JUDGEMENT 1. All these four appeals with the respective cross objections are taken up together for common disposal as they arise from the same Award impugned therein. 2. Impugned in the appeals is the Award dated 31.01.2020 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajouri (Court of Additional District Judge) (hereinafter referred to as the 'MACT', for short) in common while disposing of four claim petitions filed by the respondents/claimants and whereby the learned MACT awarded compensation in all the four cases in favour of the respondents/claimants. 3. Before proceeding ahead, it is felt appropriate to give a brief resume of the facts of the case, relevant for disposal of the instant appeals:- A Vehicle (Celerio Car) bearing registration No. JK11B-4300 driven by one Mehmood Ahmed S/o Jaffar Ali R/o Ghambir Mughlan Tehsil Manjakote, District Rajouri from Jammu to Rajouri, upon reaching at Narian near Hotel Haveli, met with an accident as a result of rash and negligent driving by its driver, rolled down into the river resulting into the on spot death of all the eight persons boarded in the same including the driver. No claim petition was filed for compensation in respect of the deaths of three minors and also in respect of the insured, owner/driver of the vehicle, who too died on spot in the accident. The claim petitions came to be filed for compensation in respect of the deaths caused to (1) Mohd. Aziz S/o Jaffar Ali (2) Akhter Begum D/o Jaffar Ali (3) Jamila Mughal D/o Mohd. Iqbal W/o Mehmood Ahmed and (4) Mohd. Waqar Iqbal S/o Mohd. Iqbal. An FIR bearing No. 377/2017 for offences under Sections 279, 337, 304-A RPC came to be registered in respect of the incident with the Police Station, Rajouri. 4. Claim Petition No. 112/MACT, CNR No. JKRJ0200010982017 came to be filed by the legal heirs/representatives of the deceased-Mohd. Aziz S/o Jaffar Ali; Claim Petition No. 113/MACT, CNR No. JKRJ020010972017 was filed by the sister of Akhter Begum D/o Jaffar Ali; Claim Petition No. 110/MACT, CNR No. JKRJ020010962017 came to be filed in respect of the death of Mohd. Waqar Iqbal S/o Mohd. Iqbal and Claim Petition No. 111/MACT, CNR No. JKRJ020011002017 came to be filed for compensation in respect of the death of Jamila Mughal D/o Mohd. Iqbal W/o Mehmood Ahmed. 5. Waqar Iqbal S/o Mohd. Iqbal and Claim Petition No. 111/MACT, CNR No. JKRJ020011002017 came to be filed for compensation in respect of the death of Jamila Mughal D/o Mohd. Iqbal W/o Mehmood Ahmed. 5. Learned MACT after holding the enquiry in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', for short) passed the impugned award, awarding a compensation of Rs. 2,53,000/- in Claim Petition No. 112/MACT, Rs. 2,28,000/- in Claim Petition No. 113/MACT, Rs. 41,76,480/- in Claim Petition No. 111/MACT and Rs. 6,49,800/- in Claim Petition No. 110/MACT. 6. Aggrieved by the impugned award, the respondent No. 4 i.e. New India Assurance Company Limited assailed the same before this Court through four separate appeals as regards the four Claim Petitions, in terms of the provisions of Section 173 of the Act. Appeal No. 124/2020 impugns the common award dated 31.01.2020 to the extent passed in respect of Claim Petition No. 113/MACT filed by Mukhtar Begum in respect of the death of Akhter Begum; Appeal No. 125/2020 impugns the common award to the extent of Claim Petition No. 111/MACT filed by the legal representatives of deceased-Jamila Mughal D/o Mohd. Iqbal W/o Mehmood Ahmed; Appeal No. 126/2020 impugns the same as regards the Claim Petition No. 112/MACT filed by the legal representatives of deceased-Mohd. Aziz S/o Jaffar Ali and the Appeal No. 127/2020 impugns the common award to the extent of Claim Petition No. 110/MACT filed by the legal representatives of deceased Mohd. Waqar Iqbal S/o Mohd. Iqbal. 7. Iqbal W/o Mehmood Ahmed; Appeal No. 126/2020 impugns the same as regards the Claim Petition No. 112/MACT filed by the legal representatives of deceased-Mohd. Aziz S/o Jaffar Ali and the Appeal No. 127/2020 impugns the common award to the extent of Claim Petition No. 110/MACT filed by the legal representatives of deceased Mohd. Waqar Iqbal S/o Mohd. Iqbal. 7. The common Award dated 31.01.2020 has been assailed in all the four appeals in hand almost on the identical grounds inter alia to the effect that the deceased-driver of the offending vehicle, namely, Mehmood Ahmed S/o Jaffar Ali R/o Ghambir Mughlan, Tehsil Manjakote, District Rajouri was not holding a valid and effective driving license, thus, violating the terms and conditions of the Policy of Insurance relieving the appellant-Company from its liability of indemnification; that the offending vehicle bearing registration No. JK11B-4300 was overloaded at the time of the unfortunate accident because eight passengers were boarded in the same as against the seating capacity of five passengers, thereby also violating the Policy Conditions; that all the occupants of the offending car were the members of the same family, who cannot be construed to be third parties giving right to their legal heirs/dependents to seek compensation; that the evidence recorded by the learned MACT during enquiry proceedings was not duly appreciated in terms of the law on the subject and the compensation has been awarded without any legal entitlement and that too in breach of the settled principles for computation of the same and on the higher side. 8. However, in addition to the aforementioned grounds of challenge, the impugned award to the extent of Claim Petition No. 113/MACT was assailed on the further ground that deceased-Akhter Begum was herself dependent upon the claimant/ respondent No. 1 in MA No. 124/2020. The claimant-Mukhtar Begum is married, living with her husband, namely, Mohd. Rafiq and, as such, she could not have been dependent upon her deceased-Sister. Likewise, the impugned common award to the extent of Claim Petition No. 111/MACT was additionally assailed on the ground that deceased-Jamila Mughal was the wife of the insured driver of the offending vehicle, who also died along with his three minor children in the accident and the parents and the sister of the deceased-Jamila Mughal were not dependent upon the deceased. The common award in respect of the Claim Petition No. 112/MACT was also in addition to the aforementioned common grounds assailed on the particular ground that deceased-Mohd. Aziz was a retired teacher and was in receipt of the pension which will be now received by his widow and, as such, no question of loss of dependency arises. Likewise, the appellant-Company through MA No. 127/2020 assailed the common award in respect of Claim Petition No. 110/MACT, additionally, on the particular ground that the deceased Mohd. Waqar Iqbal was the brother-in-law of the insured driver of the offending car, whose parents and sister, who filed the claim petition, were not dependent on him, thus, leading to inference that the learned MACT has proceeded to pass the award in violation of the law. 9. The respondents-claimants filed their cross objections in respect of all the four appeals, which came to be respectively registered as Cross Objection No. 5/2020, Cross Objection No. 7/2020, Cross Objection No. 8/2020 and Cross Objection No. 6/2020. 10. Through the medium of the cross objections, the respondents/claimants objected to the common award in respect of all the claim petitions on the main ground that the issue No. 2 framed by the learned MACT was not properly adjudicated as the loss of dependency has not been worked out in accordance with the set principles of law. It has been mentioned in the cross objections that the common award in respect of the claim petitions has been passed on a lower side to the prejudice of the respondents/ claimants, who have lost their bread earners and their love and affection. Through the medium of Cross Objections bearing No. 5/2020 filed in respect of MA No. 124/2020 covering Claim Petition No. 113/MACT, a compensation of Rs. 8,07,200/- along with interest @ 12% per annum as against the awarded amount of Rs.2,28,000/- has been claimed. Through the medium of Cross Objections bearing No. 7/2020 filed in respect of MA No. 125/2020 covering Claim Petition No. 111/MACT, a compensation of Rs.54,83,100/- along with interest @ 12% per annum as against the awarded amount of Rs.41,76,480/- has been claimed. Through the medium of Cross Objections No. 8/2020 filed in respect of MA No. 126/2020 covering Claim Petition No. 112/MACT, a compensation of Rs.18,75,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum as against the award amount of Rs.2,53,000/- has been claimed. Through the medium of Cross Objections No. 8/2020 filed in respect of MA No. 126/2020 covering Claim Petition No. 112/MACT, a compensation of Rs.18,75,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum as against the award amount of Rs.2,53,000/- has been claimed. Through the medium of Cross Objections No. 6/2020 filed in respect of MA No. 127/2020 covering Claim Petition No. 110/MACT , a compensation of Rs.36,40,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum as against the award amount of Rs.6,49,800/- has been claimed. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the contesting parties, who reiterated their stands respectively taken by them, in the memos of appeals and the cross objections. 12. I have gone through the record of the instant appeals and the cross objections. The record of the learned MACT, especially the impugned award, has also been perused. 13. The learned MACT has rightly taken up all the four claim petitions for common disposal through the impugned award as they were arising from the same accident. 14. The learned MACT framed issues in all the four claim petitions. Issue No.1 in all the claim petitions was framed as regards the adjudication of the fact whether on 28.08.2017 the vehicle bearing registration No. JK11B-4300 (Celerio Car) driven by Mehmood Ahmed S/o Jaffar Ali from Jammu to Rajouri upon reaching at National Highway Narian near Hotel Haveli within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Rajouri skidded off the road, rolled down into the river, as a result of the rash and negligent driving by its driver resulting into the death of the persons in whose respect the claim petitions were filed? Issue No. 2 in all the petitions was framed to the effect as to whether upon the proof of the issue No. 1 in affirmative, the claim petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? Issue No. 3 was, however, framed to the effect as to whether the offending vehicle was being driven on the fateful day i.e. 28.08.2017 in violation of the terms and conditions of the Policy of the Insurance for the reasons that the deceased driver was not holding a valid and effective driving license and further he had boarded eight persons including him in the vehicle as against the sanctioned seating capacity of five. Issue No. 4 was framed as regards the relief to which the parties are entitled to. 15. Issue No. 4 was framed as regards the relief to which the parties are entitled to. 15. Issue Nos. 1 & 2 came to be framed by the learned MACT on the pleadings of the claim petitioners (contesting respondents herein) saddling the onus of proof of the same on them when the Issue No. 3 was framed on the pleading/objections of the insurer (appellant herein). 16. At the proceedings of the MACT claims, the petitioner-Mukhtar Begum in Claim Petition No. 113/MACT, besides examining herself examined one, Ravinder Singh, an eye witness. In Claim Petition Nos. 111/MACT and 110/MACT, the petitioner No.1-Mohd. Iqbal besides himself stepping into the witness box also examined Ravinder Singh, an eye witness. In Claim Petition No. 112/MACT, the petitioner No.1-Sadeeq Bano besides herself stepping into the witness box examined Ravinder Singh and one Imran Mehmood, District T.O. 17. The contesting respondent No.4 (appellant herein) in the Claim Petition No. 112/MACT examined Lalan Kumar Sharma, Jr. Assistant ARTO, Rajouri, Vinay Kundoo, Legal Officer, New India Assurance Company Limited, Gandhi Nagar and Mohd. Iqbal (Retd. ASI J&K Police). However, the appellant-Company did not adduce any evidence on its part in respect of Claim Petition Nos. 110/MACT, 111/MACT and 113/MACT. 18. The learned MACT appears to have rightly adjudicated upon all the issues in respect of the Claim Petition Nos. 111/MACT, 112/MACT and 113/MACT, upon due appreciation of the evidence and the application of the law on the subject as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and various other authoritative High Courts including this Court. However, the adjudication of Issue No.2 as regards the Claim Petition No. 110/MACT covered by MA No. 127/2020 admits of some interference. The other Issue Nos. 1 & 3 in respect of the said Claim Petition appear to have been rightly adjudicated upon as in respect of the other clubbed appeals as hereinbefore mentioned. 19. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that the claims Tribunal shall make an award to determine the amount of compensation which appears to be "just". In Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty and Anr., 55 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:- "The Tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in Section 168 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which to it appears to be 'just'. In Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty and Anr., 55 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:- "The Tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in Section 168 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which to it appears to be 'just'. But at the same time it has be to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a wind fall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate the compensation must be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit but the same should not be a pittance. The Courts and Tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just. What would be "just" compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measures of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of just" compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Though by use of the expression "which appears to it to be just" a discretion is vested on the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness. The expression "just" denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness, and non-arbitrary. If it is not so it cannot be just. In Helen C. Rebello & Ors. vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. & Anr., 56 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:- The word 'just', as its nomenclature, denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness having large peripheral field. The largeness is, of course, not arbitrary; it is restricted by the conscience which is fair, reasonable and equitable, if it exceeds; it is termed as unfair, unreasonable, unequitable, not just". 20. The larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. vs. Pranay Sethi AIR 2017 SC 5157 has commented on the just compensation in its judgment at Para's 57 to 60 which are reproduced as under for ready reference:- 57. 20. The larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. vs. Pranay Sethi AIR 2017 SC 5157 has commented on the just compensation in its judgment at Para's 57 to 60 which are reproduced as under for ready reference:- 57. Section 168 of the Act deals with the concept of "just compensation" and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standard because such determination can never be in arithmetetical exactitude. It can never be perfect. The aim is to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical precision on the basis of materials brought on record in an individual case. The conception of "just compensation" has to be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non-violation of the principle of equitability. In a case of death, the legal heirs of the claimants cannot expect a windfall. Simultaneously, the compensation granted cannot be an apology for compensation. It cannot be a pittance. Though the discretion vested in the tribunal is quite wide, yet it is obligatory on the part of the tribunal to be guided by the expression that is "just compensation ". The determination has to be on the foundation of evidence brought on record as regards the age and income of the deceased and thereafter the apposite multiplier to be applied. The formula relating to multiplier has been clearly stated in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another AIR 2009 SC 3104 and it has been approved in Reshma Kumari & Ors vs. Madan Mohan & another (2013) 9 SCC 65 . The age and income, as stated earlier, have to be established by adducing evidence. The tribunal and the Courts have to bear in mind that the basic principle lies in pragmatic computation which is in proximity to reality. It is a well-accepted norm that money cannot substitute a life lost but an effort has to be made for grant of just compensation having uniformity of approach. There has to be a balance between the two extremes, that is, a windfall and the pittance, a bonanza and the modicum. In such an adjudication, the duty of the tribunal and the Courts is difficult and hence, an endeavor has been made by this Court for standardization which in its ambit includes addition of future prospects on the proven income at present. In such an adjudication, the duty of the tribunal and the Courts is difficult and hence, an endeavor has been made by this Court for standardization which in its ambit includes addition of future prospects on the proven income at present. As far as future prospects are concerned, there has been standardization keeping in view the principle of certainty, stability and consistency. We approve the principle of "standardization" so that a specific and certain multiplicand is determined for applying the multiplier on the basis of age. 58. The seminal issue is the fixation of future prospects in cases of deceased who is self-employed or on a fixed salary. Sarla Verma (supra) has carved out an exception permitting the claimants to bring materials on record to get the benefit of addition of future prospects. It has not, per se, allowed any future prospects in respect of the said category. The same has been allowed in Pranay Sethi's case. 59. Having bestowed our anxious consideration, we are disposed to think when we accept the principle of standardization, there is really no rationale not to apply the said principle to the self-employed or a person who is on a fixed salary. To follow the doctrine of actual income at the time of death and not to add any amount with regard to future prospects to the income for the purpose of determination of multiplicand would be unjust. The determination of income while computing compensation has to include future prospects so that the method will come within the ambit and sweep of just compensation as postulated under Section 168 of the Act. In case of a deceased who had held a permanent job with inbuilt grant of annual increment, there is an acceptable certainty. But to state that the legal representatives of a deceased who was on a fixed salary would not be entitled to the benefit of future prospects for the purpose of computation of compensation would be inapposite. It is because the criterion of distinction between the two in that event would be certainty on the one hand and staticness on the other. One may perceive that the comparative measure is certainty on the one hand and uncertainty on the other but such a perception is fallacious. It is because the criterion of distinction between the two in that event would be certainty on the one hand and staticness on the other. One may perceive that the comparative measure is certainty on the one hand and uncertainty on the other but such a perception is fallacious. It is because the price rise does affect a self-employed person; and that parts there is always an incessant effort to enhance one's income for sustenance. The purchasing capacity of a salaried person on permanent job when increased because of grant of increments and pay revision or for some other change in service conditions, there is always a competing attitude in the private sector to enhance the salary to get better efficiency from the employees. Similarly, a person who is self-employed is bound to garner his resources and raise his charges/fees so that he can live with same facilities. To have the perception that he is likely to remain static and his income to remain stagnant is contrary to the fundamental concept of human attitude which always intends to live with dynamism and move and change with the time. Though it may seem appropriate that there cannot be certainty in addition of future prospects to the existing income unlike in the case of a person having a permanent, job yet the said perception does not really deserve acceptance. We are inclined to think that there can be some degree of difference as regards the percentage that is meant for or applied to in respect of the legal representatives who claim on behalf of the deceased who had a permanent job than a person who is self-employed or on a fixed salary. But not to apply the principle of standardization on the foundation of perceived lack of certainty would tantamount to remaining oblivious to the marrows of ground reality. And, therefore, degree-test is imperative. Unless the degree-test is applied and left to the parties to adduce evidence to establish, it would be unfair and inequitable. The degree-test has to have the inbuilt concept of percentage. And, therefore, degree-test is imperative. Unless the degree-test is applied and left to the parties to adduce evidence to establish, it would be unfair and inequitable. The degree-test has to have the inbuilt concept of percentage. Taking into consideration the cumulative factors namely, passage of time, the changing society escalation of price, the change in price index, the human attitude to follow a particular pattern of life, etc., an addition of 40% of the established income of the deceased towards future prospects and where the deceased was below 40 years an addition of 25% where the decreased was between the age of 40 to 50 years would be reasonable. 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. 21. The criteria for working out just compensation due to the petitioners in respect of the claims being made by the legal representatives of the victims of road traffic accidents has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments inter alia cited as Sarla Verma & Ors. 21. The criteria for working out just compensation due to the petitioners in respect of the claims being made by the legal representatives of the victims of road traffic accidents has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments inter alia cited as Sarla Verma & Ors. v/s Delhi Transport Corporation and another AIR 2009 SC P. 3104, Nigamma and another v/s United India Insurance Company Ltd. AIR 2009 SC 3056 , Santosh Devi v/s National Insurance Company Ltd. and others, AIR 2012 SC 2185 , Rajesh and others v/s Rajbir Singh and others, (2013) 9 SCC 54 , Reshma Kumari and others v/s Madan Mohan and another (2013) 9 SCC 65 , Kanhsingh and another v/s Tukaram and others 2015 ACJ decided on 13.01.2015, Munna Lal Jain and another v/s Vipin Kumar Sharma and others (2015) 6 SCC 347 , National Insurance Company Ltd. v/s Pushpa and others (2015) 9 SCC 166 and National Insurance Company Ltd. v/s Pranay Sethi and others AIR 2017 SC 5157 decided by the larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court on October 31,2017; Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130 , New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Somwati (2020) 9 SCC 644 ; Janabai Wd/o Dinkarrao Ghorpade & Ors. vs. M/S ICICI Lambord Insurance Co. Ltd. 2022 Live Law (SC) 666 and Meena Pawaia vs. Ashraf Ali 2022 ACJ 528 . 22. In the backdrop of the afore relied upon Judgments, basically only three facts need to be ascertained by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death; a) Age of the deceased b) Income of the deceased and c) Number of dependents. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of the dependency are 1) Addition to be made for arriving at the income 2) Deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased and 3) Multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. It was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments cited supra that if these determinants are to be standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence and it will be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay. It was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments cited supra that if these determinants are to be standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence and it will be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay. It was further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that to have uniformity and consistency, tribunals should determine compensation in case of death by the following settled steps. Step No. 1: Ascertaining the Multiplicand by determining the income of the deceased per annum, allowing due additions and thereafter deducting the personal expenses of the deceased; Step No. 2: Ascertaining the Multiplier by having regard to the age of the deceased; Step No. 3: Actual Calculation:- Annual contribution to the family (Multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier as is applicable as per the age of the deceased gives the (loss of the dependency) to the family. 23. It is very needful to mention that perceiving cleavage of opinion between Reshma Kumari and others vs Madan Mohan and another and Rajesh and others vs Rajbir Singh and others (cited Supra), both three Judge Bench decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, a two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited and others v/s Pushpa and others (cited supra) thought it appropriate to refer the matter to a larger bench of the Hon'ble Court for an authoritative pronouncement and accordingly various matters placed before the Hon'ble Apex Court came to be disposed of by the larger Bench of Hon'ble Court in [13]National Insurance Company Ltd. v/s Pranay Sethi and others AIR 2017 SC 5157 . Conclusions recorded by the Hon'ble Larger Bench of Apex Court in [14]National Insurance Company Ltd. v/s Pranay Sethi and others AIR 2017 SC 5157 decided on October 31 2017 (cited supra) at Para 61 of its Judgment, are reproduced as under:- (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. 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 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. 24. Thus in order to maintain uniformity and to avoid imponderabilities and un-certainties, The Apex Court issued a rule of thumb for assessment of future prospects as:- (i) An addition of 50% of actual salary to 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. 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. (ii) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 year. An addition 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 competent. 25. The Hon'ble Apex Court provided for suitable Multipliers for each age group to avoid inconsistency. In Pranay Sethi's Judgment of the Hon'ble larger Bench of the Apex Court selection of Multiplier as indicated in the table in Sarla Verma's Judgment stands maintained as:- MULTIPLIER AGE GROUP M 18 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years M 17 26 to 30 years M 16 31 to 35 years M 15 36 to 40 years M 14 41 to 45 years M 13 46 to 50 years M 11 51 to 55 years M 9 56 to 60 years M 7 61 to 65 years M 5 65 to 70 years 26. The deductions on account of personal and living expenses as determined in Sarla Verma's case have also been maintained by Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case as under:- Married: 1/3rd when number of dependents is 2 to 3. l/4th when number of dependents is 4 to 6. 1/5th when number of dependents is above 6. Bachelor: 50% normally. In case of bachelor, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, Mother alone is treated as dependent and not the father. However where family is large and dependent on the income of bachelor deceased (i.e. in case of widowed mother and younger non-earning siblings) personal expenses may be restricted to 1/3rd. 27. Issue No. 1, which is identical for all the four claim petitions, appears to have been rightly adjudicated upon by the learned Tribunal. However where family is large and dependent on the income of bachelor deceased (i.e. in case of widowed mother and younger non-earning siblings) personal expenses may be restricted to 1/3rd. 27. Issue No. 1, which is identical for all the four claim petitions, appears to have been rightly adjudicated upon by the learned Tribunal. The evidence recorded by the learned MACT at the enquiry proceedings clearly corroborated and supported the fact covered under the issue to the effect that the deaths of the deceased were occurred as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. JK11B-4300 by the deceased-driver as the said vehicle upon reaching at National High Way Narian near Hotel Haveli, while coming from Jammu to Rajouri rolled down into river. The witnesses examined by the claim petitioners/contesting respondents in respective claim petitions including themselves and one Ravinder Singh, eye witness have clearly established the said fact. Even the witnesses examined by the respondent-Company (appellant herein) including the retired ASI Mohd. Iqbal, I.O. of the criminal case regarding the incident, Lalan Kumar Sharma, Jr. Assistant ARTO, Rajouri and Vinay Kundoo, Legal Officer of the respondent-Company established the said fact of the occurrence of accident on 28.08.2017 as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the deceased-driver leading to the death of eight persons boarded in the offending vehicle including the deceased in respect of whom the claim petitions giving rise to the instant appeals came to be filed. 28. Issue No. 3 in all the claim petitions also being identical in nature appears to have been rightly decided by the learned MACT. The evidence led by the appellant-Company (respondent No.4 in the claim petitions) at the proceedings of the claim petitions could not establish the alleged fact that the deceased-driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a legal and valid driving license. They could not even prove that the offending vehicle was overloaded. The learned MACT has rightly on the basis of the evidence observed that actually the five major persons being closed relatives were boarded in the offending vehicle with three minor children, who were sitting in their laps. Thus, there being no violation of the permitted seating capacity. The witnesses recorded by the appellant-Company at the proceedings of the learned MACT did not depose anything regarding the invalidity of the driving license of the deceased-driver. Thus, there being no violation of the permitted seating capacity. The witnesses recorded by the appellant-Company at the proceedings of the learned MACT did not depose anything regarding the invalidity of the driving license of the deceased-driver. They only deposed that three minor children were also boarded in the vehicle. Thus, the issue appears to have been rightly decided in favour of the claim petitioners. 29. The Issue No. 2 in the claim petitions except Claim Petition No. 110/MACT appears to have been also rightly adjudicated by working out the loss of dependency as per the settled criteria. However, it is needful to mention that in some claim petitions, the learned MACT has scaled down the multiplier as against the approved formula adopted in the aforementioned legal decisions especially the decisions in Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi cases (supra). 30. It has come in the evidence and that too through the father of the deceased as regards the Claim Petition No. 110/MACT that the deceased Mohd. Waqar Iqbal was pursuing B. Tech final year Degree at Pathankot (Punjab) and was not immediately in receipt of any income. The learned MACT has for the purposes of his income considered him as the daily wager and treated his monthly income as Rs.4500/-. Keeping in view the age of the deceased as 22 years at the time of the accident on the basis of post-mortem report, the multiplier of 16 was applied and 1 1/2 of the income was deducted on account of his personal expenses as being a bachelor. Loss of dependency was worked out to be Rs. 6,04,800. An amount of Rs. 15000/- was awarded under each of the heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of love and affection. The total award of compensation was worked out to Rs. 6,49,800/-. 31. The deceased-Mohd. Waqar Iqbal being admittedly a non-earning student pursuing B. Tech Degree at Pathankote (Punjab) could not have been considered as a daily wager for the purpose of his income. His notional income was to be taken as Rs. 36000/- per annum. Multiplier of 18 is needed to be applied instead of 16. Deduction of 50% of the income is needed to be made on account of deceased being a bachelor. Nothing qualifies for addition to the notional income of Rs. His notional income was to be taken as Rs. 36000/- per annum. Multiplier of 18 is needed to be applied instead of 16. Deduction of 50% of the income is needed to be made on account of deceased being a bachelor. Nothing qualifies for addition to the notional income of Rs. 36000/- per annum taken in the case as the deceased was neither having any permanent job nor was self employed. He cannot be even considered as a daily wager for the purpose of computation of his income. Taking of notional income as Rs. 36000/- per annum appears to be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case. 32. Conceiving any idea that the deceased was pursuing a B. Tech Degree was likely to get some good job and earn a handsome income in near future and to fix any excessive income on that basis is likely to offend the ratio decidendi of the authoritative law hereinbefore referred to as the same is aimed at to maintain uniformity and to avoid imponderabilities/uncertainties. Even any justified deviation/relaxation from the settled principles is likely to result in the misuse of the discretion. Further no amount can be awarded on account of the loss of love and affection as per the Pranay Sethi's judgment (supra). 33. Thus, the loss of dependency is worked out as Rs.3,24,000/-. The petitioners are also entitled to Rs.15000/- on each of the grounds of, "loss of estate" and "funeral expenses". Thus, the total compensation due to the petitioners in Claim Petition No. 110/MACT is Rs.3,54,000/-. The amount of compensation in respect of all the four claim petitions including the Claim Petition No. 110/MACT subjected to modification shall carry the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of the petitions till the realization/deposit of the same as already directed by the learned MACT in the common award. The other terms and conditions of the common award shall also remain intact. 34. The Award amounts, if any, deposited with the Registry of this Court or with the learned MACT concerned shall be released as per this judgment. The appellant-Company shall be entitled to receive any amount, if deposited, in excess in relation to the Claim Petition No. 110/MACT. 35. In view of the discussion made above, all these appeals along with respective cross objections stand accordingly disposed of. 36. The appellant-Company shall be entitled to receive any amount, if deposited, in excess in relation to the Claim Petition No. 110/MACT. 35. In view of the discussion made above, all these appeals along with respective cross objections stand accordingly disposed of. 36. Record of MACT be sent back along with a copy of this Judgment. 37. Copy of the Judgment be placed on each of the files.