JUDGMENT : SANJEEV KUMAR, J. 1. Union of India and others are in appeal against the award dated 15.11.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu (Tribunal) in claim petition titled Pooja and others v. Union of India and others, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 17,61,550/- in favour of the respondents/claimants. The award impugned has been challenged inter alia on the following grounds: (i) That the award of compensation is exorbitant for the reasons that the deceased was a casual labourer getting Rs. 4500/- per month as wages. The Tribunal enhanced the wages by raising 50% by way of loss of future prospectus which is contrary to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of 2018(1) JKJ 25 [SC] National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others ( AIR 2017 SC 5157 ). (ii) That the award on account of funeral expenses, loss of consortium and love and affection to the children and mother quantified at Rs. 25,000/-, Rs. 01.00 lac, Rs. 03.00 lac and Rs. 50,000/- is exorbitant and contrary to the law laid down in case of Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi, (iii) That the amount awarded on other heads like expenditure of attendants and expenses on medicines etc. is also exorbitant and not supported by evidence on record. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it has been noticed that the deceased was 28 years old at the time of accident as is revealed by the post-mortem report and was survived by wife, Pooja, mother, Krishna and two minor sons Harsh and Aashish. The deceased was casual employee working as Safai Karamchari and receiving monthly salary of Rs. 4500/- and he is, therefore, taken to be a self employed person. Since the age of the deceased was less than 40 years and, therefore, there has to be addition @ 40% of the established income for the purposes of computation of loss of dependence. Similarly, as authoritatively laid in the case of Pranay Sethi, the sum payable under conventional heads like loss of estates, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. But going by the latest pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of 2018(3) JKJ 169 [SC] Magma General Insurance Co. Similarly, as authoritatively laid in the case of Pranay Sethi, the sum payable under conventional heads like loss of estates, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. But going by the latest pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of 2018(3) JKJ 169 [SC] Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others reported as 2018 (9) JT 195 , the consortium could be of three types: (a) Spousal consortium. (b) Parental consortium. (c) Filial consortium. 3. A sum of Rs. 40,000/- payable on account of loss of consortium as laid down in case of Pranay Sethi, is thus, payable to each of the aforesaid categories. That being the position in the instant case, the respondent No. 1 would be entitled to Rs. 40,000/- on account of spousal consortium, respondent No. 2, the mother, would be entitled to filial consortium to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- and two minor sons i.e. respondent No. 3 and 4, would also be entitled to Rs. 40,000/- each on account of parental consortium. The argument was raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that Pranay Sethi's judgment is a constitution bench judgment and therefore, the respondents/claimants are entitled to only Rs. 40,000/- on account of consortium and the later judgment being the judgment of smaller bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (two judge bench judgment) cannot be said to have been laid, down a correct law and is otherwise not binding in the face of constitution bench judgment in case of Pranay Sethi. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel in light of the judgment rendered in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others (supra). It is true that the judgment in case Magma General Insurance (supra) is rendered by two judge bench but it has duly taken note of what was held by the constitution bench in Pranay Sethi's case. In case of Pranay Sethi, it is held that for the loss of spousal consortium, a fixed sum of Rs. 40,000/- shall be payable and there is no discussion with regard to other types of consortiums like parental consortium and filial consortium. In case of Pranay Sethi, it is held that for the loss of spousal consortium, a fixed sum of Rs. 40,000/- shall be payable and there is no discussion with regard to other types of consortiums like parental consortium and filial consortium. In Pranay Sethi's case, the reference is only with regard to consortium as is the term usually understood i.e. spousal consortium but the later judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has expanded the scope of the term so as to encompass "the parental consortium" and "filial consortium" as well. 5. I do not therefore, see any contradiction between the constitution bench judgment in Pranay Sethi's case and the judgment of two judge bench in later judgment of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. (supra). Later only supplements the former. 6. For the foregoing discussion, I allow this appeal to the following extent: Loss of dependency (i) Monthly income = Rs. 4500/- Add 40% towards future prospectus = 4500 + 1800 = Rs. 6300/- (ii) Deduction on account of personal expenses @ = Rs. 1575/- (iii) Monthly income to be taken into consideration = Rs. 6300 - 1575 = 4725/- (iv) Annual loss of dependency = Rs. 4725 x 12 x 17 = 9,63,900/- (v) Funeral expenses = Rs. 15,000/- (vi) Loss of estates = Rs. 15,000/- (vii) Loss of spousal consortium payable to Pooja respondent No. 1 = Rs. 40,000/- (viii) Loss of filial consortium payable to mother respondent No. 2 = Rs. 40,000/- (ix) Loss of parental consortium payable to minor son respondent No. 3 = Rs. 40,000/- (x) Loss of parental consortium payable to minor son respondent No. 4 = Rs. 40,000/- Total = Rs. 11,53,900/- 7. The amount of compensation shall be payable to the respondents/claimants in the manner provided in the impugned award alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of institution of the petition till realisation. 8. The impugned award is modified to the aforesaid extent and the appeal alongwith connected IA is according, disposed of.