ORDER 1. Facts of the case in short are as under : The respondents No.1 and 2 being the claimants, filed a claim case under section 166 before the MACT, Indore, claiming compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/- on account of death of Devendra. 2. Devendra (the deceased) on 4.7.2012, was going from his motorcycle bearing registration M.P.09 / NN 4628, from Newsek Tirah towards Pithampur, when a truck bearing registration No. RJ 09/GB 4317, dashed him and because of which he died on the spot. He was referred to the Bhoj hospital for post-mortem, FIR was registered under Crime No. 171/12, under sections 304A and 279, IPC. At the time of death Devendra, was aged about 25 years and skilled labour of diamond cutting and was also owner of a floor mill. He was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. He was the sole earner of the family and the claimants were dependent on his earning. 4. The owner and driver were remained ex-parte. Only insurance company contest the claim on the ground that at the time of accident, the truck owner was not having the permit and the driver was not having the valid licence. The Insurance Co. of the motorcycle is a necessary party. 5. On the basis of the pleadings MACT, framed six issues for adjudication. After appreciating the learned Tribunal has held that the deceased Devendra died due to accident by a truck and insurance company has failed to prove that the driver was not having a legal and valid licence and there was no violation of terms and conditions of the policy. The Tribunal has assessed the age of the deceased as 29 years and six months and assessed Rs. 60,000/- as income per annum and accordingly, assessed the compensation of Rs. 7,15,000/- vide award dt.27.11.2014 directed the appellant Insurance Co. to pay the aforesaid amount along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from 23.7.2012, till the payment. 6. Being aggrieved, the aforesaid award, the Insurance Company filed the present appeal and the claimants have filed the cross-objection for seeking enhancement of compensation. The Insurance Company has challenged the award only on the ground of quantum of compensation and prayed for reduction of the compensation from Rs. 5,65,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/-. 6. Being aggrieved, the aforesaid award, the Insurance Company filed the present appeal and the claimants have filed the cross-objection for seeking enhancement of compensation. The Insurance Company has challenged the award only on the ground of quantum of compensation and prayed for reduction of the compensation from Rs. 5,65,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/-. According to the appellant claimant No. 1 is father and claimant No. 2 is mother and the learned tribunal has wrongly granted the compensation in their favour as they were not dependent on the income of the deceased. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 8. The learned MACT has assessed the income of the deceased Rs. 5000/- per month and applied the multiplier of 17. Since he was bachelor 1/3rd amount has been deducted under the head of personal expenses and accordingly, assessed the total loss of dependency to Rs. 6,80,000/-. 9. The learned Tribunal has deducted the amount by 1/3rd on the basis of the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr. reported as 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), and assessed the annual income Rs. 40,000/-. In the case of latest judgment of the apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. v. Nanu Ram and others reported as 2018 (11) Scale 247 / (2018) ACC 184(SC) , the apex Court affirmed that the deduction of the income of the deceased ought to have been 1/3rd as he was bachelor. He was 24 years old at the time of accident hence, the future prospect ought to have been awarded at the rate of 40% of the actual income. That the apex Court also held that father is also entitled for the compensation as dependant. In the light of the judgment passed in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, reported as 2018(1) JLJ 200 = (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the right of consortium would include the company, care, health, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family and awarded Rs. 40,000/- in favour of father for loss of filial consortium. The apex Court also awarded future prospects at the time 40% of the income. 10. In view of the judgment passed in the case of National Insurance Co. 40,000/- in favour of father for loss of filial consortium. The apex Court also awarded future prospects at the time 40% of the income. 10. In view of the judgment passed in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (supra), and the judgment passed in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. v. Nanu Ram and others (supra), the respondents No. 1 and 2 are entitled for the following amount : Head Compensation awarded (i) Income : Rs. 5,000/- (ii) Future prospects : Rs. 2,000/- (iii) Deduction towards [i.e. 1/3rd of Personal expenditure Rs. 2,333.33 (Rs. 5,000 + 2,000) (iv) Total income : (Rs. 4,666.66/- Rs. 5,000 + 2,000] [i.e., 2/3rd of (v) Multiplier 17 (vi) Loss of future income: Rs. 9,51,864 (4666 x 12 x17) (vii) Loss of love and affection Rs. 1,00,000 (Rs. 50,000 each) (viii) Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- (ix) Loss of estate : Rs. 15,000/- (x) Loss of Filial Consortium Rs. 80,000 (Rs. 40,000 each) Total compensation awarded along with the interest as awarded by the learned MACT. Rs. 11,66,864.00/- 11. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the appellant – Insurance Company is dismissed and the cross – objection filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 (Claimants) is allowed. The amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs. 7,15,000/- to Rs. 11,66,864/-. Since the respondents No. 1 and 2 have sought enhancement of compensation Rs. 1,00,000/- and paid the court fee accordingly. Hence, enhancement is restricted Rs. 1,00,000/- in this cross appeal and appellant – Insurance Co., is directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as additional compensation over Rs. 7,15,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry the same rate of interest as awarded the learned Tribunal from the date of award.