JUDGMENT : K. Natarajan, J. Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, it is heard finally. 2. The appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal, assailing the judgment and award dated 29.08.2015 passed in MVC No.901/2014 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred as 'Tribunal' for the sake of brevity). 3. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant as well as respondents. 4. The ranks of the parties before the Tribunal is retained for the sake of convenience. 5. The claimant being the wife of the deceased-Suresh has filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- by arraying the parents of deceased as respondent Nos.2 & 3, inter alia, contending that on 04.11.2013, at about 3.45 p.m., the deceased was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-04/ET-6569 on Gowribidanur - Bengaluru road, when he reached near Muttur cross, a Tata Indica car bearing registration No.KA-02/AB-7580 came from the opposite direction with high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motor cycle of the deceased, due to which the deceased fell down and sustained injury. He was shifted to Government Hospital, Doddaballapur and after the first aid, he was shifted to ESI Hospital, Bengaluru wherein he succumbed to the injuries. 6. The claimants contended that the deceased was working as a Tailor at Ever Blue Apparel Limited and he was drawing monthly salary of Rs.7,550/- and due to the death of the deceased, they had lost the dependency and parents were also arrayed as respondents and they had lost their earning member of the family. That the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of Tata Indica car owned by respondent No.1 and respondent No.4 is the Insurer and they are liable to pay compensation. Hence, they prayed for awarding compensation. 7. In pursuance of the notice, respondent Nos.2 and 3 - parents of the deceased appeared through counsel and filed their statements of objections contending that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month working as a tailor and they had spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenditure and other incidental charges after death of their son and prayed for grant of compensation to them also. The insured of the vehicle, respondent No.1 remained ex-parte. 8. Respondent No.4-Insurance Company filed statement of objections by admitting that the vehicle was insured with them and contended that if any liability is fastened, it is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy and also contended that the owner of the vehicle or Police have never intimated about the accident to them by furnishing the necessary documents. The alleged accident took place due to the negligent on the part of the rider of the motor cycle as it was a head-on collision between the motor cycle and car. There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the car. The owner and Insurer of the motor cycle were not made as parties. They have also disputed the relationship of the first claimant with the deceased and prayed for dismissing the claim petition. 9. Based upon the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: "1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 04.11.2013 at about 3.45 p.m. when the deceased Suresh was riding the motor cycle bearing reg.No.KA-04-ET-6569 on Gowribidanur-Bangalore road, near Muttur Cross, a Tata Indica car bearing reg. No.KA-02-AB-7580 came from the opposite direction with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle. As a result of which deceased had sustained injuries and died in the hospital? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, at what rate and from whom? 3. What order or decree?" 10. To substantiate their contentions, the claimant examined herself as PW.1 and got marked 21 documents and the employer of the deceased was examined as PW.2. On behalf of respondent No.3, the mother of the deceased was examined as RW.1, she also got marked 6 documents. Respondent No.4-Insurance Company, the appellant herein did not lead any evidence except producing the Insurance Policy which was marked as per Ex.R.8 with the consent of both the claimants. 11. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record answered issue No.1 in the affirmative; issue No.2 partly in the affirmative and awarded compensation of Rs.18,52,270/- as under:- 1. Towards loss of dependency Rs.16,30,800.00 2. Towards loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000.00 3. Towards funeral expenses Rs.12,000 4. Towards loss of love and affection Rs.30,000.00 5. Towards medical expenses Rs.61,470.00 Total Rs.18,52,270.00 12. Assailing the award passed by the Tribunal, the respondent-Insurance Company has filed this appeal. 13. Towards loss of dependency Rs.16,30,800.00 2. Towards loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000.00 3. Towards funeral expenses Rs.12,000 4. Towards loss of love and affection Rs.30,000.00 5. Towards medical expenses Rs.61,470.00 Total Rs.18,52,270.00 12. Assailing the award passed by the Tribunal, the respondent-Insurance Company has filed this appeal. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proof of marriage produced by PW.1 to show that claimant was the wife of the deceased. Even the mother of the deceased has stated in her evidence that she has not attended the marriage and seen the claimant. The Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at Rs.7,550/- per month which is exorbitant in the absence of any evidence to that effect. The future prospects is considered at 50% which is also exorbitant. An amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has been awarded towards loss of consortium which is against the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 (Pranay Sethi) and Rs.30,000/- each awarded towards the funeral expenses and loss of love and affection respectively is also exorbitant. Hence, he prayed for reducing the quantum of the award. 14. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4 contended that the Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the deceased at Rs.7,550/- per month as the claimant has produced the salary certificate to show that the deceased was working in Ever Blue Apparel Limited as a Tailor, the employer was also examined as PW.2. After considering the future prospects, the Tribunal awarded the compensation towards the loss of dependency. The Tribunal also awarded towards loss of consortium of Rs.1,00,000/-. Even if the amount awarded on that head by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nanu Ram alias Chuhru vs. Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd, (2018) ACJ 2782(Nanu Ram) is considered the claimant is entitled towards loss of spousal consortium at Rs.40,000/-. The parents i.e., respondent Nos.2 and 3 are entitled towards loss of filial consortium at Rs.30,000/- each. The Tribunal awarded Rs.30,000/- each for funeral expenses and towards loss of love and affection. Though the deceased was treated in a hospital but no compensation has been awarded in respect of transportation and attendant charges. Therefore, learned counsel supported the judgment of the Tribunal and prayed for dismissing the appeal. 15. The Tribunal awarded Rs.30,000/- each for funeral expenses and towards loss of love and affection. Though the deceased was treated in a hospital but no compensation has been awarded in respect of transportation and attendant charges. Therefore, learned counsel supported the judgment of the Tribunal and prayed for dismissing the appeal. 15. Having heard both the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the evidence on record, the following points would arise for our consideration: "1. Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle as contended by the Insurance Company? 2. Whether the award of the Tribunal calls for interference? 3. What order?" 16. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 04.11.2013 at about 3.45 p.m., when the deceased-Suresh was riding the motor cycle bearing No. KA-04/ET-6569 on Gowribidanur-Bengaluru road near Muttur cross, the Tata Indica car bearing registration No.KA-02/AB-7580 collided with motor cycle and due to the accident, the deceased sustained serious injuries. He was taken to the hospital and during treatment, he succumbed to the injuries. Though the counsel for the appellant-Insurer contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the Indica Car, it is contended that there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as well as the driver of the car but nothing is elicited to that effect from the side of the respondent in the cross-examination of PW.1. There is no independent investigation done by the Insurance Company and there are no questions put to PW.1 in the cross-examination in respect of negligence of the deceased. Even otherwise, there is no evidence let in by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal to prove their contentions. On the other hand, during the cross-examination of PW.1, they disputed the relationship of the deceased with PW.1 and suggested that the deceased had not proceeded on company work on the fateful day. and also no suggestions were made to deny the evidence of PW.1 in respect of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Indica car or contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. and also no suggestions were made to deny the evidence of PW.1 in respect of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Indica car or contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. On the other hand, the claimant produced Ex.P1-FIR; Ex.P2-complaint; Ex.P3-Panchanama; Ex.P4-Sketch, Ex.P5-Motor Vehicle Accident Report which clearly go to show that the accident in question has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Indica Car by its driver and charge-sheet has been filed against him. The same was not seriously disputed by the Insurer. There is also no private investigation from their side and no evidence adduced by the insurer before the Tribunal except marking of Insurance Policy with consent. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be acceptable as there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Hence, we answer point No.1 against the appellant and in favour of the claimant-respondent. 17. As regards the relationship between PW.1 and deceased, it is evident from the record that PW.1 and the deceased fell in love and eloped together and got married, they were living together. Even otherwise, RW.1-Mother of the deceased gave consent for allowing the petition. Apart from that, the Insurer Company cannot dispute the marriage and relationship of PW.1 with the deceased. It is an internal family affair between PW.1 and RW.1. Hence, the contention of the appellant-insurer cannot be acceptable and further the Tribunal has rightly held that the claimant was the wife of the deceased. 18. The next question that arises for our consideration is the quantum of compensation to which the claimants are entitled. Claimant-PW.1 produced documents to show that the deceased was working as a Tailor in Ever Blue Apparel Limited and was drawing salary of Rs.7,550/-. In support of the contention, claimant has also examined PW.2-the employer of the deceased and got marked Ex.P17-Salary slip and Ex.P19-Appointment letter of the deceased. On perusal of Ex.P17-Salary slip of the deceased, it shows that he was earning salary of Rs.7,550/- per month. Ex.P19 is the appointment letter which shows that he was appointed in the said garment factory. There is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and Ex.P17. On perusal of Ex.P17-Salary slip of the deceased, it shows that he was earning salary of Rs.7,550/- per month. Ex.P19 is the appointment letter which shows that he was appointed in the said garment factory. There is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and Ex.P17. The Tribunal has rightly considered the salary of deceased for Rs.7,550/- per month and also considered 50% of the salary towards future prospects (Rs.7550/- + Rs.3775/-) and arrived at the income of Rs.11,325/- minus 1/3rd of income i.e., Rs.3,775/- towards personal expenses of the deceased. It comes to Rs.7,550/- x 12(annual income), it comes to Rs.90,600/-. The same has to be multiplied with multiplier 18 which amounts to Rs.16,30,800/-. The Tribunal has rightly awarded the said amount. Therefore, the same calls for no interference. 19. As regards award of compensation on the head of loss of consortium, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nanu Ram (supra) has held that the wife is entitled for spousal consortium and the parents are entitled for filial consortium and therefore, the claimant being the wife is entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards the loss of spousal consortium. Respondent Nos.2 and 3, who are the parents are entitled for Rs.30,000/- each towards the loss of filial consortium. In all, they are entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of loss of consortium. The Tribunal though has not elaborated the same, has rightly awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium which does not call for any interference. 20. Though the Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- towards the funeral expenses and Rs.30,000/- towards love and affection. But as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), Rs.15,000/- each shall only be awarded under these heads, though the Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- each. 21. It is also pertinent to note that the deceased met with the accident on 04.11.2013 and he was shifted to the hospital. He was treated as an in-patient in two hospitals, viz., Government Hospital at Doddaballapur, later, at Shirdi Sai Hospital, Bengaluru and he died on 12.11.2013. For almost eight days he was in the hospital. Though the Tribunal awarded Rs.61,470/- towards the medical expenditure but no amount has been awarded towards the Ambulance, attendant and incidental charges during the period of treatment. Hence, Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards food and nourishment, Ambulance and attendant charges. For almost eight days he was in the hospital. Though the Tribunal awarded Rs.61,470/- towards the medical expenditure but no amount has been awarded towards the Ambulance, attendant and incidental charges during the period of treatment. Hence, Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards food and nourishment, Ambulance and attendant charges. Therefore, even if we reduce Rs.15,000/- from funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- from the head of loss of love and affection, remaining Rs.30,000/- could be compensated under the heads of attendant charges, food and nourishment charges and Ambulance charges, the total compensation amounts to Rs.18,52,270/-. Therefore, even on re-assessment, the compensation would be same. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. 22. In the result, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. The amount deposited shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. Parties to bear their respective costs. In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.A. No.1 of 2018 stands disposed by permitting the respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4 to withdraw the balance amount to be deposited by the appellant Insurance Company in the ratio of 40% to respondent No.1, 30% to respondent No.3 and 30% to respondent No.4 respectively. The balance amount shall be deposited by the Insurance Company within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. Accordingly, I.A. No.1 of 2018 is disposed.