JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the parties. Though service of notice upon the respondent no.1 is sufficient, no one turns up on behalf of him in spite of repeated calls hence this appeal is heard ex parte in respect of the respondent no.1.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 04.09.2013 passed by the 5th Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh in Claim Case No.99 of 2009 whereby and where under in a claim petition filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the learned Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal held that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.4,46,550/- and interest thereon @ 6% with effect from 19.06.2012 against the respondent no.2 and ordered that if the said amount is not paid within one month of the judgment, the order shall carry penal interest @ 9% till realization and directed the respondent no. 2 insurance company to pay the said amount of compensation to the claimants.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the claimants –appellant nos. 1 to 4 are the dependents of the deceased –Ravi Kumar Singh @ Daya Singh a professional driver, who while returning from Ranchi by a Tata Sumo Vehicle belonging to his employer was dashed by the offending truck coming from the opposite side while the truck was being rashly and negligently driven and the deceased sustained serious and multiple injuries in the said motor vehicle accident and succumbed to his injuries on the spot itself. In the claim petition, it was mentioned that the deceased was aged about 29 years and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month as salary and in addition to that, he was getting Rs.75/- per day for food and maintenance allowance etc. The learned Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal framed the single issue as to whether, the claimants are entitled to get compensation, if so, then to what extent and from which of the opposite party. The learned Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal after considering the evidence in the record held that though there is evidence in the record that the deceased was getting Rs.6,000/- per month as salary from his employer but observed that a professional driver is expected to get Rs.5,000/- per month in total in the year 2009 and assessed his income as Rs.5,000/- per month and further observed that since the owner and insurer of the Tata Sumo Vehicle have not been brought into picture, hence the learned Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal held that the insurer of the truck shall be liable to indemnify 65% of the liability.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that though the appellants have contended several grounds in the appeal but the appellants abandon their contention that the multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied by the learned tribunal instead of the multiplier of 17 and submits that since the learned tribunal has assessed the age of the deceased to be 35 years on the basis of his age mentioned in the post mortem report, the appellants do not contest the multiplier of 17 but confine their challenge of the impugned award for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded for other reasons. The learned counsel for the appellant, drawing attention of this Court to the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others, reported in, (2017) 16 SCC 680, paragraph no. 59 of which reads as under:-

“59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:

59.1. 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.

59.2. 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 n