JUDGMENT : SANDEEP SHARMA, J. 1. Instant appeal filed under S.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter ‘Act’) is directed against Award dated 9.11.2016 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Solan, Himachal Pradesh in MACP No. 7AK/2 of 2014 (Regd. No. 101/2015), whereby learned Tribunal below, while allowing the claim petition having been filed by appellants/claimants, (hereinafter, ‘claimants) saddled the respondent No. 3-Insurance Company (hereinafter ‘insurance company’) with liability to pay Rs. 5,11,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization thereof to the claimants, as compensation on account of death of Late Ashish Kumar, son of claimant No. 1 and brother of claimant No. 2. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from record, are that on 16.3.2014, while deceased Ashish Kumar, was going from Subathu to Solan on Motor Cycle bearing registration No. HP-12T-1865, he was unfortunately hit by Tipper bearing registration No. HP-64-4651, being driven by respondent No. 2-Chaman Lal, as a result whereof, he suffered multiple injuries and ultimately succumbed to the injuries. 3. Claimants, being mother and brother of deceased Ashish Kumar, instituted a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, seeking therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 5.00 Crore, alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Claimants stated in the claim petition therein that at the time of death, Ashish Kumar, who was 23 years old, was earning Rs. 50,000 - 60,000 per month from the business of dairy farming and selling 120 ltres milk per day, at the rate of Rs. 30/- per litre. Claimants claimed that the deceased was the sole bread winner of the family and as such, they being legal heir of the deceased, are entitled to compensation. 4. Aforesaid claim put forth by the claimants came to be resisted on behalf of the respondents. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 though nowhere denied the factum of accident but specifically denied allegations of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No. 2 and claimed that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the deceased. Above respondents also denied that the deceased was earning Rs. 50,000 - 60,000/- per month, by doing dairy business. 5. Respondent No. 3, in its reply, also denied the factum that the deceased was earning Rs. Above respondents also denied that the deceased was earning Rs. 50,000 - 60,000/- per month, by doing dairy business. 5. Respondent No. 3, in its reply, also denied the factum that the deceased was earning Rs. 50,000 - 60,000/- per month. 6. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings adduced on record by respective parties, learned Tribunal below, framed following issues on 28.8.2015: “1. Whether the deceased Ashish Kumar died on dated 16-03-2024, at about 2.00 P.M. at place near village Sharad (Deothi), on account of the accident of Vehicle No. HP-64-4561, due to the rash and negligent driving 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-3 4. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident? OPR 3 5. Whether the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and terms and conditions of Insurance Policy as alleged? OPR-3 6. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR-3 7. Relief.” 7. On the basis of pleadings as well as evidence led on record by respective parties, learned Tribunal below allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants and held them entitled to Rs. 5,11,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition till its realization. 8. Insurance company accepted the award as no appeal whatsoever, came to be filed in the competent court of law. Similarly, owner and driver of the Vehicle, also did not lay challenge to award as such, award in question has attained finality qua respondents including insurance company. 9. Appellants, herein being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, have approached this Hon'ble Court in the instant appeal, praying therein for enhancement of the compensation. 10. I have heard the parties and gone through records. 11. Precisely, the grouse of the claimants, as highlighted in the grounds of appeal and further canvassed by Mr. Jia Lal Bhardwaj, learned senior counsel for the appellants, duly assisted by Mr. 10. I have heard the parties and gone through records. 11. Precisely, the grouse of the claimants, as highlighted in the grounds of appeal and further canvassed by Mr. Jia Lal Bhardwaj, learned senior counsel for the appellants, duly assisted by Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate is that the learned Tribunal below, while determining the compensation, failed to appreciate the evidence led on record by the claimants, with regard to monthly income of the deceased in its right perspective, as a result whereof, learned Tribunal below wrongly, took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 4500/- While making this court peruse the averments contained in the claim petition as well as evidence led on record by the claimants, learned senior counsel vehemently argued that though, the claimants successfully proved on record that the deceased was earning Rs. 50,000-60,000/- per month, by selling 120 litres of milk daily, which fact further came to be substantiated by the statement of PW-5 Kiran Kaundal, but yet learned Tribunal below, proceeded to determine monthly income of the deceased on the basis of minimum wages payable at that time to unskilled labour, as per Minimum Wages Act. He submitted that once, PW-5, Kiran Kaundal, Pradhan, Jagruti Mahila Kisan Samiti, categorically stated that she used to purchase milk for sum Rs. 50,000-60,000 per month from the deceased, learned Tribunal below could not brush aside her version merely on the ground that the society, of which PW-5 claimed herself to be the President, was not a registered society. He further submitted that PW-5, by way of Ext. PW-5/A not only proved factum of sale of milk but also payment qua the same, and as such, learned Tribunal below has fallen in grave error, by ignoring cogent and convincing evidence adduced by the claimants, especially with regard to monthly income of the deceased. Besides above, learned senior counsel further argued that the learned Tribunal below has failed to award any amount under conventional heads i.e. consortium, loss of estate and additional amount on account of loss of future prospects. Lastly, Mr. Besides above, learned senior counsel further argued that the learned Tribunal below has failed to award any amount under conventional heads i.e. consortium, loss of estate and additional amount on account of loss of future prospects. Lastly, Mr. Bhardwaj submitted that as per settled law, wages notified for a particular year under Minimum Wages Act can only be taken into consideration, if no positive or cogent evidence is led on record by the claimants with regard to salary of the deceased/injured, but since, in the case at hand, claimants successfully proved on record that the deceased was earning Rs. 50,000-60,000 per month by sale of milk, minimum wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act could not be resorted to, while determining the income of the deceased. 12. Mr. Sudhir Thakur, learned senior counsel duly assisted by Mr. Karun Negi, Advocate, did not contest the claim of the claimants. 13. Per contra, Mr. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, supported the impugned award. While making this court peruse evidence led on record by the claimant to prove monthly income of deceased i.e. statements of PW-4 Nirmala Devi and Kiran Kaundal, PW-5, Mr. Thakur strenuously argued that, at no point of time, categorical deposition came to be made by said witnesses that, how and in what manner, sum of Rs. 50,000-60,000/- was being earned by the deceased. While specifically referring to statement of PW-4 Nirmala Devi i.e. mother of deceased, Mr. Thakur, submitted that as per her own case, cows kept in the farm house allegedly being run by the deceased were purchased after the years 2013- 14 and during that time, even as per own statement of PW-4, deceased Ashish Kumar was studying as such, it is difficult to believe that in the year 2013-14, deceased Ashish Kumar was running the business of dairy farming. Mr. Thakur, further raised a contention that the claimants have not proved the income of the deceased by placing on record any Income-tax Returns nor the Samiti, which allegedly purchased milk from the deceased has been proved to be a registered Samiti. Mr. Thakur, further raised a contention that the claimants have not proved the income of the deceased by placing on record any Income-tax Returns nor the Samiti, which allegedly purchased milk from the deceased has been proved to be a registered Samiti. He further submits that if the Samiti was purchasing such a huge quantity of milk and making payments in Lakhs of Rupees, per month to the deceased, it must be maintaining accounts, which must have been audited by some agency, but neither registration of society nor its transactions, especially with the deceased have been proved and as such, learned Tribunal below has rightly brushed aside the evidence of PW-5, Kiran Kaundal. 14. While referring to statement of PW-5 Kiran Kaundal, Mr. Thakur argued that learned Tribunal below rightly did not place much reliance upon the testimony of said witness, since, though she claimed herself to be the President of the society but she was unable to produce any registration certificate of the Society or order/resolution appointing her to be President of the Society. Mr. Thakur further submitted that the details with regard to sale of the milk and payment qua the same cannot be said to have been proved on the basis of evidence by way of affidavit tendered on record by PW-5, because, neither there is mention of the name of the deceased nor it is printed on the letter pad of the society. He submitted that since no cogent and convincing evidence ever came to be led on record qua monthly income of deceased, learned Tribunal below rightly worked out the income of the deceased on the basis of minimum wages, treating the deceased to be an ‘unskilled labourer’. However, Mr. Thakur fairly admitted that 40% addition on account of loss of future prospects is required to be awarded, while calculating the loss of dependency, in terms of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . 15. Before ascertaining the correctness of the rival contentions put forth by rival parties, it may be noticed that the Award laid challenge in the instant proceedings has attained finality qua respondents, including respondent No. 3, as no challenge was laid to the same. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . 15. Before ascertaining the correctness of the rival contentions put forth by rival parties, it may be noticed that the Award laid challenge in the instant proceedings has attained finality qua respondents, including respondent No. 3, as no challenge was laid to the same. In view of above, this court need not go into all aspects of the matter, save and except, the method adopted by learned Tribunal below, while working out the monthly income of deceased Ashish Kumar. 16. To find out discrepancy, if any, with regard to monthly income of deceased Ashish Kumar, assessed by learned Tribunal below, this court only needs to sift the statements of PW-4, mother of deceased and PW-5, Kiran Kaundal, president of Jagruti Mahila Kisan Samiti. Apart from above, this court also deems it necessary to go through the claim petition, wherein admittedly it has been claimed by the claimants that the deceased was doing dairy farming business and selling 120 litres of milk per day, earning Rs. 50,000 - 60,000/- per month therefrom. 17. If the statement of PW-4, Nirmala Devi is read juxtaposing averments contained in the claim petition, it can be safely concluded that claimant No. 1, while tendering her evidence by way of affidavit, Ext. PW-4/A successfully proved the contents of the claim petition. Though, during arguments, Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate tried to project a case that the very story put forth by the claimants, especially Nirmala Devi, PW-4, that her son was earning from dairy farming business, cannot be believed on account of the fact that during the year 2014, when deceased was claimed to be doing farming business, he was studying and as such, it is hard to believe that at the time of death/accident, deceased Ashish Kumar was earning anything from dairy business. 18. At this stage, it may be relevant to refer to the evidence of claimant No. 1 Nirmala Devi, PW-4, who stated that her son had done computer course from Punjab Technical University and besides this, he was doing dairy farming. She has also stated that she holds around 4 Bighas of land. In this view of the matter, firstly, it is difficult to believe that with such a small piece of land, cows could be fed and the deceased must be spending huge amount on purchasing feed etc. for the cows. She has also stated that she holds around 4 Bighas of land. In this view of the matter, firstly, it is difficult to believe that with such a small piece of land, cows could be fed and the deceased must be spending huge amount on purchasing feed etc. for the cows. Secondly, even if it is assumed that the deceased had sufficient number of cows to produce around 120 litres of milk every day, he must have employed 2-3 persons to look after the cows and to feed them. Besides, this, it would be relevant to take note of another submission of Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate that the production of milk will not remain same throughout, as cows do not produce milk at same rate and with the passage of time, huge expenditure is to be incurred on replacing old cows with new ones, which would affect the income of the deceased. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that the deceased, even if was engaged in dairy farming, was earning Rs. 50,000 - 60,000/- per month. 19. PW-5, Kiran Kaundal, Pradhan of aforesaid Samiti, in her evidence by way of affidavit deposed that the deceased Ashish Kumar used to do dairy farming and was selling 120 litres of milk per day to the society. She categorically deposed that her club is having chilling and pasteurized plants and vehicle of society collects the milk. It has come in her statement that Ashish Kumar used to supply the milk as such, she had issued certificate Ext. PW-5/A. In her cross-examination, she admitted that in the PW-5/A, there is no registration number or mark to show that her society is a registered society. It is also true that PW-5 neither furnished registration certificate nor number of vehicle, however stated that in her society, a staff of around 50 persons is engaged. 20. If evidence of the aforesaid witness is tested on its face value, learned Tribunal below has rightly brushed aside the same, firstly it has not been proved that there is any registered Samiti in the name of Jagruti Mahila Kisan Samiti and secondly, no business transaction/record of society was either produced or proved to show that it was making payment of more than Rs. 1.00 Lakh to the deceased, as such, payments, if any, to the deceased by the Samiti have not been proved in accordance with law. 21. 1.00 Lakh to the deceased, as such, payments, if any, to the deceased by the Samiti have not been proved in accordance with law. 21. Another aspect of the matter is that if deceased was receiving more than Rs. 1.00 Lakh per month, he must be filing Income-tax Returns, though his income may be taxable, but no such document has been placed on record to show that deceased was filing Income-tax Returns, as such, the assertion of learned counsel for the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs. 50,000 - 60,000/- per month has not been proved in accordance with law and learned Tribunal below has rightly rejected the same. 22. Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate, while addressing his arguments, strenuously argued that Ext. PW-5/A, document disclosing therein factum of sale of milk by Ashish Kumar and payment therefor by the society is not a computer generated document. Having perused the record, this Court finds that the Exhibit PW-5/A is details of milk purchased, rate per litre and total amount, but apart from stamp of Samiti and signatures of its alleged Pradhan, there is nothing to suggest/prove on record that the said transactions have actually taken place, as no proof of payment has been produced i.e. statement of accounts of bank of the deceased or of the Samiti or that the accounts of said Samiti were audited nor such audit report has been produced on record. 23. If the entire pleadings and record available before this court is sifted, the assertion of the claimants is that deceased was earning Rs. 50,000 - 60,000/- per month from daily farming, but no documentary proof regarding payments received by deceased, Income-tax Return filed qua the same or audit report of Samiti, which could substantiate factum of payment by the Samiti to the deceased, ever came to be placed on record. 24. It would be apt to take note of another argument advanced by Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate that even if deceased, who is alleged to be maintaining the dairy business, has expired, but the property i.e. cows are with the claimants and now they must be taking care of the cattle and earning from the same, meaning thereby, there is actually no loss of dependency or income qua deceased. 25. This Court is in agreement with the argument advanced by Mr. 25. This Court is in agreement with the argument advanced by Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate that no proof has been placed on record if the deceased had purchased cows from his own expenses and that he was solely maintaining them and not the claimants, as such, it cannot be said that the deceased was solely responsible for looking after the dairy business or that after his death, the entire dairy business has been ruined thereby causing total loss of income from the said business. Secondly, if the deceased was holding a diploma in computers, alleged to have been done from Punjab Technical University, he must be looking for some job and not engaging in farming business, especially when other two family members i.e. claimants were there. Another important aspect of the matter is that deceased is said to have expired on 16.3.2014, whereas in Exhibit PW-5/A, supply of milk by the deceased has been shown till 31.3.2014, which shows either someone else is or was maintaining the business or the Exhibit PW-5/A itself is not based on real transactions, as such, learned Tribunal below has rightly discredited evidence of PW-5 as also documentary evidence, Exhibit PW-5/A. 26. Having scanned the entire evidence, especially statements of PW-4 and PW-5 and Exhibit PW-4/A and Exhibit PW-5/A, this court is of the view that learned Tribunal below rightly arrived at a conclusion that no cogent or convincing evidence ever came to be led on record with respect to monthly income of deceased Ashish Kumar, as a result whereof, learned Tribunal below rightly computed monthly income on the basis of minimum wages payable under Minimum Wages Act at the relevant time. 27. So far income of the deceased assessed on the basis of minimum wages notified in the year 2013 under Minimum Wages Act is concerned, learned Tribunal below has taken deceased to be an unskilled labour. Though the claimants claimed that the deceased had done computer diplomas from Punjab Technical University, but same have not been placed on record and only document available on record is matriculation certificate of deceased. In view of this, learned Tribunal below has rightly considered the deceased to be an ‘unskilled’ labour and rightly taken the income of the deceased on the basis of monthly wages of unskilled labourer. 28. In view of this, learned Tribunal below has rightly considered the deceased to be an ‘unskilled’ labour and rightly taken the income of the deceased on the basis of monthly wages of unskilled labourer. 28. Needless to say, monthly income of deceased or injured, can be ascertained/computed taking into consideration minimum wages notified under Minimum Wages Act at the time of accident/where no definite or specific evidence is available on record qua income of deceased or injured. 29. Reliance placed by learned counsel for the claimants upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Gurpreet Kaur and Others vs. United Indian Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, Civil Appeal No. 6981-6982 of 2022, decided on 27.12.2022 and judgment rendered by High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Mariyamma and Others vs. Suyambulingam V. and Others, Misc. First Appeal No. 7404 of 2014, decided on 6.12.2022, is of no benefit to the claimants. 30. If the aforesaid judgments are read in their entirety, they clearly reveal that the Notification of Minimum Wages Act can be a guiding factor in a case, where there is no clue available to evaluate monthly income of the deceased, therefore, no illegality can be said to have been committed by learned Tribunal below, while assessing the monthly income of the deceased. 31. Reliance is placed upon judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in FAO No. 94 of 2014 titled Santi Devi (Deceased) through LRs. vs. Kuldeep Kumar and Another and connected appeal, decided on 13.6.2023, in which Co-ordinate Bench, after having observed that it is true that in case the evidence adduced by the claimant concerning income of the deceased is lacking, then for determining the deceased's income, minimum wages may be considered to be the guidelines for assessment of his notional income, categorically concluded that the Notification issued under Minimum Wages Act can only be taken into consideration in those cases where no positive evidence is available with respect to income of the deceased. Co-ordinate Bench held in the aforesaid judgment as under: “4(i)(d) It is true that in case the evidence adduced by the claimant concerning income of the deceased is lacking, then for determining the deceased's income, minimum wages may be considered to be the guidelines for assessment of his notional income. However, in the instant case, the evidence was not lacking. Co-ordinate Bench held in the aforesaid judgment as under: “4(i)(d) It is true that in case the evidence adduced by the claimant concerning income of the deceased is lacking, then for determining the deceased's income, minimum wages may be considered to be the guidelines for assessment of his notional income. However, in the instant case, the evidence was not lacking. The claimant had specifically pleaded that her husband earned Rs. 300/- per day and Rs. 9,000/- per month by working as a skilled mason under a contractor. She reiterated this pleading even in her statement as PW-3. The claimant had also produced the contractor during evidence in support of her stand. This contractor while appearing in the witness box as PW-4, unequivocally admitted having engaged deceased Kanshi Ram as skilled mason. He stated that deceased was part of his workforce and he was being paid Rs. 300/- per day and Rs. 9,000/- per month on that basis. In fact, the contractor also stated paying additional remuneration to the deceased for the overtime work done by him. Strangely, no suggestion was given to this contractor on behalf of Insurance Company about having not paid Rs. 300/- per day to the deceased. There is no suggestion or question put to the contractor about his alleged false deposition of paying Rs. 9,000/- per month to the deceased. At this stage, it would be relevant to consider the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Laxmibai (Dead) through LRs. and Another vs. Bhagwantbuva (Dead) through LRs. and Others, (2013) 4 SCC 97 wherein it was held that unchallenged part of the statement of the witness is to be relied upon for the reason that it is impossible for the witness to explain or elaborate upon any doubts as regard the same, in absence of question put to him with respect to the circumstances which indicate that version of events provided by him is not to be believed and the witness is unworthy of credit. The part of the judgment relevant to the context reads as under: “xxx xxx xxx 40. The part of the judgment relevant to the context reads as under: “xxx xxx xxx 40. Furthermore, there cannot be any dispute with respect to the settled legal proposition, that if a party wishes to raise any doubt as regards the correctness of the statement of a witness, the said witness must be given an opportunity to explain his statement by drawing his attention to that part of it, which has been objected to by the other party, as being untrue. Without this, it is not possible to impeach his credibility. Such a law has been advanced in view of the statutory provisions enshrined in Section 138 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which enable the opposite party to cross-examine a witness as regards information tendered in evidence by him during his initial examination in chief, and the scope of this provision stands enlarged by Section 146 of the Evidence Act, which permits a witness to be questioned, inter-alia, in order to test his veracity. Thereafter, the unchallenged part of his evidence is to be relied upon, for the reason that it is impossible for the witness to explain or elaborate upon any doubts as regards the same, in the absence of questions put to him with respect to the circumstances which indicate that the version of events provided by him, is not fit to be believed, and the witness himself, is unworthy of credit. Thus, if a party intends to impeach a witness, he must provide adequate opportunity to the witness in the witness box, to give a full and proper explanation. The same is essential to ensure fair play and fairness in dealing with witnesses. [See Khem Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, State of U.P. vs. Nahar Singh, Rajinder Pershad vs. Darshana Devi and Sunil Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan.” In the instant case, the claimant while appearing as PW-3 and employer of the deceased while appearing as PW-4 have corroborated each other's version about the employment and income of the deceased. The contractor while appearing as PW-4 stated that deceased was working under him and he was being paid Rs. 300/- per day or Rs. 9,000/- per month. He was not cross-examined by the insurer with respect to his statement regarding monthly payment made to the deceased. The testimony of the contractor has gone un-impeached in this regard. The contractor while appearing as PW-4 stated that deceased was working under him and he was being paid Rs. 300/- per day or Rs. 9,000/- per month. He was not cross-examined by the insurer with respect to his statement regarding monthly payment made to the deceased. The testimony of the contractor has gone un-impeached in this regard. The income of the deceased had to be determined at Rs. 9,000/- per month. The assessment of monthly income of the deceased by the learned Tribunal was, therefore, justified. The contention of learned counsel for the insurer that salary certificate of the deceased had not been filed is not sufficient to thwart the version of the claimant about deceased's earning Rs. 9,000/- per month. In this regard, it would be prudent to rely upon a decision rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Chandra alias Chanda alias Chandraram and Another vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav and Others, (2022) 1 SCC 198. Pleading in that case was that deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. An objection was raised that salary certificate of the deceased had not been filed. The learned Tribunal fixed monthly income of the deceased by adopting minimum wage, notified for skilled labour in the relevant year. Hon'ble Apex Court held that in absence of salary certificate, the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick, but at the same time cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased. In absence of documentary evidence on record, some amount of guesswork is required to be done, but at the same time the guesswork for assessing the income of the deceased should not be totally detached from reality. The claimants were unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of the deceased. The same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while computing the income. Hon'ble Apex Court also held that there was no reason in the given facts of the case to discard the oral evidence of the wife of the deceased, who had deposed that her husband was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. In the given facts of the instant case, the pleadings and evidence on record, learned Tribunal correctly determined the income of the deceased as Rs. 9,000/- per month. Point is answered accordingly.” 32. 15,000/- per month. In the given facts of the instant case, the pleadings and evidence on record, learned Tribunal correctly determined the income of the deceased as Rs. 9,000/- per month. Point is answered accordingly.” 32. Since, as has been discussed in earlier part of the judgment, claimants have not led positive evidence with regard to monthly income of deceased Ashish Kumar, this court has no hesitation to conclude that learned Tribunal below rightly ascertained/computed monthly income of deceased on the basis of minimum wages payable under Minimum Wages Act to an unskilled labourer. 33. Similarly, this court finds no illegality in deducting 50% of income of the deceased since he was bachelor at the time of death, 50% of income is required to be deducted towards personal expenses as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 (6) SCC 121 . 34. However, there appears to be merit in the claim of the claimants that learned Tribunal below erred, while not awarding any amount on account of loss of future prospects. As per judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi supra “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.” Following paragraph of Pranay Sethi, can be aptly reproduced: “47. In our considered opinion, if the same is followed, it shall sub-serve 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. 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. 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. 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 self-employed 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. 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. 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/- or Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.” 35. Thus, the loss of dependency qua the claimants would be worked out as under: Monthly income 4,500 Income after addition of 40% to the established income 4,500 + 40% of 4,500 = 1,800 6,300 Income after deduction of ½ towards self expenses 6,300 - 50% of 6,300 3,150 Annual income 3,150 x 12 37,800 Total loss of dependency after applying multiplier of 18 i.e. 37,800 x 18 6,80,400 36. Besides above, the claimants are also entitled to Rs. 15,000/- instead of Rs. 25,000/- on account of funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- on account of loss of estate. 37. Further, this Court finds merit in the contention of Mr. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, learned Senior Advocate that the learned Tribunal below ought to have awarded consortium in favour of the claimants, being mother and brother of deceased, in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Magma General Insurance Co. 15,000/- on account of loss of estate. 37. Further, this Court finds merit in the contention of Mr. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, learned Senior Advocate that the learned Tribunal below ought to have awarded consortium in favour of the claimants, being mother and brother of deceased, in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram and Others, Civil Appeal No. 9581 of 2018 decided on 18.9.2018 and as such, award needs modification on that count also. Relevant paras of judgment supra read as under: “8.7 A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is Loss of Consortium. In legal parlance “consortium” is a compendious term which encompasses ‘spousal consortium’ or ‘parental consortium’ and ‘filial consortium’. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of “company, society, co-operation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation.” Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training.” Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and Rajesh and Others vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 54 [BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (5th Ed. 1979)] family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions worldover have recognized that the value of a child’s consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions worldover have recognized that the value of a child’s consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium. Parental Consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram @ Jagmal Singh and Others vs. Sohi Ram and Others, 2017 (4) RLW 3368 (Raj), Uttarakhand High Court in Smt. Rita Rana and Another vs. Pradeep Kumar and Others respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of Filial Consortium. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under ‘Loss of Consortium’ as laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra). In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs. 40,000 each for loss of Filial Consortium.” 38. Thus, in view of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. claimants are entitled to consortium at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- each. 39. In view of aforesaid, the award passed by learned Tribunal below is modified as under: Detail Amount Loss of dependency Rs. 6,80,400 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000 Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000 Loss of consortium @ 40,000 each Rs. 80,000 Total compensation Rs. 7,90,400 40. So far rate of interest awarded by learned court below is concerned, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the same. The apportionment shall remain the same, as held by learned Tribunal below. 41. 6,80,400 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000 Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000 Loss of consortium @ 40,000 each Rs. 80,000 Total compensation Rs. 7,90,400 40. So far rate of interest awarded by learned court below is concerned, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the same. The apportionment shall remain the same, as held by learned Tribunal below. 41. 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. 42. Insurance Company (respondent No. 3) is directed to deposit the amount so assessed by this Court as compensation, with the Registry of this Court, within three weeks from today. 43. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are disposed of. Interim directions, if any, are vacated.