JUDGMENT : M.V. Muralidaran, J. 1. Impugning the decree and judgment dated 13.12.2017 passed in MACT OP No. 4655 of 2015 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Sub-Judge I, Small Causes Court, Chennai, the present appeal is filed by the claimants. 2. The facts in a nutshell are as under: The appellants are the claimants. The appellant No. 1 is the wife of the deceased. Appellant Nos. 2 to 4 are children of the deceased. The appellant No. 5 is the mother of the deceased. On 28.4.2015, at about 8.45 p.m., while one Sankar (deceased) was riding the motor cycle bearing registration No. TN 21-S 8857 on the left side of Kelambakkam-Vandalur Salai Road, near Kannapuram Kattu Paguthi, Kanchipuram District, an Innova car bearing registration No. TN 11-K 3333 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the motor cycle. Due to the said accident, Sankar sustained severe head injury and multiple grievous injuries and after the accident, he was taken to Government Medical College & Hospital, Chengalpattu, where the doctor declared that the injured died due to multiple injuries. 3. The claim petition was filed claiming a sum of Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation pleading that the respondent No. 1, who is the owner of the vehicle, and the respondent No. 2, who is the insurer of the vehicle, both are vicariously and statutorily liable to pay compensation to the appellants. 4. The said claim petition was resisted by respondent No. 2, insurance company, by disputing the age, income and occupation of the deceased. It was alleged that the appellants are bound to establish with documentary evidence that the vehicle involved in the accident is covered by valid insurance policy and that its driver was holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. In any event, it was alleged that the compensation claimed is without proof, disproportionate, exorbitant and without any legal basis. 5. The Tribunal, by judgment and decree dated 13.12.2017 passed in MACT OP No. 4655 of 2015, awarded an amount of Rs. 19,00,000 as compensation. 6. Seeking enhancement of compensation, the appellants had filed this appeal. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the Tribunal failed to consider that the deceased was aged about 45 years at the time of accident and was working as a building mistry and earned about Rs. 19,00,000 as compensation. 6. Seeking enhancement of compensation, the appellants had filed this appeal. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the Tribunal failed to consider that the deceased was aged about 45 years at the time of accident and was working as a building mistry and earned about Rs. 600 per day, and had erroneously fixed the income of the deceased as Rs. 10,000 per month and further deducted 1/4th from the said sum towards his personal expenses. She further contended that the deceased was the sole breadwinner of the family. 8. The learned counsel further contended that the amount awarded towards loss of love and affection is too meagre, considering the fact that there are five dependants and the minor children are at the stage of schooling. She added that more amount of compensation ought to have been awarded under the heads of future prospects; loss of expectation of life; mental agony, loss to estate, etc. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 insurance company reiterated the contentions raised before the Tribunal and prayed for dismissal of this appeal. 10. I have heard Ms. M. Malar, learned counsel for the appellants, and Ms. Vijayakamala, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, and also perused the materials available on record. 11. It is not necessary for this court to narrate entire facts in detail such as, as to how the accident occurred and who was negligent and who is liable to pay compensation. It is for the reason that these things are recorded in favour of the appellants and secondly, none of those findings are under challenge. Only quantum of compensation is under challenge by the appellants. Further, the appellants have proved that the offending vehicle had a valid insurance policy at the time of accident and was insured with the respondent No. 2 insurance company and, therefore, the Tribunal rightly ordered that the respondent No. 2 insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the appellants. 12. The point that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the death of deceased needs enhancement. 13. In the claim petition, it is stated that at the time of accident the deceased was aged 43 years and was earning Rs. 600 per day by doing building mistry work. 12. The point that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the death of deceased needs enhancement. 13. In the claim petition, it is stated that at the time of accident the deceased was aged 43 years and was earning Rs. 600 per day by doing building mistry work. As far as the age of the deceased is concerned, the appellants have produced Exh. P2, post-mortem certificate, wherein his age was mentioned as 45 years. The appellants have also produced Exh. P4, death certificate, wherein also the age of the deceased was mentioned as 45 years. Thus, at the time of accident, the deceased was aged 45 years, which the Tribunal has rightly taken. 14. Insofar as income of the deceased is concerned, the appellants claimed that at the time of accident, the deceased was working as building mistry and was earning Rs. 600 per day. To prove that the deceased was earning Rs. 600 per day, the appellants have not produced any documents. Even to prove the avocation of the deceased, no documents have been produced by the appellants. In the absence of proof, the Tribunal has fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 10,000. 15. By relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeta v. Divisional Manager, Maharashtra State Road Trans. Corpn., 2015 ACJ 598 (SC), the learned counsel submitted that in a case of carpenter the Hon'ble Apex Court has taken the monthly income at Rs. 12,000 and since at the time of accident the deceased was working as mistry, a sum of Rs. 12,000 per month may be taken for determining the compensation. 16. In Neeta v. Divisional Manager, Maharashtra State Road Trans. Corpn., 2015 ACJ 598 (SC), the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500 per month and the High Court fixed the income at Rs. 6,000 per month. Aggrieved by the quantum, the claimants therein had preferred appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in the absence of documentary evidence in support of claim, the Tribunal and High Court ought to have taken monthly salary at Rs. 12,000 as fixed by the State Government as minimum wages for carpenters under the Minimum Wages Act. In para 8, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "(8) ... 12,000 as fixed by the State Government as minimum wages for carpenters under the Minimum Wages Act. In para 8, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "(8) ... Thus, the Tribunal and the High Court have committed an error, both on facts and in law, in not taking the correct monthly income of both the deceased for computation of loss of dependency, keeping in view the fact that they were carpenters which is a skilled job. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased taken by the Tribunal and the High Court for determination of loss of dependency is erroneous, as it is not in accordance with the guiding factors laid down by this court in the catena of cases to arrive at the just monthly income earned by both the deceased in the absence of documentary evidence. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside and it has to be properly determined by taking the gross income of both the deceased. The Tribunal and the High Court even in the absence of the salary slip/certificate ought to have taken the monthly salary of both the deceased at Rs. 12,000 keeping in view the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 notification, wherein the State of Karnataka on the basis of the said notification for the relevant period had fixed the minimum wage of the carpenters in their report, which is a skilled job in the Zone II and the deceased were working in the aforesaid Zone at Belgaum District, during the relevant period of their death. Further, it should have been noted by both the Tribunal and the appellate court that the minimum wages fixed in the notification are not fair wage and, therefore, they could have taken the monthly salary on the basis of real wages that were being paid in the absence of documentary proof on the basis of speculation..." 17. Though the appellants have not produced any material to show that at the time of accident the deceased was drawing Rs. 600 per day, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Neeta v. Divisional Manager, Maharashtra State Road Trans. Corpn., 2015 ACJ 598 (SC), in the absence of salary slip/certificate, it would be appropriate to take the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs. 12,000 keeping in view that more or less the carpenter and mistry are drawing similar wages. Corpn., 2015 ACJ 598 (SC), in the absence of salary slip/certificate, it would be appropriate to take the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs. 12,000 keeping in view that more or less the carpenter and mistry are drawing similar wages. Thus, in the case on hand, it would be appropriate to fix the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs. 12,000. It is apposite to mention that nowadays, carpenter and building mistry who were involved in building construction work are drawing Rs. 800 per day. Since accident is of the year 2015, at least a building mistry would have earned Rs. 400 per day. Therefore, following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeta v. Divisional Manager, Maharashtra State Road Trans. Corpn. (supra), this court fixed the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs. 12,000. 18. While fixing the monthly income, the Tribunal has given 25 per cent addition towards future prospects. In the present case, the learned counsel for the appellants seeks 40 per cent addition for future prospects. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in a case of deceased who was self-employed or on a fixed salary where the deceased was between the age of 40 and 50 years, an addition of 25 per cent should be given. 19. In the case on hand, at the time of accident the deceased was aged 45 years. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to only 25 per cent addition for future prospects, which the Tribunal has rightly given. If we take the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 12,000 and add 25 per cent for future prospects, the monthly salary would come to Rs. 15,000 and the annual income would come to Rs. 1,80,000. 20. The number of dependants in this case is 5. Exh. P5 is the legal heir certificate, wherein it has been mentioned that the appellant No. 1 is the wife, appellant Nos. 2 to 4 are sons and daughter of the deceased and appellant No. 5 is the mother of the deceased. 1,80,000. 20. The number of dependants in this case is 5. Exh. P5 is the legal heir certificate, wherein it has been mentioned that the appellant No. 1 is the wife, appellant Nos. 2 to 4 are sons and daughter of the deceased and appellant No. 5 is the mother of the deceased. In Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one-third where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3; one-fourth where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6; and one-fifth where the number of dependent family members exceeds 6. 21. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that since there is no other earning male member in the family and appellant Nos. 3 and 4 were minors at the time of accident, Tribunal ought not to have deducted personal expenses of the deceased. There is no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. 22. As stated supra, in the present case, the number of dependent family members is 5. Therefore, one-fourth has to be deducted as personal and living expenses of the deceased. Deducting one-fourth towards personal and living expenses, the contribution to the family would come to Rs. 1,35,000 per annum. 23. As far as multiplier to be applied in this case is concerned, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), for the age group 41-45 years, the multiplier to be applied is 14'. Adopting multiplier 14', the loss of dependency would come to Rs. 18,90,000 (Rs. 1,35,000 x 14). 24. The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation on conventional heads as under: Loss of consortium Rs.40,000 Loss of love and affection Rs.2,50,000 Loss of estate Rs.15,000 Transport charges Rs.5,000 Funeral expenses Rs.15,000 25. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court has set out various amounts to be awarded as compensation under conventional heads in case of death. The relevant portion of the decision is reproduced hereinbelow: "(54) .. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures under conventional heads, namely, loss to estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000, Rs. The relevant portion of the decision is reproduced hereinbelow: "(54) .. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures under conventional heads, namely, loss to estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000, Rs. 40,000 and Rs. 15,000, respectively. The principle of re-visiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the re-visit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10 per cent in a span of three years..." 26. Following the decision of the Hon'ble court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC), the compensation of Rs. 15,000 towards loss to estate, Rs. 5,000 towards transport charges and Rs. 15,000 towards funeral expenses awarded by the Claims Tribunal are maintained. 27. In the present case, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 40,000 towards loss of consortium to the appellant No. 1. Awarding of compensation towards parental consortium came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magma General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, 2018 ACJ 2782 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "(8.7) A Constitution Bench of this court in Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC), dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss of consortium. In legal parlance, 'consortium' is a compendious term which encompasses 'spousal consortium', 'parental consortium' and 'filial consortium'. xxx xxx xxx Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of 'company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation'. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of 'parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training'. xxx xxx xxx Parental consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of filial consortium. xxx xxx xxx Parental consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of filial consortium. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under 'loss of consortium' as laid down in Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC). In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased an amount of Rs. 40,000 each for loss of filial consortium." 28. In the present case as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magma General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, 2018 ACJ 2782 (SC), apart from the appellant No. 1 wife, the appellant Nos. 2 to 4/children are also entitled to get compensation under the head 'loss of consortium'. Thus, this court deems it appropriate to award the appellants, being the wife and children of the deceased, an amount of Rs. 40,000 each for loss of spousal consortium and parental consortium respectively. 29. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,50,000 towards loss of love and affection. At the time of accident, the appellant No. 1 was aged 38 years and the appellant Nos. 2 to 4 have lost their father at the younger age. In a catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Apex Court awarded Rs. 50,000 towards loss of love and affection to each of the claimants. In my opinion, since appellants are wife, sons, daughter and mother and five in number, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,50,000 and the same is maintained. 30. In the light of the above-mentioned discussion, the total sum of Rs. 19,00,000 awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 23,75,000 as under: Heads Amount Loss of dependency Rs.18,90,000 Loss of love and affection Rs.2,50,000 Loss of consortium(Rs.40,000x5) Rs.2,00,000 Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000 Loss of estate Rs.15,000 Transport charges Rs.5,000 Transport charges Rs.5,000 Total Rs.23,75,000 31. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed with proportionate costs. The compensation of Rs. 19,00,000 awarded by the Tribunal in MCOP No. 4655 of 2015, dated 13.12.2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Sub-Judge No. 1 to deal with MCOP Cases), Small Causes Court, Chennai is enhanced to Rs. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed with proportionate costs. The compensation of Rs. 19,00,000 awarded by the Tribunal in MCOP No. 4655 of 2015, dated 13.12.2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Sub-Judge No. 1 to deal with MCOP Cases), Small Causes Court, Chennai is enhanced to Rs. 23,75,000 with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit payable by the respondent No. 2. Out of the total compensation of Rs. 23,75,000, the appellant No. 1 being the wife is entitled for a sum of Rs. 6,00,000 and appellant Nos. 2 to 4 being the children are entitled for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 each and the appellant No. 5 being the mother is entitled for a sum of Rs. 2,75,000 with accrued interest. In so far as other directions, viz., mode of deposit, withdrawal of the compensation and deposit of the minor's amount in a nationalised bank, the order of the Tribunal remain unaltered. No costs.