JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. A. J. Saikia, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents.

2. The present appeal is preferred against the Judgment dated 27.01.2017, passed in MAC Case No. 2697/01 (251/08) by the learned Member of MACT, No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati.

3. The ground of challenge as urged by Mr. A. J. Saikia, learned counsel for the appellant /Insurance Company is that the future prospect ought to have been determined @ 40%, for the reason of the deceased being self employed and was aged below 40 years, however, the learned Tribunal below has fixed it @ 50%. In support of his contention, Mr. Saikia, learned counsel relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited –Vs.- Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.

The second ground urged is that the claimant is not entitled for interest on the component of future prospect in view of decision of a Coordinate Bench in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd–vs-Smti Champabati Ray and 5 Ors. (MACApp./378/2017).

4. Mr. K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the claimant/respondents in his usual fairness submits that as the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court has already settled both the issues, he will abide by the law declared by the aforesaid two judgments inasmuch as the claimants are also entitled for just compensation in terms of the Pranay Sethi (Supra) and Magma General Insurance Company Limited –Vs.- Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and Others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130.

5. Considered the materials available on record. Perused the aforesaid two judgments.

6. In the case of Pranay Sethi & Others (Supra), the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph 61 held as follows:-

“61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusion:-

(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. 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 hereinabove.

(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, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be L 15,000/- L 40,000/- and L 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three