JUDGMENT : TARA VITASTA GANJU, J. 1. The present appeals have been filed impugning the Judgment and Award Dated 19.01.2018 in MVC No.758/2015 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Mysuru [hereinafter referred as “the Impugned Judgment”]. By the Impugned Judgment, the claimants have been awarded the compensation in the sum of Rs.17,72,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till its realisation. 2. The challenge in MFA No.5857/2018 is by the Insurance Company. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company that despite the fact that the deceased was travelling in a goods vehicle as an unauthorised passenger, the Tribunal has not apportioned the liability amount towards contributory negligence against the deceased. While the challenge in MFA No.7564/2018 is on a limited ground. It is contended by the claimants that no amount has been awarded towards future prospects. 3. Briefly, the facts are, on 18.06.2014 at about 5.30 a.m. when two persons were travelling in a goods Autorickshaw with cattle in the vehicle and due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Autorickshaw, the Autorickshaw turned turtle and the deceased succumbed to his injuries subsequently on 02.09.2014. The claimants are the legal representatives of deceased M.K.Harish. 3.1. It is the case of the claimants that deceased was the only earning member of the family and aged 29 years doing masonry work and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. 3.2. The Insurance Company, on the other hand, has contended that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger travelling in a goods vehicle and that the driver of the vehicle had no valid licence and hence the Insurance Company was not liable pay compensation. 4. Based on the pleadings, the following issues are framed: “[1] Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased Shri M.K.Harish, died in a road traffic accident occurred on 18/06/2014, at about 5.30 a.m., due to the actionable negligence of the driver of the vehicle bearing No.KA-453761? [2] Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation? If so, at what quantum, from whom and what proportion? [3] What Order or relief?” 5. [2] Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation? If so, at what quantum, from whom and what proportion? [3] What Order or relief?” 5. The learned Tribunal assessed the compensation by taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month on the basis of the notional income and awarded compensation for loss of financial dependency calculated for the loss of love and affection, loss of consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses as well as medical expenses and after giving 1/4 th deduction for personal expenses, awarded the compensation under the following heads: 6. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Tribunal has held that admittedly claimants were not able to place anything on record to show the income of the deceased other than stating that deceased was the sole bread winner of the family and working as a mason. 7. In the statement of claim, the claimants have set out that deceased was a mason, he was aged about 29 years doing masonry work and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. It is further stated that the deceased was the only earning member of his family. The relevant extract of the statement of claim is set out below: “Prior to the accident the deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 29 years and doing mason work and earning Rs.20,000/- p.m., he was the only earning member of this family. After his death, the petitioners are struggling very hard for their livelihood.” 8. The learned Tribunal has while calculating the loss of financial dependency, given a finding that the Claimants have failed to establish that deceased was self employed or that he had a fixed salary. The relevant extract of the impugned order in this behalf is set out below: “12………….. Admittedly, the petitioners have failed to establish that deceased was self-employed prengaged on fixed salary as on the date of accident, as such petitioners are not entitled for future prospects as held in the case of Pranay Sethi and others .” [Emphasis supplied] 9. Concededly the compensation awarded does not include an award on income for future prospects. The learned Tribunal has found that Claimants have failed to establish that deceased was a self employed or engaged on fixed salary as on the date of accident and as such he was not entitled for future prospects. 9.1. The Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. The learned Tribunal has found that Claimants have failed to establish that deceased was a self employed or engaged on fixed salary as on the date of accident and as such he was not entitled for future prospects. 9.1. The Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another , (2009) 6 SCC 121 sets out an exception permitting the claimants to bring material on record to get the benefit of addition of future prospects. It has been held in the said decision that 40% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects to be calculated if the deceased is below 40 years and 25% future prospects is to be calculated if the deceased is between the age of 40-50 years.The relevant extract is set out below: “ 55. 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 arithmetical 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 v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002 and it has been approved in Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 191 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 826. The age and income, as stated earlier, have to be established by adducing evidence. 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 endeavour has been made by this Court for standardisation 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 standardisation keeping in view the principle of certainty, stability and consistency. We approve the principle of “standardisation” so that a specific and certain multiplicand is determined for applying the multiplier on the basis of age. 56. The seminal issue is the fixation of future prospects in cases of deceased who are self- employed or on a fixed salary. Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002 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. 57. Having bestowed our anxious consideration, we are disposed to think when we accept the principle of standardisation, 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. 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 standardisation 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 standardisation 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. [Emphasis supplied] 10. In National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others , (2017) 16 SCC 680 it has been held by the Supreme Court while discussing and clarifying just compensation that the claimants are required to place on record material in support of their contention on an addition for future prospects. It has been held that even in the case of a person who doesn’t have a permanent job or who is self employed, that there is no rational not to apply the principle of just compensation to a self employed person. 10.1. The Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi Case thus held that while the deceased is self employed and below the age of 40 years an addition of 40% of the established income is requisite, where the established income is the income less the tax component. The relevant extract is below: “59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions: 59.1. The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2012) 6 SCC 421 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 726 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 167 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 v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002, 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. 59.2. As Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149 has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 191 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 826, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 :(2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149 is not a binding precedent. 59.3. 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. 59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. 59.5. For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paras 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002 which we have reproduced hereinbefore. 59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002 read with Para 42 of that judgment. 59.7. The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. 59.8. 59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002 read with Para 42 of that judgment. 59.7. The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. 59.8. 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.” [Emphasis supplied] 11. An examination of the Trial Court record shows that the petitioners/claimants have not placed on record any document in support of their contention that the deceased was working as a mason or that he had a regular job to be entitled to future prospects. Thus, this Court finds no infirmity with the finding of the learned Tribunal that no future prospects could be granted in view of lack of evidence in this behalf. 12. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the vehicle since he was travelling in a goods vehicle and that since the deceased was travelling in the breach of the insurance policy and the deceased/claimants should be held liable for contributory negligence. Reliance in this behalf is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Cholleti Bharatamma and Others , (2008) 1 SCC 423 . 13. In the present case, it is contended by the Insurance Company that the deceased was travelling with bullocks and was sitting in the area where bullocks were kept. This was denied by the claimants. Learned Tribunal after examining the evidence produced by the parties found that though questions were put during cross-examination of P.W.1, the suggestion was denied by the witness. R.W.1-Shri Mohan Kumara A.S., has stated that the deceased was an unauthorised passenger. However, no evidence has been brought on record in support of his contention that the deceased was not travelling with the bullock cows as owner of the goods and thus was not a gratuitous passenger. It was further held that the insurance policy shows that additional premium has been paid for ferrying an owner, driver and paid cleaners. 14. However, no evidence has been brought on record in support of his contention that the deceased was not travelling with the bullock cows as owner of the goods and thus was not a gratuitous passenger. It was further held that the insurance policy shows that additional premium has been paid for ferrying an owner, driver and paid cleaners. 14. It is apposite to set out the findings of the learned Tribunal in this regard: “29. As could be seen from the perusal of allegations made in Ex.P1 - F.I.R., Ex.P2-complaint and Ex.PB- charge sheet along with averments made in the petition that when the deceased along with others were travelling in a goods vehicle with bullocks / cows, at that time the driver of the vehicle in question drove it in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. During the cross- examination of PW.1 also only suggestions made and denied by the witness. Though RW.1 states that deceased was an unauthorised passenger, but he has never stated in his evidence to the effect that deceased was not travelling with bullocks/cows. No contrary oral or documentary evidence forthcoming before this tribunal to believe that deceased was not travelling with bullocks / cows as owner of the goods. It is not in dispute that the respondent company has issued Ex.R1 package policy. Though the respondent company would contend thatinsured has not paid extra premium to cover the passengers travelling in a goods vehicle, but Ex.R1 schedule of premium and liability reveals that respondent company has collected extra premium for owner, driver, paid cleaner, employees and paid driver. This being the fact the respondent company has to explain the fact that how and why the company has collected extra premium to cover different category of persons shown in the policy schedule. Limitation as to use also shown as only for carriage of goods within the meaning of MV Act. 30. In this regard by referring division bench decision in 2011 ACJ 1464 our Hon'ble High court has observed in MFA.No.6693/2009 dated 11/06/2014 referred supra by the counsel for the petitioners that according to section 2(13) a goods include live stock and risk of person accompanying his goods like cow and call in the backside of the cabin as such it has been covered U/s 147(1) of M.V. Act. So now it is clear that if a passenger travelling in goods vehicle gratuitously then insurer cannot be held liable. Similarly if the passengers travelling in a goods vehicle as owners of goods covered by package policy, then insurance company is to be held liable. For these reasons it can be held that the deceased M.K. Harish also comes under the category of persons accompanying the goods, covered statutorily U/s 147 of the Act .”[Emphasis supplied] 14.1. The learned Tribunal also found that the Insurance Company had collected extra premium from the owner of the vehicle to cover the owner, driver, paid cleaner, employees and paid driver. Thus, premium for different category of persons was shown in the policy schedule. The relevant extract of the Insurance Policy is reproduced below. 15. In view thereof, a finding was given that the passenger travelling in a goods vehicle as the owner would be covered by the insurance policy and thus, the Insurance Company is liable to make complete payment. 16. The learned Tribunal has after examining the evidence found that the deceased was not travelling as a gratuitous passenger but as a owner of the goods and thus has affixed the liability on the Insurance Company. Given the evidence produced in this behalf this Court finds no reason to interfere with the finding of the Learned Tribunal. 17. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. All pending applications stand closed.