JUDGMENT : Instant appeal filed under S. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter, ‘Act’) lays challenge to award dated 3.10.2015 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in MAC Petition No. 642/2013, whereby learned Tribunal below, while allowing claim petition having been filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 3/claimants, (hereinafter, ‘claimants’) saddled the appellant-insurance company with the liability to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.41,29,259/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, to the claimants, from the date of filing of petition, till realization. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that the claimants filed a claim petition under S.166 of the Act, averring therein that on 26.12.2010, deceased Seema Devi, alongwith claimants was going from Mandi to Delhi in Bus bearing registration No. HR-69-A-6158, being driven by respondent No. 5 herein, in a rash and negligent manner, due to which it collided with truck bearing registration No. HP-19-A-2268. Seema Devi, expired in the accident. It is averred that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.5 herein. It is further averred that the deceased Seema Devi was in network marketing with RMP Info-Tech Pvt. Ltd. and was earning Rs.40,000/- per month. It is also averred that claimants No.1 and 2 were being looked after by the deceased, as such, entitled for the compensation on account of death of the deceased. 3. Claim put forth by claimants came to be resisted by respondent No.4 by filing reply, wherein preliminary objections of locus-standi and maintainability have been taken. It is averred in the reply that the accident had not taken place due any fault of the driver of the bus. Respondent No.1 also stated in the reply, that since the bus in question was insured with respondent No.3, as such, it was liable to indemnify the claimants. 4. Respondent No. 5, while filing separate reply, took preliminary objections of maintainability, locus-standi, non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. On merit, he stated that the case has been wrongly registered against him and the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the truck bearing registration No. HP-19-A-2268. 5. 4. Respondent No. 5, while filing separate reply, took preliminary objections of maintainability, locus-standi, non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. On merit, he stated that the case has been wrongly registered against him and the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the truck bearing registration No. HP-19-A-2268. 5. Appellant-Insurance Company, respondent No.3 before learned Tribunal below, while filing its reply, took preliminary objections of maintainability, non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. It is averred by the appellant-Insurance Company in its reply that the insurer of the Truck has not been made party in the petition. On merit, factum of accident has not been denied, but it is averred by the appellant-Insurance Company in its reply that the same was the result of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the truck. 6. On the basis of pleadings of parties, learned Tribunal below framed following issues on 23.9.2011: “1. Whether the deceased had died in a Motor Vehicles Accident involving vehicle bearing registration No. HR-69-A-6158 and vehicle bearing registration No. HP-19-A-2268 on dated 26.12.2010? OPP 2. Whether respondent No. 2 was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner which led to the accident? OPP 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation to the extent of Rs.20,00,000/-? OPP 4. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR 5. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPR 6. Whether the petitioner has no locus-standi to file the present petition? OPR 7. Relief” 7. Subsequently vide impugned Award dated 3.10.2015, learned Tribunal below allowed the claim petition and awarded sum of Rs.41,29,259/- as compensation in favour of claimants Nos. 1 and 2 only, alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Since the appellant-insurance company, being insurer, came to be fastened with liability to pay compensation, it has approached this court in the instant proceedings. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, vis-à-vis the reasoning assigned by learned Tribunal below in the impugned Award, this court finds that appellant-insurance company has laid challenge to award primarily on following grounds. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, vis-à-vis the reasoning assigned by learned Tribunal below in the impugned Award, this court finds that appellant-insurance company has laid challenge to award primarily on following grounds. (a) Learned Tribunal below has failed to take note of the fact that as per tax slabs prevalent at the time of accident, income upto Rs.1,60,000/- was tax free and thereafter, from 1,60,001-5,00,000/- income tax at the rate of 10% was liable to be deducted, as such, the net income of the deceased should have been assessed after deducting the amount of income tax payable by the deceased. (b) Learned Tribunal below wrongly awarded compensation under the heads of funeral and cost of litigation as Rs.50,000/- and under loss of estate at Rs.1,00,000/-, whereas, Rs.15,000/- only under each head could have been awarded by learned Tribunal below. Similarly, no amount could have been awarded under the head of loss of expectation of life. (c) Learned Tribunal below has wrongly granted 50% of addition on account of loss of future prospects, since the deceased was not in regular employment and as per Pranay Sethi’s case, only 40% addition on account of loss of future prospects, could have been awarded. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant, while inviting attention of this court to judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Shyamwati Sharma v. Karam Singh, (2010) 12 SCC 378 , argued that where the income of the deceased is in taxable range, appropriate deductions should be made towards income tax/surcharge, while calculating his net income and as such, in the case at hand, net income of the deceased ought to have been assessed after deducting the tax payable. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, also invited attention of this Court to judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017)16 SCC 680 , to buttress his argument qua the fact that the learned Tribunal below could have awarded amount of Rs.15,000/- each under the heads of funeral expenses and loss of estate and no amount could have been awarded on account of loss of expectation of life, as such, impugned award deserves to be modified on this count also. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company further argued that as per Pranay Sethi (supra), only 40% addition on account of loss of future prospects could have been awarded since the deceased was not in regular employment and impugned award needs modification on this count also. 11. Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the claimants, contended that the learned Tribunal below has rightly assessed the income of the deceased based on the Income Tax Returns and no deduction is required to be made from the assessed income of the deceased. Mr. Verma, further argued that the learned Tribunal below has not awarded any amount under the heads of loss of consortium, since claimants Nos.1 and 2 have lost care and guidance of a mother and similarly, claimant No.3 has also lost the love and care of his spouse, as such, impugned award deserves to be enhanced on these counts. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company further argued that keeping in view the prevalent rate of interest, same is on lower side and the same is required to be enhanced. 12. Since, there is no dispute qua the income of the deceased as such, this court need not go into that aspect of the matter. So far contention of the Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company qua the deduction to be made from the assessed income, on account of income tax, is concerned, reference may be made to Shyamwati Sharma (supra), wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: “7. As noticed above, the gross salary was Rs.13,794/- per month or Rs.1,65,528/- per annum. By adding 50% towards future prospects (as the deceased was less than 40 years of age), the deemed gross income would have been Rs.20,691/- per month or Rs.2,48,292/- per annum. The percentage of deduction towards income-tax and surcharge, taken as 30% by the High Court, does not require to be disturbed, having regard to the income. On such deduction, the net annual income of the deceased would have been Rs.1,73,800/-. From the said sum, one-fourth (25%) had to be deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. Thus the contribution of the deceased to his family would have been Rs.1,30,350/- per annum. By applying the multiplier of 15, the total loss of dependency will be Rs.19,55,250/-. From the said sum, one-fourth (25%) had to be deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. Thus the contribution of the deceased to his family would have been Rs.1,30,350/- per annum. By applying the multiplier of 15, the total loss of dependency will be Rs.19,55,250/-. By adding a sum of Rs.5,000/- each under the heads of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, the total compensation is determined as Rs.19,70,250/-. 8. The submission of the respondents that the deduction of 30% from the salary is not warranted in view of the decision in Sarla Verma, is not sound. In Sarla Verma, the monthly salary of the deceased was only Rs.4004/- and the annual income even after taking note of future prospects was Rs.72072/-. The income was in a range which was exempt from tax, if the permissible deductions were applied. Therefore, this Court did not make any deduction towards income-tax. But this Court made it clear that where the annual income is in the taxable range, appropriate deduction should be made towards tax. 9. In this case as the annual income has been worked out as Rs.2,48,292/-, appropriate deduction has to be made towards income-tax. The rate of income tax is a varying figure, with reference to taxable income after permissible deductions and the year of assessment. The High Court has assessed the deduction as 30% and on the facts, we do not propose to disturb it. We however make it clear that while ascertaining the income of the deceased, any deductions shown in the salary certificate as deductions towards GPF, life insurance premium, repayments of loans etc., should not be excluded from the income. The deduction towards income tax/surcharge alone should be considered to arrive at the net income of the deceased.” 13. Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment (supra), has upheld the decision of the High Court in deducting income tax payable out of the assessed income to arrive at the net income. In the case at had, annual income of the deceased has been taken as Rs.2,16,427/- as per assessment made for the year 2010-11. Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) has also held that the words “actual salary” should be read as “actual salary less tax. In the case at had, annual income of the deceased has been taken as Rs.2,16,427/- as per assessment made for the year 2010-11. Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) has also held that the words “actual salary” should be read as “actual salary less tax. Before coming to the issue of income tax deduction, reference may be made to Pranay Sethi (supra), wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: “47. In our considered opinion, if the same is followed, it shall subserve 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. 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. 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 selfemployed 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. 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. (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/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.” 14. (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.” 14. As per Pranay Sethi (supra), an addition of 40% is required to be made in case the deceased was in self employment or on fixed salary and if age of deceased is below 40 yeaRs.Here, the deceased was 28 years of age at the time of death and was in private employment, as such, Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company is right in contending that addition of only 40% to the assessed income of the deceased ought to have been made on account of loss of future prospects. 15. Applying above ratio to the extant case, the loss of dependency qua the deceased would be calculated thus : Rs.2,16,427+40% of 2,16,427 = 2,16,427+86,570= 3,02,997/- 16. Now, coming back to the question of deduction on account of income tax, Learned Counsel appearing for the parties are ad idem that at the relevant time, the annual income upto Rs.1,60,000/- was tax free and thereafter, income from Rs.1,60,001 to 5,00,000/- was liable to income tax at the rate of 10%. Thus, the taxable income of the deceased would be 3,02,997-1,60,000= 1,42,997 and the tax component would 10% of 1,42,997 which comes to Rs.14,299/-. Thus, the net income after deducting the tax component would be thus: 3,02,997=14,299= 2,88,698/-. Similarly, since the deceased had three family members i.e. claimants, as such, 1/3rd of income is liable to be deducted towards self expenses of the deceased, qua which again the parties are at agreement. Thus the loss of dependency for the claimants would be 2,88,698-1/3x2,88,698 or 2,88,698-96,233 =1,92,465/- 17. Since there is no dispute qua application of multiplier of 17, keeping in view the age of the deceased, the total loss of dependency would be, 1,92,465x17=32,71,905/-. 18. Similarly, learned Tribunal below has awarded excessive amounts under the heads of loss of estate and funeral expense at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively, which ought to have been Rs.15,000/- each only. Also, no amount could have been awarded under the head loss of expectation of life. However, as per Magma General Insurance Co. 18. Similarly, learned Tribunal below has awarded excessive amounts under the heads of loss of estate and funeral expense at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively, which ought to have been Rs.15,000/- each only. Also, no amount could have been awarded under the head loss of expectation of life. However, as per Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 9581 of 2018 decided on 18.9.2018, claimants Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to parental consortium and claimant No.3 being husband is entitled to spousal consortium, all at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each. 19. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company argued that this Court has no power to award any extra amount/enhance the amounts already awarded by learned Tribunal below, since no crossobjections/ appeal has been filed by the claimants. On the issue of power of an appellate court to make additional award, reference may be made to a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Ranjana Prakash and others vs. Divisional Manager and another (2011) 14 SCC 639 , whereby, it has been held that amount of compensation can be enhanced by an appellate court, while exercising powers under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC. It would be profitable to reproduce following para of the judgment herein :- “Order 41 Rule 33 CPC enables an appellate court to pass any order which ought to have been passed by the trial court and to make such further or other order as the case may require, even if the respondent had not filed any appeal or cross-objections. This power is entrusted to the appellate court to enable it to do complete justice between the parties. Order 41 Rule 33 CPC can be pressed into service to make the award more effective or maintain the award on other grounds or to make the other parties to litigation to share the benefits or the liability, but cannot be invoked to get a larger or higher relief. For example, where the claimants seek compensation against the owner and the insurer of the vehicle and the tribunal makes the award only against the owner, on an appeal by the owner challenging the quantum, the appellate court can make the insurer jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, alongwith the owner, even though the claimants had not challenged the non-grant of relief against the insurer.” 20. Consequently in view of above, award passed but learned Tribunal below needs to be modified in following manner. Head Amount (Rs.) Loss of dependency 3271905 Funeral charges 15000 Loss of estate 15000 Amount payable to claimants Nos. 1 and 2 each in equal shares 3301905 Consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each to all the claimants 120000 Total compensation 3421905 21. So far interest rate awarded by learned Tribunal below is concerned, same calls for no interference. 22. 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. 23. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are disposed of. Interim directions, if any, are vacated.