JUDGMENT : Instant appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (in short “ the Act”) lays challenge to award dated 23.2.2017, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Solan, camp at Arki, District Solan, H.P., in MACP No. 5AK/2 of 2015 (Regd No. 12/15), whereby learned Tribunal below while allowing the petition having been filed by the appellants-petitioners-claimants (in short “the claimants”) saddled the respondent-HRTC with liability to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,73,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition till its deposit. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that the claimants, filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act, in the court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Solan, Camp at Arki, District Solan, H.P., claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 50.00 lac, on account of death of Sh. Hem Raj, son of claimants No. 1 and 2 and brother of claimants No. 3 and 4, in an accident. 3. Allegedly, on 10.10.2014, at about 9:00AM, while deceased Hem Raj was going to Shimla from Vaknaghat on his motorcycle, one Volvo bus bearing registration No. HP-63-5316 being driven by respondent No.2 in rash and negligent manner, hit his motorcycle, as a consequence of which, he suffered multiple injuries. Though injured was taken to IGMC Shimla after the accident, but unfortunately he succumbed to injuries. Claimants claimed that deceased Hem Raj was earning sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month being foreman/welder. Claimants claimed that since they were dependent upon the deceased Hem Raj, they are entitled to the compensation to be paid by the HRTC. 4. Aforesaid claim came to be resisted /refuted by the HRTC on the ground that accident took place due to the sole negligence of the deceased Hem Raj. Though factum with regard to lodging of FIR No. 102 of 2014 dated 10.10.2014 at PS Kandaghat, was duly admitted by respondent No.1, but it specifically denied that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2 i.e. driver of the HRTC Volvo. Though respondent No.2-driver was duly served but since he failed to put in appearance, he was proceeded ex-parte. 5. On the basis of pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, learned tribunal below framed following issues:- “1. Though respondent No.2-driver was duly served but since he failed to put in appearance, he was proceeded ex-parte. 5. On the basis of pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, learned tribunal below framed following issues:- “1. Whether the deceased Hem Raj died on dated 10-10- 2014, at about 9:00 a.m., at place near Waknaghat, under the jurisdiction of P.S. Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P., on account of rash and negligent driving of a vehicle No. HP-63- 5316 by the respondent No.2, as alleged?..OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled for the grant of compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?...OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable?... OPR. 4. Relief.” 6. Subsequently, the learned Tribunal below on the basis of evidence as well as pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties allowed the claim petition and held the respondent-HRTC liable to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,73,000/- along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till its deposit. 7. Though aforesaid award has been accepted by respondent HRTC, but since claimants were not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned tribunal below, they have approached this Court in the instant proceedings for enhancement of the compensation. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the award impugned in the instant proceedings, this Court finds that primarily, challenge to the impugned award has been laid on the following grounds: “(i) Learned Tribunal below has erred in considering the monthly income of deceased as Rs. 6000/- especially when there was overwhelming evidence available on record suggestive of the fact that the petitioner was earning Rs.20,000/-per month. (ii) Learned Tribunal below has failed to make an addition of 40% on account of future prospects in terms of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 . (iii) Learned Tribunal below has also failed to make certain payments under the conventional heads i.e. filial consortium to the parents as well as sister.” 10. Mr. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 . (iii) Learned Tribunal below has also failed to make certain payments under the conventional heads i.e. filial consortium to the parents as well as sister.” 10. Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-claimants vehemently argued that claimants successfully proved on record that at the time of the death of the deceased Hem Raj, he was in receipt of Rs. 20,000/- per month, but learned Tribunal below ignoring the statements made by PW4 and PW5 proceeded to determine his monthly income on the analogy of wages paid under MNREGA. While inviting attention of this court to the Judgment passed in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), Mr. Sharma argued that since petitioner was doing private job i.e. of welder, court below ought to have given addition of 40% while determining the amount of compensation. 11. Mr. Raman Jamalta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-HRTC, while supporting the impugned award contended that though claimants claimed that deceased Hem Raj was in receipt of Rs. 20,000/- as salary per month, but since such fact never came to be proved in accordance with law, learned Tribunal below rightly assessed his income as Rs. 6,000/- considering him to be daily wager/welder and as such, no interference is called for. 12. In the case at hand, record reveals that claimants, who are parents and sisters of the deceased Hem Raj claimed before the Tribunal below that deceased Hem Raj was getting salary of Rs. 20,000/- per month being welder from PW2 i.e. a contractor. PW2 while making deposition before the court below though supported the aforesaid version put forth by the claimants that deceased Hem Raj was in receipt of salary of Rs. 20,000/- per month, but since he failed to place on record documentary evidence i.e. pay slip, learned Tribunal below rightly ignored his statement. Similarly, PWs 4 and 5 failed to furnish any document suggestive of the fact that deceased was working with the contractor (PW2) and was earning salary of Rs. 20,000/- per month. Since claimants failed to prove on record that the deceased was getting monthly salary of Rs. 20,000/-, by leading cogent and convincing evidence, learned Tribunal below had no option, but to assess/determine his income on the basis of minimum wages payable under the Minimum Wages Act to the welder at the time of the alleged incident. 13. 20,000/- per month. Since claimants failed to prove on record that the deceased was getting monthly salary of Rs. 20,000/-, by leading cogent and convincing evidence, learned Tribunal below had no option, but to assess/determine his income on the basis of minimum wages payable under the Minimum Wages Act to the welder at the time of the alleged incident. 13. This court as well as Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of cases have repeatedly held that where there is no documentary evidence with regard to monthly income, tribunal while determining/computing the monthly income should resort to the minimum wages payable under the Minimum Wages Act. 14. Reliance is placed on judgment dated 23.4.2018, rendered by this Court in FAO No. 43 of 2018, titled Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Ishwar Singh and Ors, wherein it has been categorically held that in the absence of any specific evidence/documentary evidence of income of the deceased, the income is to be taken/assessed on the basis of minimum wages prevalent at the time of the accident. Relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment read as under: “10. After having carefully heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel representing the parties and perused the record, this Court finds considerable force in the argument of Mr. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance company that claimant has not led on record specific evidence to prove his income. No doubt, claimant has claimed that he was studying in class 12th at the time of the accident and was doing part time work by selling milk, but no evidence has been led on record in this regard. Needless to say, learned Tribunal below in the absence of specific evidence, if any, led on record by the claimant with regard to his income, ought to have assessed income on the basis of minimum wages prevalent at the time of the accident. In this regard reliance is placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Govind Yadav versus New India Assurance Company Limited, 2012 (1) ACJ 28, wherein it has been held as under:- “17. A brief recapitulation of the facts shows that in the petition filed by him for award of compensation, the appellant had pleaded that at the time of accident he was working as helper and was getting salary of Rs. 4,000/- per month. A brief recapitulation of the facts shows that in the petition filed by him for award of compensation, the appellant had pleaded that at the time of accident he was working as helper and was getting salary of Rs. 4,000/- per month. The Tribunal discarded his claim on the premise that no evidence was produced by him to prove the factum of employment and payment of salary by the employer. Learned Tribunal then proceeded to determine the amount of compensation in lieu of loss of earnings by assuming the appellant’s income to be Rs. 15,000/- per annum. On his part, the learned single Judge of the High Court assumed that while working as a cleaner, appellant may have been earning Rs. 2,000/- per month and accordingly assessed the compensation under the first head. Unfortunately, both the Tribunal and the High Court overlooked that at the relevant time minimum wages payable to a worker were Rs.3,000/- per month. Therefore, in the absence of other cogent evidence, Tribunal and the High Court should have determined the amount of compensation in lieu of loss of earnings by taking the appellant’s notional annual income as Rs. 36,000/- and the loss of earnings on account of 70 percent permanent disability as Rs.25,200/- per annum. The application of multiplier of 17 by the Tribunal, which was approved by the High Court, will have to be treated as erroneous in view of the judgment in Sarla Verma V. Delhi Transport Corporation 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC). In para 21 of that judgment, the court has indicated that if the age of the victim of an accident is 24 years, then the appropriate multiplier would be 18. By applying that multiplier, we hold that the compensation payable to the appellant in lieu of the loss of earnings would be Rs.4,53,600/-.” 11. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment passed by this Court in Smt. Pappi Devi and others versus Kali Ram and others, Latest HLJ 2008 (Himachal Pradesh) 1440, which reads as under:- “6. It has come in the statement of claimant Smt. Kala Devi (PW-1) that the deceased while working as a labourer and also selling milk was having an income of Rs. 4000/- per month. Importantly, there is no cross-examination on this point at all. But the fact of the matter, is that no documentary evidence has been placed on record to prove the income. 4000/- per month. Importantly, there is no cross-examination on this point at all. But the fact of the matter, is that no documentary evidence has been placed on record to prove the income. This is the only evidence with regard to income of the deceased on record. 7. It has come on record that the deceased was illiterate and working as a labourer. In my view, his income determined by the Tribunal i.e. Rs.50/- per day, is on the lower side. Taking the deceased to be employed as a daily wager, the minimum wages paid by the government in the year, 2001 to the labourers was more than Rs.70/- per day. This is not disputed at the Bar. Therefore, the same can be made the basis for determining the income of the deceased. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased is determined as Rs.70x30 Rs.2100/- and after deducting 1/3rd of the amount i.e. Rs.700/- for the purpose of dependency is determined as Rs.1400/-.” In view of the facts discussed herein above as well as law taken note herein above, this Court finds no illegality in the award in as much as monthly income of the deceased Hem Raj came to be considered as Rs. 6000/- per month. 15. Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , has held as under: “39. Before we proceed to analyse the principle for addition of future prospects, we think it seemly to clear the maze which is vividly reflectible from Sarla Verma, Reshma Kumari, Rajesh and Munna Lal Jain. Three aspects need to be clarified. The first one pertains to deduction towards personal and living expenses. In paragraphs 30, 31 and 32, Sarla Verma lays down:- “30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra4, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this (2003) 3 SLR (R) 601 Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six. 31. 31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. 32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.” -- --- 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. (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. (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.” 16. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, there appears to be merit in the contentions of Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants that learned Tribunal below ought to have given addition of 40% in the income of the petitioner on account of future prospects. In the case at hand, deceased, who was 40 years old, was self employed on the fixed salary and was getting fixed salary of Rs. Manohar Lal Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants that learned Tribunal below ought to have given addition of 40% in the income of the petitioner on account of future prospects. In the case at hand, deceased, who was 40 years old, was self employed on the fixed salary and was getting fixed salary of Rs. 6,000/- as was determined by the court and as such, court below fell in grave error while not granting addition of 40% in terms of the judgment passed in Pranay Sethi’s case supra and as such, award needs to be modified to that extent. 17. Similarly this court finds that learned Tribunal below erred while granting amount under certain conventional heads i.e. funeral expenses. As per judgment passed in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, only sum of Rs. 15,000/- could be awarded on account of funeral charges, whereas, sum of Rs. 15,000/- is/was required to be given to the claimants on account of loss of estate. 18. While placing reliance upon latest judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Smt. Somwati and Ors, in Civil appeal No. 3093 of 2020 (a/w connected matters), learned counsel representing the claimants submitted that sum of Rs. 40,000/- each, is also required to be awarded in favour of claimants No. 1 and 2 being filial consortium. Otherwise also, Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment rendered in case titled Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Ors, (2018) 18 SCC 130 , which has been also taken note of, in Somwati’s case, has laid down that consortium is not limited to spousal consortium and it also includes parental consortium as well as filial consortium. Having taken note of the aforesaid judgment rendered by Three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court in its latest judgment passed in Somwati’s case (supra) has held as under :- “35. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi has also not under conventional head included any compensation towards ‘loss of love and affection’ which have been now further reiterated by three- Judge Bench in United India Insurance Company Ltd. (supra). It is thus now authoritatively well settled that no compensation can be awarded under the head ‘loss of love and affection’. 36. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi has also not under conventional head included any compensation towards ‘loss of love and affection’ which have been now further reiterated by three- Judge Bench in United India Insurance Company Ltd. (supra). It is thus now authoritatively well settled that no compensation can be awarded under the head ‘loss of love and affection’. 36. The word ‘consortium’ has been defined in Black’s law Dictionary, 10th edition. The Black’s law dictionary also simultaneously notices the filial consortium, parental consortium and spousal consortium in following manner:- "Consortium 1. The benefits that one person, esp. A spouse, is entitled to receive from another, including companionship, cooperation, affection, aid, financial support, and (between spouses) sexual relations a claim for loss of consortium. -Filial consortium A child's society, affection, and companionship given to a parent. -Parental consortium A parent's society, affection and companionship given to a child. -Spousal consortium A spouse's society, affection and companionship given to the other spouse.” 37. The Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. (Supra) as well as United India Insurance Company ltd.(Supra), Three Judge Bench laid down that the consortium is not limited to spousal consortium and it also includes parental consortium as well as filial consortium. In paragraph 87 of United India Insurance Company Ltd. (supra), ‘consortium’ to all the three claimants was thus awarded. Paragraph 87 is quoted below:- "87. Insofar as the conventional heads are concerned, the deceased Satpal Singh left behind a widow and three children as his dependants. On the basis of the judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General (supra), the following amounts are awarded under the conventional heads:- (i) Loss of Estate: Rs. 15,000 (ii) Loss of Consortium: (a) Spousal Consortium: Rs.40,000 (b) Parental Consortium: 40,000 x 3 = Rs. 1,20,000 (iii) Funeral Expenses: Rs. 15,000” 38. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Pranay Sethi has only referred to spousal consortium and no other consortium was referred to in the judgment of Pranay Sethi, hence, there is no justification for allowing the parental consortium and filial consortium. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi has referred to amount of Rs.40,000/- to the ‘loss of consortium’ but the Constitution Bench had not addressed the issue as to whether consortium of Rs.40,000/- is only payable as spousal consortium. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi has referred to amount of Rs.40,000/- to the ‘loss of consortium’ but the Constitution Bench had not addressed the issue as to whether consortium of Rs.40,000/- is only payable as spousal consortium. The judgment of Pranay Sethi cannot be read to mean that it lays down the proposition that the consortium is payable only to the wife. 39. The Three-Judge Bench in United India Insurance Company Ltd. (Supra) has categorically laid down that apart from spousal consortium, parental and filial consortium is payable. We feel ourselves bound by the above judgment of Three Judge Bench. We, thus, cannot accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the amount of consortium awarded to each of the claimants is not sustainable. 40. We, thus, found the impugned judgments of the High Court awarding consortium to each of the claimants in accordance with law which does not warrant any interference in this appeal. We, however, accept the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant that there is no justification for award of compensation under separate head ‘loss of love and affection’. The appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed insofar as the award of compensation under the head ‘loss of love and affection.” 19. In view of the discussions made supra and the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the afore-cited judgments, the award is modified on following counts: Head Amount Loss of dependency: Monthly income =6000 Future prospects @ 40% i.e. 2400= 8400 Deduction towards self expenses at the rate of 50% =4200 Net income = 4200 Loss of dependency 4200x12 x 18 Loss of dependency (to claimants Nos. 1 and 2 only) 907200 Loss of estate 15000 Funeral charges 15000 Total 937200 Loss of consortia payable to claimants Nos. 1 and 2 being parents @ Rs.40,000/- each 80000 Total compensation 1017200 20. 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. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. Interim directions, if any, are vacated.