount comes out to Rs.4,53,600/-. Further, adding Rs.70,000/- under the conventional head, the total amount comes out to Rs.5,23,600/-. Perusal of the record reveals that Rs.50,000/- has been paid by the insurance company to the claimants under Section 140 of Motor Vehicle Act. So the net amount comes out to Rs.4,73,600/-. The sole point of determination is answered accordingly. 11. In view of the discussions made above, the impugned judgment and award is modified by directing the opposite party no.1- the owner of the vehicle to pay the compensation amount of Rs.4,73,600/- with simple interest at the rate stipulated by the learned Tribunal to the claimants within three months from the date of this Judgment. 12. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the aforesaid extent only. 13. In the result, this appeal is allowed. 14. Let a copy of this Judgment along with Lower Court Records be sent back to the learned court below forthwith.