JUDGMENT : Aravind Kumar, J. 1. The short question that arises for our consideration in this appeal and cross objections are: (i) Whether compensation awarded by Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Saundatti, in M.V.C.No.2520/2013 is just and reasonable or it requires to be modified? If so, what order? (ii) Whether tribunal was justified in arriving at a conclusion that cause of death of deceased Shri Nagappa Siddappa Yadalli is due to the injuries suffered in the road traffic accident? 2. Miscellaneous Appeal No.103088/2015 is filed by the insurer and M.F.A.Crob.100197/2015 is by the claimants against judgment and award passed by Senior Civil Judge, Saundatti, in M.V.C.No.2520/2013 dated 16.06.2015. 3. We have heard arguments of Sri G.N.Raichur, learned counsel appearing for insurer and Smt.Shaila Bellikatti, learned counsel appearing for claimants. Perused the records secured from tribunal. 4. Accident in question having occurred on 02.04.2013, issuance of policy to the offending vehicle and same being in force as on the date of accident are all undisputed facts and as such, they are not delved upon in these appeals as it would be repetition of facts. Since answer to point No.2 formulated hereinabove may have some bearing on point No.1, we have taken up point No.2 at the first instance after narrating few facts which are necessary. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE: 5. Claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act was initially filed by Sri Nagappa Siddappa Yadalli contending interalia that he was proceeding towards his native place Hirekumbi on his motorcycle along with his friend on 02.04.2013 and near Shantinagar Nar Nayak Student Federation School curve, a Maruthi Omni car driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against his motorcycle and due to the impact, both the claimant and pillion rider fell down and sustained grievous injuries. They were shifted in an unconscious state to Civil Hospital, Saundatti, and after first aid being administered they were shifted to Balaji Institute of Neuro Sciences and Trauma, Hubli, wherein claimant was treated as inpatient from 02.04.2014 to 22.04.2013 and as such, compensation of Rs. 35,50,000/- was sought for. Subsequently, on 13.06.2014 i.e., after 14 months from the date of accident, original claimant expired and his legal heirs/dependants namely father, mother and unmarried sister came on record and prosecuted the claim petition. 35,50,000/- was sought for. Subsequently, on 13.06.2014 i.e., after 14 months from the date of accident, original claimant expired and his legal heirs/dependants namely father, mother and unmarried sister came on record and prosecuted the claim petition. On service of summons, the insurer appeared, filed written statement, denied the averments made in claim petition except to the extent expressly admitted thereunder and it was specifically contended that there was nexus between the accident and the cause of death and in fact, there was no post-mortem conducted to establish that due to accidental injuries, it had resulted in death. On the basis of pleadings of parties, tribunal framed issues for its determination and in order to substantiate claim made in the petition, mother of the deceased claimant, Irappa Dhulappa Karigar, eye-witness to the accident (pillion rider) as well as the doctor were examined as PWs-1 to 3. On behalf of respondents, official witness of the Insurance Company came to be examined as RW-1 and both parties got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.21 and Ex.R1 to R4 respectively. By considering and evaluating the evidence tendered by the parties, tribunal allowed the claim petition in part and awarded total compensation of Rs. 17,32,979/- under the following heads: 1. Pain and suffering Rs. 75,000/- 2. Medical expenses Rs. 2,61,579/- 3. Attendant charges Rs. 50,000/- 4. Food and nutrition Rs. 25,000/- 5. Transportation Rs. 50,000/- 6. Cremation Rs. 30,000/- 7. Loss of love and affection Rs. 75,000/- 8. Loss of estate Rs.11,66,400/- Total Rs.17,32,979/- 6. Hence, these two appeals by insurer as well as claimants as already noticed hereinabove. 7. It is the contention of Mr.G.N.Raichur, learned counsel appearing for insurer that there is no nexus to the accidental injuries and the death of deceased and as such, no inference could have been drawn by the tribunal that deceased succumbed to accidental injuries. Said finding is an erroneous finding which is liable to be set aside. He would also submit that there is no evidence forthcoming as to why post-mortem was not conducted and there is no pleading to the effect namely to demonstrate that death had occurred due to accidental injuries. Hence, he submits that compensation awarded towards loss of dependency by tribunal is an erroneous finding and requires to be set aside by this Court. Hence, he submits that compensation awarded towards loss of dependency by tribunal is an erroneous finding and requires to be set aside by this Court. He would elaborate his submission to contend that compensation awarded towards pain and suffering will have to be set aside since compensation had been paid under the head "loss of dependency". On these grounds, he prays for the judgment and award passed by tribunal being set aside. 8. Per contra, Smt.Shaila Bellikatti, learned counsel appearing for claimants though would support the finding recorded by the tribunal insofar as reasoning given by the tribunal, with regard to cause of death was due to accidental injuries, she would hasten to add that compensation awarded by the tribunal is abysmally on the lower side and it requires to be enhanced under all heads and as such, she prays for allowing the cross objection filed by the claimants and also prays for dismissal of the appeal filed by the insurer. RE: POINT NO.2: 9. Having regard to rival contentions urged at the bar and after bestowing our careful and anxious considerations to the arguments advanced and on scrutiny of the records secured from the tribunal, it requires to be noticed at the outset itself that a stray sentence has been read out from the evidence of PW-3 by learned counsel appearing for insurer to contend that doctor himself has admitted that death may not be due to the accidental injuries. In other words, doctor being unable to say at this length of time as to whether the death was due to accidental injuries by itself cannot be a ground to arrive at a conclusion that death was not due to accidental injuries. However, fact remains that in the cross-examination, Doctor has admitted that injuries sustained by the deceased was fatal in nature which resulted in septicemia and bedsores which also lead to the deceased suffering paraplegia. Consequently, said injuries having aggravated over the months, had resulted in his ultimate death. In fact, doctor PW-3 himself has clearly admitted that death was due to septicemia and on account of injuries sustained by him. The medical records would also disclose that there was compression of Disc 5 and 6 and as a result of spinal injury having been sustained by deceased-claimant, he was bedridden and also under prolonged treatment till his death on 13.06.2014. The medical records would also disclose that there was compression of Disc 5 and 6 and as a result of spinal injury having been sustained by deceased-claimant, he was bedridden and also under prolonged treatment till his death on 13.06.2014. In the light of said medical evidence available on record, finding recorded by the tribunal that deceased succumbed to the injuries cannot be found fault with and there is no error committed by the tribunal either in law or on facts. Hence, point No.2 is answered against the insurer and in favour of claimant. RE: POINT NO.1: 10. In the instant case, we notice that claimant on sustaining grievous injuries in the road traffic accident that occurred on 02.04.2013, was immediately shifted to Balaji Institute of Neuro Sciences and Trauma, Hubli, after being administered first aid at Saundatti. He was in an unconscious state and was an inpatient at the hospital till 22.04.2013. Ex.P.5, wound certificate issued by the said neuro centre discloses that there was abrasion of Disc 5 and 6 namely the spine injury, fracture of zygomatic arch amongst other fractures sustained all over the body. The injuries sustained to the spine had resulted in deceased suffering paraplegia and was in and out of the hospital on various dates namely at the first instance, he was admitted on 02.04.2013 discharged on 22.04.2013, readmitted on 17.05.2013 discharged on 24.05.2013, admitted on 04.07.2013 discharged on 09.07.2013 and case sheet of the hospital at Ex.P.21 would establish this fact. In fact, tribunal after having minutely scrutinized these documents i.e., medical records has observed that case sheet from 04.07.2013 to 09.07.2013 discloses the precarious situation in which the injured was placed. On account of said prolonged illness and being bedridden had not only resulted in septicemia but also bedsores had occurred. It would not be out of place to mention at this juncture that on account of this prolonged illness, resources at the command of parents of the deceased had to be spent and finally they were forced to sell their only agricultural land to meet the medical bills of their son with the fond hope he may survive. This fact would establish the pathetic situation in which claimants were placed. This fact would establish the pathetic situation in which claimants were placed. The socio economic conditions in which the claimants were placed is also one of the factors which has swayed in the mind of tribunal to award compensation under various heads and rightly so. 11. Be that as it may. Tribunal has construed the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- p.m. Obviously, this exercise has been undertaken on the basis of guess work in the absence of any positive evidence tendered by claimants. However, fact remains that deceased and his father/claimant No.2 were solely dependant on the income generated from agricultural operations carried out by them in the land belonging to them as evidenced from Record of Rights produced as Ex.P.17 to maintain themselves and also their family. Even, said piece of land which was available to them to eke out their livelihood could not be retained in order to meet the escalating hospital bills of deceased-claimant and as such, they were forced to sell the said land under the sale deed dated 07.04.2014 marked as Ex.P.18. Though, claimants have contended that deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- p.m., we are not persuaded by said argument and we have to necessarily undertake the same exercise which was undertaken by tribunal namely make some guess work. We are of the considered view that Rs. 10,000/- p.m. would be just and reasonable income which deceased claimant might have earned not only to meet his expenses but also to meet the expenses of his family members namely mother, father and unmarried sister who were residing with him. Hence, we are of the considered view that if the income of the deceased is taken at Rs.10,000/- p.m., it would not be either excessive or exorbitant. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS, (2017) AIR SC 5157, that where self-employed persons would also be entitled for addition of 40% of the income towards loss of future income, we propose to adopt the same yardstick in the instant case and thereby add 40% to the income of deceased i.e., Rs. 4,000/- and arrive at a conclusion that loss of dependency to the claimants would have been Rs. 4,000/- and arrive at a conclusion that loss of dependency to the claimants would have been Rs. 14,000/- p.m. Since three persons were dependant on his income namely father, mother and unmarried sister, we propose to deduct 1/3rd i.e., Rs. 4,666/- towards personal and living expenses, though Mr.G.N.Raichur, would vehemently contend that only 50% is to be deducted since father cannot be considered as a dependant which argument requires to be considered for the purpose of outright rejection, inasmuch as, deceased was the only son of deceased parents and as such, father was also fully dependant on the income of deceased son in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Hence, we propose to consider income of deceased claimant at Rs. 9,334/- (Rs. 14,000- Rs. 4,666= Rs. 9,334/-) which can be rounded off to Rs. 9,500/- and accordingly compensation towards loss of dependency is determined as under: Monthly income Rs. 10,000 + 40% towards future prospects = Rs. 14,000/- less 1/3rd towards personal expenses = Rs.9,344/- rounded off to Rs. 9,500/- 12. Since deceased was aged about 27 years even according to claim petition as on the date of accident and he having expired after 14 months from the date of accident, appropriate multiplier for the age group of 26 to 30 being 17, we propose to adopt the same. The compensation towards loss of dependency to be awarded to the claimants would be as follows: Rs. 9,500X12X17= Rs. 19,38,000/- 13. Compensation awarded by the tribunal towards pain and suffering, medical expenses, attendant charges, food and nutrition is just and reasonable which would not call for interference and accordingly, contention raised by Mr.Raichur stands rejected. 14. Insofar as the contention raised by Mr.G.N.Raichur with regard to compensation awarded by tribunal towards transportation being excessive deserves to be accepted in part as sum of Rs. 50,000/- awarded is marginally on the higher side and as such, we scale it down or reduce it to Rs. 25,000/-. He would also contend that compensation awarded towards funeral, loss of love and affection, loss of estate is erroneous and on the higher side and ought to be set aside. Insofar as the award of compensation towards funeral is concerned, Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case has held that claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 15,000/- and as such, compensation of Rs. Insofar as the award of compensation towards funeral is concerned, Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case has held that claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 15,000/- and as such, compensation of Rs. 15,000/- is to be awarded and accordingly it is awarded. Insofar as loss of estate is concerned, tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 11,66,400/- which would not be allowable in the changed circumstances namely the original claimant having expired due to accidental injuries and the fact that compensation towards loss of dependency having been awarded to the claimants. However, the loss of estate as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case would be a sum of Rs. 15,000/- and accordingly it is awarded in substitution to Rs.11,66,400/-. 15. Insofar as compensation towards love and affection is concerned, though Mr.Raichur would contend that in Pranay Sethi's case, no compensation has been awarded and as such, tribunal ought not to have granted compensation, would not hold water for the simple reason that Hon'ble Apex Court in a subsequent judgment rendered in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., VS. NANU RAM AND OTHERS, (2018) ACJ 2782, while considering similar claim has held that parents would be entitled to compensation under loss of consortium for loss of love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased. It has been held at paragraph 8.7 as under: "In legal parlance, 'consortium' is a compendious term which encompasses 'spousal consortium', 'parental consortium' and 'filial consortium'." (Emphasis supplied by us) 16. Thus, in the instant case, both the parents being alive would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each towards filial consortium as held by the Hon'ble Apex court in Magma's case referred to supra. So also, the unmarried sister who was residing along with the deceased would be entitled to similar compensation and hence she is also awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards the same. Thus, in all claimants would be entitled to compensation under the following heads: Sl. No. Heads Rs. 1. Loss of dependency Rs. 19,38,000/- 2. Pain and suffering Rs. 75,000/- 3. Medical expenses Rs. 2,61,579/- 4. Attendant charges Rs. 50,000/- 5. Food and nourishment Rs. 25,000/- 6. Transportation Rs. 25,000/- 7. Cremation expenses Rs. 15,000/- 8. Filial consortium @ Rs.40,000/- to each of the claimants 1 to 3 Rs. 1,20,000/- 9. Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 1. Loss of dependency Rs. 19,38,000/- 2. Pain and suffering Rs. 75,000/- 3. Medical expenses Rs. 2,61,579/- 4. Attendant charges Rs. 50,000/- 5. Food and nourishment Rs. 25,000/- 6. Transportation Rs. 25,000/- 7. Cremation expenses Rs. 15,000/- 8. Filial consortium @ Rs.40,000/- to each of the claimants 1 to 3 Rs. 1,20,000/- 9. Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 25,24,579/- 17. Hence, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) Appeal and cross objection are allowed in part, (ii) Judgment and award passed by Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Saundatti, dated 16.06.2015 in M.V.C.No.2520/2013 is hereby modified and in substitution to the award passed by the tribunal, a total sum of Rs. 25,24,579/- is hereby awarded which will carry interest @ 8% p.a. from date of petition till date of payment/deposit whichever is earlier, (iii) 2nd respondent - insurer shall deposit the compensation amount with interest as awarded hereinabove expeditiously and at any rate within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order excluding the amount already deposited, if any, (iv) Apportionment and order for deposit as directed by the tribunal shall hold good for the entire compensation, Registry is directed to retransmit the records along with the amount in deposit and accrued interest if any to the jurisdictional tribunal forthwith. All pending applications stands consigned to records.