JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. CMP No. 16829 of 2023 For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the documents annexed with the application are taken on record. FAO No.279 of 2023 Instant appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (herein after to be referred as ‘Act’), lays challenge to impugned award dated 04.08.2023 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in Claim Petition No.143 of 2021, CNR No. HPMA-170036082021, titled as Pooja Devi & Ors. Vs. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., whereby learned Tribunal below, while allowing the claim petition filed by the respondent/claimants No. 1 to 4 (hereinafter to be referred as “claimants”) saddled appellant/Insurance Company with a liability to pay sum of Rs. 21,03,000-00 along with interest @ 9 % per annum on account of death of Mr. Bittu Ram i.e. husband of claimant No. 1 and father of claimant No. 2 and son of claimants No. 3 & 4. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that claimants instituted claim petition under Section 166 of the Act in the competent Court of law, seeking therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/- on account of death of person namely Bittu Ram in accident involving vehicle bearing registration No. HP-69-C-1382 (Tempo-407). On 01.10.2021 deceased named herein above, who at that time was travelling in the offending vehicle in the capacity of cleaner-cum-delivery man, fell from the vehicle on account of opening of the door and expired. Since claimants were fully dependent upon the deceased, they filed claim petition stating that deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month and major portion of his earnings were being spent upon claimants, but on account of her death, they have been deprived of income, love, affection and consortium. Aforesaid claim put forth by the claimants came to be refuted by the appellant/Insurance Company as well as claimants No. 5 & 6, who though admitted factum with regard to accident, but specifically denied rash and negligent driving, if any, on the part of respondent No. 6, who had at the relevant time was driving the offending vehicle. Aforesaid claim put forth by the claimants came to be refuted by the appellant/Insurance Company as well as claimants No. 5 & 6, who though admitted factum with regard to accident, but specifically denied rash and negligent driving, if any, on the part of respondent No. 6, who had at the relevant time was driving the offending vehicle. Appellant/ Insurance company specifically set up a plea that since vehicle in question was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy as Driver of the vehicle was not having valid and effective Driving License and therefore, it is not is liable to indemnify the insured. However, respondent No. 5 i.e. owner of the vehicle admitted the factum with regard to employment of deceased in the capacity of cleaner - cum-delivery man. She also admitted that deceased was getting salary of Rs. 9500/-per month. 3. On the basis of afore pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, Tribunal below framed following issues:- 1. Whether deceased Bittum Ram died in a motor vehicle accident involving vehicle bearing registration No. HP-69-1382 driven by respondent No. 3 in a rash and negligent manner on the date, time and place? OPP. 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable, as alleged? OPR-2& 3 4. Whether the petitioners are estopped to file the present petition by their acts and conduct as alleged? OPD-2 &3 5. Whether the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-69-1382 was driveen in vilations of terms and conditions of Insurance Policy as alleged? OPR-1 6. Whether the respondent No. 3 was not having valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle in question at the time of accidents as alleged? OPR-1 7. Whether the petition is collusive between petitioners and respondents No. 2 & 3, as alleged? OPR-1 8. Relief? 4. Subsequently, vide impugned award dated 04.08.2023, learned Tribunal though held that appellant/Insurance Company and respondents No. 5 and 6 jointly and severally liable for compensation, but being insurer liability to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.21,03,000/- came to be fastened upon appellant/Insurance Company. In the aforesaid background, appellant/Insurance Company has approached this Court in the instant appeal, praying therein to set aside the aforesaid award. 5. In the aforesaid background, appellant/Insurance Company has approached this Court in the instant appeal, praying therein to set aside the aforesaid award. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case. 6. Primarily challenge has been laid to impugned award on the following grounds: (i) Learned Tribunal below failed to take note of the fact that the appellant/Insurance Company successfully proved on record that at the time of accident Driver of offending vehicle was not having valid and effective Driving License. (ii) Learned Tribunal below, while awarding compensation under the head of future prospects failed to take note of the fact that deceased was in private occupation and as such, could have been given addition of 40%, whereas Tribunal below proceeded to award 50% in violation of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, AIR 2017, SC 5157, wherein it has been also held that no amount can be awarded for pain and suffering/loss of love and affection to wife and parents. (iii) Learned Tribunal below erred in ordering enhancement @ 10% qua the amount of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. 7. Mr. Praneet Gupta, learned counsel representing petitioner before making his submissions fairly submitted that first ground with regard to validity of Driving License possessed by Driver at the relevant time does not survive on account of notification dated 30.09.2021 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (Annexure R-A), perusal whereof clearly reveals that on account of Covid-19 validity of fitness, permit of all types, Driving License, registration or any other concerned documents, whose extension of validity could not be asked or was not likely to be granted due to lock down was ordered to be considered valid till 31.10.2021. Mr. Gupta, fairly submitted that aforesaid notification dated 30.09.2021 has been placed on record by way of application under Order 41 Rule 27 filed by the claimants, coupled with the fact that Driving License of the Driver of the offending vehicle had expired on 01.02.2020, meaning thereby, validity of the Driving License possessed by the Driver of the offending vehicle was required to be considered valid till 31.10.2021, meaning thereby, for all intent and purposes Driving License possessed by the Driver of offending vehicle was valid on the date of accident. Having carefully perused Driving License Ext. Having carefully perused Driving License Ext. PX vis-a-vis notification dated 30.09.2021 (Annexure R-1), this Court finds that though at the time of accident validity of the Driving License of the Driver of the offending vehicle stood expired, but since he was unable to get it renewed on account of Covid-19 and in that regard Government of India had issued clarification, as taken herein above, driving license of the driver, which had expired on 01.02.2020 was to be considered valid till 31.10.2021. In view of above, ground of validity, if any, of Driving License of offending vehicle may not be available to the appellant/Insurance Company, which fact has been otherwise fairly conceded by counsel representing appellant/Insurance Company. Hence, first ground with regard to validity of the Driving License of Driver of the offending vehicle does not survive. 8. However, having perused law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, AIR 2017, SC 5157, there appears to be merit in the contention of Mr. Praneet Gupta, learned counsel representing the petitioner that since deceased at the time of his accident was working as a cleaner-cum-delivery man in private gas agency, learned Tribunal below could have only awarded addition of 40% on account of future prospects. Though, at this stage, Mr. Varun Rana, learned counsel representing claimants vehemently argued that bare perusal of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi, nowhere suggests that person doing government job can only be considered to be doing permanent job, rather person doing temporary job in permanent private business can also be considered to be permanent employee, however, having perused finding returned by Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi, this Court finds no reason to agree with the aforesaid submission of Mr. Rana. If the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethis' case is perused in its entirety especially with regard to aforesaid aspect of the matter, it clearly provides that addition of 50% is to be given in the case, where deceased was a permanent employee in organized sector. Admittedly, in the case at hand, deceased was employed as a cleaner-cum-delivery man by private gas agency, which by no means can be said to be an organized sector, rather, same is run on the basis of license issued by the petroleum company, which may not be for an indefinite period. Admittedly, in the case at hand, deceased was employed as a cleaner-cum-delivery man by private gas agency, which by no means can be said to be an organized sector, rather, same is run on the basis of license issued by the petroleum company, which may not be for an indefinite period. Moreover, employee working in a private gas agency can be thrown out any time. 9. As per dictum of Pranay Sethi case (supra), only addition of 40% could be made in the case of the deceased, who was working in unorganized sector. Since in the case at hand deceased was not working in organized sector, addition of 40% ought to have been made by the learned Tribunal below towards future prospects instead of 50%. Relevant paras of Pranay Sethi supra is as under: “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. 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. 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.” 10. In view of above, award passed by learned Tribunal below needs to be modified accordingly. However, this Court finds no force in submission of Mr. Gupta that learned Tribunal below could not have awarded 10% increase in the amount of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses. Though amount, which is to be awarded under aforesaid conventional heads has been specifically quantified by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi supra, but thereafter Hon'ble Apex in N. Jai Shree Vs. General Insurance Company in Civil Appeal No. 6451 of 2021 (arising out of SLP © No. 14558 of 2019), dated 25.10.2021 has clarified that recipients of consortium shall be entitled to 10% increase of amount of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, as such no interference in that regard is warranted. 11. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made herein above as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, present appeal is partly allowed and impugned Award passed by learned Tribunal below is modified in following terms: Monthly income of the deceased 9500 Income after addition of 40% on account of loss of future prospects i.e. 40% x9500=3800 13300 Net income after making deduction of 1/3rd towards self expenses i.e. 13300x 1/3 rd =4433 8867 Total loss of dependency after applying multiplier of 18 i.e. 8867 x 12x 17 18,08,868 12. Thus the total amount of compensation to which claimant are entitled is as under:- Head Amount(Rs.) Loss of dependency 18,08,868 Loss of estate 16,500/- Funeral charges 16,500/- loss of consortium payable to the claimants (44,000) each 1,76,000/- Total compensation 20,17,868/- 13. Learned counsel representing appellant/Insurance Company being fully satisfied by the award at hand, fairly states that amount lying deposited in the Registry can be released in favour of respondents, but only after deducting the excess amount and refunding the said amount to the appellant/Insurance Company. 14. In view of above, Registry is directed to release award amount in favour of the respondents strictly as per their shares by remitting the same in the same bank account details, whereof, shall be furnished by learned counsel for the claimants within a period of two weeks, but before complying aforesaid judgment, Registry is directed to recalculate the award amount on account of recommendation made by this Court under the head of future prospects and excess amount, if any, deposited in the Registry by Insurance Company shall also refunded by remitting the same in its bank account, detail whereof shall be furnished by Mr. Praneet Gupta, learned counsel representing petitioner within a week.