JUDGMENT : (Nisha M. Thakore, J.) 1. THE INTRODUCTION : The appellants, who are the original claimants, have approached this Court seeking enhancement of the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Court- Kachchh at Bhuj (hereinafter, “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C.P. No.114 of 2010 against the present respondents-original opponents to the tune of Rs. 38 Lakhs. Vide order dated 25.09.2018, the Tribunal was pleased to partly allow the claim petition thereby awarding amount of Rs.6,37,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of such claim petition till its realization. 2. THE FACTS: The facts, in nutshell as contended by the original claimants in the claim petition, are as under: 2.1 It is the case of the original claimant that on the fateful day of the accident i.e. on 09.02.2010, the deceased Sidik Salemamad Hingora was driving the Chhakdo Rickshaw bearing registration No.GJ- 12-Z-5586 with passengers from Kothara to Bhuj with moderate speed. It is the case of the original claimants that, when he reached the place of the accident, the respondent No.1 who was driving her Santro car bearing registration No.CH-03-Y-5048, suddenly took turn without any indication of signal and acted in rash and negligent manner and lost the control, resulting into the accident with Chhakdo Rickshaw. Because of such accident, the deceased had sustained serious injuries and was shifted to the hospital, who unfortunately succumbed to the injuries and died at the young age of 39 years. 2.2 The original claimants, who are the parents, wife, brothers and sisters and children of the deceased, had preferred the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal which was registered as M.A.C.P. No.114 of 2010. The driver of the Santro Car was joined as opponent No.1, whereas the owner of the offending vehicle was joined as opponent No.2. The said vehicle was insured with opponent No.3-Insurance Company. 2.3 Though summons issued by the Tribunal, were duly served upon the opponents, the opponent Nos. 1 and 2 have chosen not to file any written statement, whereas opponent No.3-Insurance Company had appeared through the learned advocate and had objected by filing written statement at Exh.21. Considering the pleadings, the Tribunal had framed issues at Exh.28. 2.3 Though summons issued by the Tribunal, were duly served upon the opponents, the opponent Nos. 1 and 2 have chosen not to file any written statement, whereas opponent No.3-Insurance Company had appeared through the learned advocate and had objected by filing written statement at Exh.21. Considering the pleadings, the Tribunal had framed issues at Exh.28. Before the Tribunal, the original claimants had produced various documentary evidences, which include the copy of FIR (Exh.32), the copy of panchnama of place of accident (Exh.33), the copy of inquest panchnama (Exh.34), the copy of post mortem report (Exh.35), the copy of insurance policy of offending vehicle marked 30/5, the copy of R.C. book of offending vehicle (Exh.36), the copy of 7/12 abstract (Exh.37), the copy of form No.8A (Exh.38) and true copy of school leaving certificate of deceased (Exh.39).The original claimant- Sharifabai Sidik Hingora (widow of the deceased) had offered her evidence, which was recorded at Exh.31. Apart from the said witness, the original claimant had also examined Ilias Salemamad Hingora at Exh.45. No other evidences were lead by the original claimant as well as the Insurance Company. 3. ANALYSIS OF ORDER OF TRIBUNAL: 3.1 The Tribunal upon appreciation of the aforesaid evidences, more particularly, FIR and panchnama of the place of accident (Exh.33), was convinced that the accident had taken place due to sole negligence of the driver of the Santro Car, which had caused serious injuries to the deceased and had proceeded to answer issue No.1 holding the opponents negligent in causing the accident. 3.2 On the aspect of computation of compensation, considering the fact that the deceased was plying Rickshaw and claimed to be earning Rs.6,000/- per month in placed called Abadasa of District- Kutchh, the Tribunal had determined the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. The Tribunal had, thereafter, considered the future prospective income of the deceased in light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and has considered 40% prospective income of the deceased as Rs.4,200/- per month. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the school leaving certificate of the deceased produced at Exh.39 for the purpose of determining the age of the deceased as 39 years 4 months and 18 days and has adopted multiplier of 15. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the school leaving certificate of the deceased produced at Exh.39 for the purpose of determining the age of the deceased as 39 years 4 months and 18 days and has adopted multiplier of 15. While considering the aspect of deduction towards personal expenditure of the deceased, the Tribunal noticed that deceased was married at the time of the accident and was survived by six dependents, which includes the old aged parents, his widow, minor children and younger siblings and had accordingly, considered the deduction of one fourth of the amount i.e. ¼ of Rs.4,200/- = Rs.1050/-, which is deducted from the aforesaid amount so determined i.e. Rs.3,150/-. Thus, the Tribunal has determined the compensation under the head of loss of income as Rs.5,67,000/- (Rs.3150 × 12 months ×15). 3.3 The Tribunal has followed the principles laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) for the purpose of determining the compensation of Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of estate and Rs.40,000/- towards the loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards the funeral expenses. Thus, the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of an amount of Rs.6,37,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till the amount is deposited by the opponents. 3.4 The original claimants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the amount of compensation being awarded on lower side, have approached this Court by way of present appeal praying for enhancement of the award amount. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Hiren Modi has appeared on behalf of the appellants-original claimants. This Court, vide order dated 07.06.2021 considering the grounds raised in the appeal, had admitted the appeal. Learned advocate Mr. Chirayu Mehta has appeared on behalf of respondent No.3- Insurance Company. 5. We have heard learned advocates for the respective parties and have perused the judgment and award impugned as well as the decisions relied upon by learned advocates. 6. SUBMISSION OF LEARNED ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS: 6.1 Learned advocate for the appellants has urged this Court for enhancement essentially under two heads. It is submitted that, the Tribunal committed serious error in determining the amount of income as Rs.3,000/- instead of Rs.4,000/-. The reliance was placed on the rates prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act at the relevant point of time of accident i.e. way back in the year-2010. It is submitted that, the Tribunal committed serious error in determining the amount of income as Rs.3,000/- instead of Rs.4,000/-. The reliance was placed on the rates prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act at the relevant point of time of accident i.e. way back in the year-2010. The attention of this Court was invited to the fact that indisputably, the deceased was engaged in driving Chhakdo Rickshaw and was earning his income from the said work/occupation. 6.2 According to the learned advocate, considering the nature of unskilled work, the Tribunal ought to have considered minimum wages at the rate of Rs.4,000/- as the income of the deceased. He has further submitted that the family of the deceased consisted of six members and accordingly, the Tribunal ought to have considered one third deduction while determining the compensation under the head of loss of dependency. He had, therefore, urged this Court to consider the amount of Rs.50,400/- under the head of loss of dependency. Learned advocate has not disputed the multiplier of 15 adopted by the Tribunal and has accordingly, urged to consider total amount of Rs.7,56,000/- under the head of loss of dependency. 6.3 Secondly, the learned advocate has urged this Court to reappreciate the amount awarded under the head of loss of consortium, considering the fact that the deceased was survived by the widow, two minor children and parents. According to him, the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.1,20,000/- under the head of loss of consortium. 6.4 By making the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate for the appellants has urged this Court to determine the total amount of compensation as Rs.10,26,000/- and to grant interest at the rate of 7.5% on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. 7. SUBMISSION OF LEARNED ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT-INSURANCE COMPANY: Learned advocate Mr. Mehta appearing for the respondent- Insurance Company has made submissions by referring to the relevant observations of the Tribunal. Learned advocate is unable to dispute the amount of income of Rs.4,000/- as urged by the appellants. He is also not in a position to dispute the amount under the head of loss of consortium, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Learned advocate has prayed before us to pass appropriate orders. 8. He is also not in a position to dispute the amount under the head of loss of consortium, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Learned advocate has prayed before us to pass appropriate orders. 8. ANALYSIS: 8.1 Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the only question which falls for our consideration in the present appeal is, whether the appellants are entitled to enhance amount of compensation on the grounds as contended in the present appeal. 8.2 Indisputably, the deceased was aged around 39 years 4 months and 18 days as established by the original claimants by producing on record the school leaving certificate at Exh.39, wherein the date of the birth is recorded as 22.09.1970 whereas the accident took place on 09.02.2010. It has also been proved that on the fateful day of the accident, the deceased was driving the Chhakdo Rickshaw carrying passengers. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was married and was survived with six dependents in the family. The involvement of the offending vehicle and the consequential liability of the opponents, more particularly, opponent No.3-Insurance Company has attained finality, noticing the fact that no appeal is filed by the Insurance Company disputing the aforesaid facts. In such circumstances, the present appeal is required to be decided in narrow compass of redetermination of the compensation, more particularly, under the head of loss of dependency and loss of consortium as urged before us by the appellants-original claimants. 8.3 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Malik & Anr vs Kiran Pal & Ors reported in 2009 (14) SCC 1 , has recently held that a notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act can only be a guiding factor in determining the income of the deceased in motor accident case. In absence of any documentary evidence with regard to proof of income of the deceased and his employment as a driver pursues us to consider the lower tire of minimum wages in light of the notification issued by the State Government prevailing at the time of the accident, while computing his income. It is apparent that the deceased was survived with a family consisting of six dependents. It is apparent that the deceased was survived with a family consisting of six dependents. It is settled principle of law that preserving the existing standard of living of deceased’s family, which is a fundamental endeavor of motor accident compensation law, we are inclined to accept the submission of learned advocate for the appellants, and thus, determined the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- . We are, therefore, convinced to accept the income at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month. 8.4 On the aspect of deduction towards the personal expenses is concerned, as rightly pointed out by the learned advocate for the appellants, the appropriate deduction to be applied in the facts of the case is required to be treated as one third instead of one fourth as determined by the Tribunal. In light of the facts of the case, the Tribunal has rightly determined multiplier of 15. 8.5 The most relevant part, which falls for consideration of this Court in the appeal with regard to addition future prospect is concerned, in light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the aforesaid issue is no more res integra. We are guided by the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The relevant extracts of the aforesaid decision are reproduced as under: “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. 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. 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 price rise does affect a self-employed person; and that apart there is always an incessant effort to enhance one’s income for sustenance. The purchasing capacity of a salaried person on permanent job when increases 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. 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. 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 deceased 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. 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. 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.” 8.6 In light of the aforesaid principles laid down, the age of the deceased was below 40 years and was not employed in a permanent establishment, the future prospect of the deceased is determined as 40% of the income fixed. Thus, the amount under the head of loss of dependency is required to be redetermined as Rs. 7,56,000/-. Thus, the amount under the head of loss of dependency is required to be redetermined as Rs. 7,56,000/-. 8.7 So far as the arguments canvassed by the learned advocate for the appellants of enhancing the amount under the head of loss of consortium is concerned, as noticed earlier, considering the fact that there were six dependents in the family, the original claimants are found entitled to for amount of Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium to his spouse, loss of consortium of filial as Rs.80,000/- and loss of parental consortium as Rs. 1,20,000/-. So far as rest of the amount are concerned under the head of funeral expenses, loss of estate stands confirmed as we found no infirmity with the judgment of the Tribunal on the aforesaid heads. 9. The enhanced amount of calculation considered, reproduced as under: Future loss of dependency Rs.7,56,000/- Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Loss of consortium Rs.2,40,000/- Total compensation Rs.10,26,000/- 10. THE CONCLUSION : For the aforesaid reasons, the present appeal is partly allowed. The appellants-original claimants are held entitled to total compensation of Rs.10,26,000/- as against the compensation awarded at Rs.6,37,000/- by the Tribunal. Thus, the appellants-original claimants are held entitled to enhance amount of compensation of Rs.3,89,000/- (Rs.10,26,000 – Rs.6,37,000), which shall be paid by the respondents herein-original opponents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order along with interest at the rate of 7.5 % from the date of filing of the claim petition till its actual realization. The directions of the apportionment issued by the Tribunal will govern the enhanced amount of compensation in the present appeal. 11. Needless to clarify that the respective parties as well as the Tribunal shall abide by the guidelines prescribed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Private Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others delivered in Writ Petition (Civil) No.534 of 2020 on 16.03.2021. 12. With the above observations and directions, the present First Appeal stands disposed of.