JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2. 2. By order dated 09.02.2022, the notice upon the respondent No. 1 was found to be validly served, however, nobody has responded on his behalf in spite of repeated calls. 2. The present appeal has been filed being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment/award dated 31.05.2013, passed by the learned District Judge-III-cum-P.O., M.V. Act, III-Giridih, in Claim Case No. 34 of 2006. 3. The claim petition was instituted by the claimants for @ lump sum compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum till the realization of the said compensation amout on account of death of one Kailash Modi (aged about 50 years) in a road accident arising out of use of motor vehicle bearing registration number WB-40-L-3877, owned by respondent No. 1 and insured by respondent No. 2 namely United India Insurance Company Limited. 4. Mr. Arvind Kumal Lall, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the learned tribunal although has allowed the claim, however, he has failed to appreciate the law on the point of quantum. He submits that in the post-mortem report, the age of the deceased was found about 60 years, whereas the appellants have produced the ration card, which is Exhibit-11 and voter identity card, which is also Exhibit-10, wherein the age of the deceased was found 52 and 51 years respectively. He submits that in view of the matter, the payment upon considering the age is required to be considered in the light of para-59.4 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , which reads as under:- “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.” 5. 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.” 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the multiplier has been put as 5, where it should be 7 in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Shethi’s case (Supra), wherein the case of Sarla Verma’s case [reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 ] has been dealt with, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-42 has held as follows:- 42. As far as the multiplier is concerned, the Claims Tribunal and the courts shall be guided by Step 2 that finds place in para 19 of 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 the said judgment. For the sake of completeness, para 42 is extracted below : (Sarla Verma case [SarlaVerma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] , SCC p. 140) “42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas [Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 335], Trilok Chandra [UP SRTC v. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362 ] and Charlie [New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie, (2005) 10 SCC 720 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1657]), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is, M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M- 15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.” 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants further submits that so far as consortium and others under the conventional head is concerned, in view of the judgment of Pranay Shethi’s case (Supra), at para-52 consortium and others under the conventional head is also required to be modified. 7. Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 submits that the learned tribunal has rightly awarded the amount and there is no illegality in the said award and no interference is required in the same. He submits that there is nothing on the record to suggest that the appellants are doing the business of milk. He further submits that the business of milk was not proved and in that view of the matter the appellants cannot be entitled for any enhancement. He further submits that in view of Exhibits-10 and 11, which are the ration card and the copy of voter identity card, the court comes to the conclusion that it is required to be considered in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Shethi’s case (Supra), in para-42 of the said judgment. He further submits that on conventional head, the maximum Rs. 70,000/- can be awarded as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Shethi’s case (Supra). 8. In view of the above, considering the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Shethi’s case (Supra), the calculation is required to be made in following manner:- (i) Income Rs. 5000/- (ii) Annual Income Rs. 5000/-x12= Rs. 60,000/- (iii) 10% Future Prospects Rs. 60,000/- + Rs. 6,000/- = Rs. 66000/- (iv) 1/3rd deduction towards personal and living expenses Rs. 66000/- X 1/3 = Rs. 22000, therefore Rs. 44000/- (new income) (v) Multiplier 7 (vi) Total Income Rs. 44000/-x7=Rs. 3,08,000/- (vii) Conventional Heads Rs. 70,000/- (viii) Total Compensation Rs. 3,78,000/- Amount to be paid less amount already paid. 9. In that view of the matter, this appeal is being disposed of modifying the award in the above manner. The amount already released in favour of the appellants shall be deducted and the balance amount shall be paid to the claimants within six weeks by the Insurance Company. 10. The Insurance company shall take endeavour to deposit the remaining amount before the tribunal. The amount already released in favour of the appellants shall be deducted and the balance amount shall be paid to the claimants within six weeks by the Insurance Company. 10. The Insurance company shall take endeavour to deposit the remaining amount before the tribunal. So far as rest part of the award is concerned, no interference has been made and the same has been kept intact and the interest shall be calculated in terms of the award. 11. This appeal is disposed of as such.