JUDGMENT : The instant Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of Judgement/Award dated 18.01.2018, passed by Principal District Judge-cum-P.O., Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Civil Courts, Bokaro in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 41/2015 whereby and whereunder claim application filed by the claimants has been allowed and Laxman Sahu (O.P. No. 1), M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (O.P. No. 2), Abdul Kalam (O.P. No. 3) i.e. owner, insurer and driver of Bus bearing registration no. JH 01AL 3508) and Binod Kumar (O.P. No. 4), Jai Nandan Kushwaha (O.P. No. 5) and Sri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. (O.P. No. 6) i.e. owner, driver and insurer of Dumper Truck No. JH 02V 7632 have been jointly and severally held liable to pay compensation of Rs.4,83,600/- with 9% interest with effect from 13.05.2015 to the claimants. The O.P. No. 2 had already paid Rs.50,000/- on 02.08.2016 and as such remaining amount was directed to be paid to the claimant. Both the Insurance Companies have been directed to prepare Cheque or Bank Draft of compensation amount. The M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (O.P. No. 2) and Sri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. (O.P. No. 6) have been directed to pay compensation amount of Rs.4,33,600/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till payment within five months from the date of passing of Award failing which claimants will be entitled to receive penal interest @11% till realisation of compensation amount. 2. Claimants have preferred Miscellaneous Appeal for enhancement of amount awarded by the Tribunal whereas the M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. has preferred Cross Objection assailing the said Award to the extent of and in regard of finding arrived qua occupation and income of the deceased, more specifically Issue No. VII as mentioned/ discussed in para-35 of the said Award and also rate of interest awarded @9% of the awarded amount, which is quite contrary to the precedent in this matter. 3. Claim application was preferred by claimants under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the M.V. Act for grant of compensation of Rs.9 Lac. along with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of case on account of death of their son - Ajay Hembram. 3. Claim application was preferred by claimants under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the M.V. Act for grant of compensation of Rs.9 Lac. along with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of case on account of death of their son - Ajay Hembram. It is alleged in the claim petition that on 26.04.2015, while deceased Ajay Hembram along with Lal Kishore Hembrum RC/ was returning to his village by Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing registration no. JH 02G 6384 and at about 3:30 hours, reached near Kocha Goda, then at that time one Dumper bearing registration no. JH 02V 7632 was being driven rashly and negligently and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased due to which deceased was dashed by Bus bearing registration no. JH 01AL 3508 which was coming from Jaina More and the said Bus crushed and deceased Ajay Hembram due to which he died on the spot. The case was instituted. The deceased Ajay Hembram was a driver and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month and was aged about 25 years and a sum of Rs.9 Lac. was claimed as compensation. 4. The opposite party no. 1 – Laxman Sahu and opposite party no. 3 Abdul Kalam i.e. owner and driver of Bus appeared and filed their written statements on 02.02.2017. The opposite party no. 2 – M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and the opposite party no. 6 – Sri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. appeared on 11.04.2016 and 29.04.2016 and filed their written statements on 29.04.2016. The opposite party nos. 4 and 5 also appeared on 11.04.2016. 5. The learned Tribunal, after hearing the parties, framed issues. After framing of issues, claimants as well as the Insurance Company adduced their evidences and furnished copies of documents. The documents produced by the parties have been marked and exhibited with the records. 6. After examining records of the case, learned Tribunal discussed the issues in details and claim application filed by the claimants/plaintiffs has been allowed on terms as discussed hereinabove. 7. Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-claimants submits that only a meagre amount of compensation has been awarded without considering the fact that the deceased was earning Rs.9,000/- as a driver whereas his income has been taken as Rs.3,000/- only. 7. Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-claimants submits that only a meagre amount of compensation has been awarded without considering the fact that the deceased was earning Rs.9,000/- as a driver whereas his income has been taken as Rs.3,000/- only. The deceased was treated to be a non-earning member of the family without considering evidences adduced by the claimants. The deceased was a skilled driver and old parents were having good support from his side. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal ought to have awarded at least Rs.75,000/- on non-conventional head considering the ratio decided by Hon’ble Apex Court. Learned counsel further argues that the considering income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month plus 40% enhancement on the same towards future prospects i.e considering Rs.12,360/- per month as income of the deceased, the amount of compensation should have been on a higher side. 8. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. has assailed the impugned Judgment mainly on the ground that finding arrived at by the Tribunal in regard and quo occupation and enhancement of income on the basis of said occupation as well as interest provided @9% to the claimant on the awarded amount. Learned counsel however concedes that as far as claim in memo of appeal as regards of less compensation in conventional head for loss of consortium to tune of Rs.40,000/-, they have no objection as the same is in line of order passed in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . The claimants could not brought on record that the deceased was a skilled driver and was earning member of the family. 9. Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Ram General Insurance Company argues that the claimants have failed to produce any driving licence of the deceased and as such the instant appeal is fit to be dismissed. The deceased was not an earning member of the family and as such learned Tribunal has rightly decided the claim application. Learned counsel concedes that as far as claim in memo of appeal as regards of less compensation in conventional head for loss of consortium to tune of Rs.40,000/-, they have no objection 10. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. Learned counsel concedes that as far as claim in memo of appeal as regards of less compensation in conventional head for loss of consortium to tune of Rs.40,000/-, they have no objection 10. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. The claim has been decided in favour of the claimant. The deceased died in the accident and the claim petition has been held to be maintainable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in 2017(4) TAC 673 (SC) has held in para 61 as under: “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. 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. 11. The Motor Vehicle Act is a benevolent legislation and the concept of just compensation to be provided to the claimants is the settled principles of law. In view of the judicial pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others (Supra), it is but necessary to provide just compensation to the claimants who are mother and father of the deceased. 12. Since claimants have failed to produce any documents in support of their claim that the deceased was an earning member, the claim for enhancement of compensation is hereby negated. However, in view of Judgment passed in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others (Supra), the claim for enhancement of amount towards conventional head for loss of consortium to tune of Rs.40,000/-, is hereby allowed. Since amount of Rs.30,000/- has already been paid to the claimants, the Insurance Companies are hereby directed to pay the enhanced amount i.e. Rs. 40,000/- within a period of six weeks from today in terms of their share, as decided by the Tribunal. 13. This Appeal is allowed with modification in Award to the extent mentioned hereunder. 14. Let the lower court record be returned to the court concerned at the earliest.