JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the Award/Judgment dated 06.05.2016 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case No.194/2011, whereby and whereunder the learned Tribunal has been pleased to allow the claim petition of the applicants and has held that the claimants are entitled to a total amount of Rs. 3,05,000/- towards compensation to be paid by the O.P. No.2-respondent No.1 (herein)/ Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing of claim application i.e. 27.06.2011 till the date of payment i.e. one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 3. As per the claim application, the facts of the case is that deceased Lalindera Munda along with his brother Sikander Munda was going to Village Kerketta to return the sound system on 11.03.2011 by the Savari Vehicle bearing registration No. JH 01 AF 7451, which met with an accident due to which Lalindera Munda sustained injuries and subsequently died. For the occurrence, FIR was lodged by Ranthu Munda, brother of the deceased vide Khalari P.S.Case No.18/11, u/S 279, 304 A of the IPC. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted by the I.O. against Mantu Viswakarma for the offence under Section 279, 304 A of the IPC, who was driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time of the accident. Applicants who are mother and brother of the deceased filed the compensation case as legal heirs and dependants upon the deceased, since he was unmarried / bachelor. It is further pleaded that at the time of death, age of the deceased was about 20 years and he was earning an amount of Rs.4,500/- per month, as he was skilled mason and also a cultivator. Due to his sudden death, the applicants have lost their source of income and dependency. The O.P. No.1/respondent No.2 (herein)/owner has not appeared, therefore, the case has been proceeded ex-parte against him- herein also he has not appeared. Due to his sudden death, the applicants have lost their source of income and dependency. The O.P. No.1/respondent No.2 (herein)/owner has not appeared, therefore, the case has been proceeded ex-parte against him- herein also he has not appeared. O.P. No.2/Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. herein respondent No.1 appeared and filed written statement, wherein it is admitted at para4 of the written statement that the offending vehicle Savari bearing registration No. JH 01 AF 7451 was registered in the name of Kaleshwar Mahto (O.P. No.1), which was covered under the Insurance Policy issued by them at the material time of the accident vide Policy No. OG-11-9995-1812-00000362, valid for the period from 07.05.2010 to 06.05.2011, but their liability is limited subject to violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, if driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving license, at the material time of the accident, Insurance Company will not be liable to pay any compensation and indemnify the Award. Age and income of the deceased as stated in the application was also denied by them and facts regarding driving the vehicle rashly and negligently was also denied and further it was pleaded that the applicants have to prove this fact on record by adducing evidence. 4. The parties appeared before the Tribunal and were heard. After examining the witnesses and perusing the evidences on record, the learned Tribunal framed followings issues:- (I) Whether the claim application as framed is maintainable? (II) Whether the applicants have valid cause of action for the case ? (III) Whether the deceased Lalindra Munda died due to rash and negligent driving of Savari bearing Registration No. JH01 AF 7451 ? (IV) Whether the driver of the offending vehicle had valid and effective D.L. at the material time of accident ? (V) Whether the offending vehicle had valid permit on the date of accident ? (VI) Whether the applicants are entitled for the relief as prayed for ? if so, from whom and to what extent ? (VII) To what relief or reliefs if any the applicants are entitled to ? 5. (V) Whether the offending vehicle had valid permit on the date of accident ? (VI) Whether the applicants are entitled for the relief as prayed for ? if so, from whom and to what extent ? (VII) To what relief or reliefs if any the applicants are entitled to ? 5. Learned Tribunal after perusal of the records and examining the evidences and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, held that claimants are entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs.3,05,000/-, out of which they have already received interim compensation amount Rs.50,000/- u/S 140 of the M.V. Act and after it’s deduction amounts remains due Rs.2,55,000/- (Two lac fifty five thousand) for which applicants are entitled and O.P.No.2-Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. was directed to make payment of compensation amount of Rs.2,55,000/- (Two lac fifty five thousand) to the applicant No.1 namely Sudhni Devi, mother of the deceased within a month from the date of Award with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing of the case i.e. 27.06.2011 till realization of amount. The applicant No.1 was further directed to receive the said amount for herself and on behalf of other applicant. 6. Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants emphatically argues that the income assessed by the learned Court below is very meagre inasmuch as there was a specific contention by the claimants that the deceased, who was a mason and earning an amount of Rs.4,500 per month, however, ignoring the abovementioned fact the learned Court below took the income of the deceased as Rs.2500/- per month and assessed an annual loss of dependency as Rs.30,000/- which is grossly meagre. In this regard, the learned counsel places heavy reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Shiva Kumar M. Vs. Managing Director, BMTC reported in 2017 (2) TAC 22 SC and argues that income of the deceased should be computed as Rs. 4500/- per month. Learned counsel further argues that learned Tribunal has further erred in not appreciating the fact that the deceased was survived by 2 members, who are claimants i.e. Mother and unmarried Sister, thus, deduction should be 1/3rd instead of 1/2 towards personal expenses and towards conventional heads an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- should be given instead of Rs. 4500/- per month. Learned counsel further argues that learned Tribunal has further erred in not appreciating the fact that the deceased was survived by 2 members, who are claimants i.e. Mother and unmarried Sister, thus, deduction should be 1/3rd instead of 1/2 towards personal expenses and towards conventional heads an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- should be given instead of Rs. 35,000/- and interest should also be awarded by following the principles of law as laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company Vs. Nanu Ram, reported in 2018 (4) JLJR 230. Learned counsel further argues that no amount towards Future Prospects has been awarded by the learned Tribunal as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . On such grounds, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the claimants are entitled for the additional compensation as stated above. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Insurance Company submits that the appellants have received the entire awarded amount and after receiving the same he has filed this appeal and as such, this appeal ought to be dismissed on this ground alone. Learned counsel further argues that as far as income is concerned, there is no evidence with regard to monthly income of the deceased. Learned counsel further submits that deduction of 1/2 towards personal expenses is tenable in the eyes of law as there are only the claimants (mother and sister of the deceased). On such grounds, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that the impugned award as awarded by the learned Tribunal is reasonable and sufficient. 8. In view of the submissions of the parties and after perusal of the records and case laws relied upon by the parties, it appears that at the relevant time of the accident, the driver of the vehicle was in possession of valid and effective driving license and owner of the offending vehicle possessed all relevant documents related to offending vehicle, such as route permit and certificate of fitness and there is no violation of any terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the appeal for enhancement of compensation amount has been filed after receiving the entire compensation amount and thus not maintainable, is not acceptable to this Court and is totally misconceived. Only because the appellants have received the awarded amount, they cannot be precluded from preferring an Appeal. Admittedly, right of appeal is statutory right and the same cannot be taken away merely on the account that claimants/appellants have received in full and final compensation amount. The ratio finds strength from the decision of the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court in case of Gopal Chandra Saha Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., reported in (1999) 3 Gau LR 234 para 9 of which reads as under : 9. We are not impressed by the argument of Dr. H.K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company, that as the appellant has already received the amount as awarded by the Tribunal along with the interest towards full and final settlement of his claim and has filed this appeal after two years of the expiry of the limitation, this appeal should be dismissed. No documents has been produced before us to show that the appellant has at any time agreed that he would not file any appeal before this Court if he was paid the amount of compensation with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. Nor does section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, make any provision that a person who has received the amount as awarded by the Claim Tribunal cannot file any appeal for enhancement of the awarded amount. The delay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned by this Court and has been condoned in this case. Considering however the fact that the amount as awarded by the Tribunal has already been received by the appellant before he filed this appeal and considering further the fact that this appeal has been filed after a period of almost two years beyond the expiry of the period of limitation, we are not inclined to grant interest on the enhanced amount or the costs of this appeal in favour of the appellant. In case, however, the respondent-insurance company fails to pay the enhanced amount to the appellant within three months from today, the appellant will be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of the filing of this appeal. 9. The similar issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Patna High Court in case of Ignatia Kujur Vs. National Insurance Company Limited, reported in (1998) 2 BLJR 138 relevant para of which reads as under: As a matter of fact, having been fully satisfied with the award passed by the Claims Tribunal she received the amount in full and final settlement of the award. It is an intentional and voluntary relinquishment of a known right with full knowledge of material facts. Curiously enough the amount of compensation was received by the appellants in October, 1993 but till the filing of the application by the insurance company the appellant did not disclose this fact in this appeal nor came with a case that the compensation amount so awarded by the Claims Tribunal was received reserving the right to pursue the appeal. 10. The ratio of Hon’ble Patna High Court is not applicable in the instant case as at the time of receiving the amount, the claimants had raised an objection regarding meagre compensation and also in view of the fact that it is beneficial legislation. 11. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants regarding assessment of income, the Tribunal has considered the assessment of income of Rs.2500/- per month whereas, it should have been Rs.4500/- in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Shiva Kumar M. Vs. Managing Director, BMTC, reported in 2017 (2) TAC 11 (S.C), para 9 of which reads as under :- 9. In the absence of any serious dispute on the part of the respondent on the avocation and income, we are of the view that the Tribunal and for that matter the High Court should have accepted the evidence of the appellant. Therefore, we assess his monthly income Rs.15,000/- and after deducting one third towards his personal expenses, the income will be assessed for the purpose of computation of compensation as Rs.10,000/- per month. The income is substituted as Rs.10,000/- in place of Rs. 6,500/-, as assessed by the High Court. Therefore, we assess his monthly income Rs.15,000/- and after deducting one third towards his personal expenses, the income will be assessed for the purpose of computation of compensation as Rs.10,000/- per month. The income is substituted as Rs.10,000/- in place of Rs. 6,500/-, as assessed by the High Court. The compensation will carry interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of the claim petition before the Tribunal. Rest of the Award is maintained. 12. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that future prospects, the issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in 2017 (4) TAC 673 (SC) in para 59 of which it has held as under :- 59……….. Taking into consideration the cumulative factors, namely, passage of time, the changing society, escalation of price, the change in price index, the human attitude to follow a particular pattern of life, etc., an addition of 40 % of the established income of the deceased towards future prospects and where the deceased was below 40 years an addition of 25 % where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years would be reasonable. 13. As regards the other arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants regarding different heads as well as interest are concerned. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. reported in 2018 (4) JLJR 230. Para 8.2, 8.5, 8.6 and 8.7 are reproduced hereinbelow :- 8.2 With respect to the issue of deduction from the income of the deceased, the Insurance Company contended that the deduction ought to have been 1/2nd not 1/3rd, since the deceased was a bachelor. This issue has been dealt with in paragraph 32 of the judgment in Sarla Verma (supra) wherein this Court took the view that where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third, as contribution to the family will be taken as two-third…. 8.5. The Insurance Company has contended that the High Court had wrongly awarded Rs. 8.5. The Insurance Company has contended that the High Court had wrongly awarded Rs. 1,00,000 towards loss of love and affection, and Rs. 25,000 towards funeral expenses. The judgment of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) has set out the various amounts to be awarded as compensation under the conventional heads in case of death. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced herein below : "Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit 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% in a span of three years." (Emphasis supplied) As per the aforesaid judgment, the compensation of Rs. 25,000 towards funeral expenses is decreased to Rs. 15,000. The amount awarded by the High Court towards loss of love and affection is, however, maintained. 8.6 The MACT as well as the High Court have not awarded any compensation with respect to Loss of Consortium and Loss of Estate, which are the other conventional heads under which compensation is awarded in the event of death, as recognized by the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra). The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. The Court is duty-bound and entitled to award "just compensation", irrespective of whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the Claimant. In exercise of our power under Article 142, and in the interests of justice, we deem it appropriate to award an amount of Rs. 15,000 towards Loss of Estate to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 8.7 A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) 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'. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. 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'. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse, Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh and Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 54 . 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, co-operation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation”, (BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (5th ed. 1979). 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." Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognized that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium. 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, Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram @ Jagmal Singh & Ors. 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, Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram @ Jagmal Singh & Ors. v. Sohi Ram & Ors., 2017 (4) RLW 3368 (Raj); Uttarakhand High Court in Smt. Rita Rana & Anr. v. Pradeep Kumar & 6 Ors., 2014 (3) UC 1687; Karnataka High Court in Lakshman and Ors. v. Susheela Chand Choudhary & Ors., (1996) 3 Kant LJ 570 (DB)]. 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 (supra). 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. 14. Taking into account the ratio laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra ) as well as Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra), the claimants are entitled for the following compensation amounts :- Head Compensation Amount i. Income Rs.4,500 ii. Future Prospects Rs.1,800 (40 % of the income) iii. Deduction towards personal Expenditure Rs.2,100 (i.e. 1/3 of total income) iv. Total Income Rs.4,200 v. Multiplier 18 vi. Loss of future income Rs. 9,07,200 (4200 x 12 x 18) vii. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000 viii. Loss of estate Rs.15,000 ix. Loss of Filial Consortium Rs.80,000 Total Compensation awarded Rs.10,17,200 (Ten Lakhs Seventeen thousands two hundred) 15. In view of the aforesaid observation, the award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above. Accordingly, the Insurance Company-respondent is directed to pay the compensation amount to the claimants/ appellants as indicated hereinabove, within a period of three months from today. It is made clear that the claimant have already received some amount, the same shall be deducted from the total amount to be paid to the claimants as awarded hereinabove. Accordingly, the Insurance Company-respondent is directed to pay the compensation amount to the claimants/ appellants as indicated hereinabove, within a period of three months from today. It is made clear that the claimant have already received some amount, the same shall be deducted from the total amount to be paid to the claimants as awarded hereinabove. Needless to say that considering however the fact that the amount as awarded by the learned Tribunal has already been received by the appellants before they filed this appeal and considering further the fact that this appeal has been filed after receiving the awarded amount, I am not inclined to grant interest on the enhanced amount or the costs of appeal in favour of the appellants. In case, however, the respondent-Insurance Company fails to pay the difference of enhanced amount to the appellants as awarded hereinabove within five months from today, the appellants will be entitled to interest @ 12 % per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of the filing of this appeal. It goes without saying that the amount already paid shall be adjusted before making final payment. 16. Office is directed to return the lower Court records to the Court below at the earliest. 17. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant Appeal is hereby disposed of. 18. As a sequel to the disposal of the present Appeal, pending I.As. if any, also stand disposed of.