JUDGMENT : JASPREET SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Syed Aftab Ahmad learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava for the respondent-Insurance Company. 2. None appeared for the respondents no.2 and 3. Accordingly, the first appeal from order has been heard ex parte against them. 3. At the outset, it may be stated that the aforesaid appeal was dismissed in default vide order dated 12.12.2018. However, after passing of the order, learned counsel for the appellant had appeared and had made an application citing reasons for his non-appearance. This Court upon considering the said request, passed the following order which is being reproduced hereinafter:- "learned counsel for the appellant appears just after passing the order and submits that he was engaged in another court when present case is called out and the same was dismissed in default. He moved an application for recall of the order of dismissal of appeal. The FAFO is being adjourned and listed for hearing on the adjournment on the part of appellant. Since just after passing the order learned counsel for the appellant appears and express that his omission was done bonafidely, therefore, the application for recall of dismissal in appeal may be considered. The said request may be considered on the next date of listing if learned counsel for the appellant is ready to argue the appeal without seeking adjournment. List the said application in the first week of January, 2019 for hearing along with record of FAFO. Till the next date of listing the said order shall be kept in abeyance." 4. Thus, the order of dismissal was in abeyance and now as the matter has been finally heard thus the application filed the appellant has been rendered otiose. 5. By means of the present first appeal from order, the claimant-appellant seeks enhancement of the award, passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Lucknow in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.379 of 2008, wherein an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- has been awarded to the claimant-appellant on account of the death of her 20 year old son, namely, Soaib Rahman Ansari. 6. Briefly the facts giving rise to the present first appeal from order are noted as under:- 7. 6. Briefly the facts giving rise to the present first appeal from order are noted as under:- 7. Soaib Rahman Ansari was a resident of Alisha Nagar, Jankipuram, Lucknow and was a first year medical student pursuing his career in Dental Science, in Career Institute of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Lucknow and was moving on his motorcycle on the fateful day from his residence towards his college. As when he reached near Police Station Madion, near the over-bridge the offending vehicle bearing number UP 32 T-6968 came from behind and was being driven rashly and negligently by the respondent no.3 herein, dashed the same against the motorcycle of Soaib Rahman Ansari. 8. In the aforesaid accident, Soaib Rahman Ansari sustained grieves injuries and was admitted in Medical College at Lucknow. However, during his treatment, he succumbed to his injuries and met his maker on 13.12.2007. The appellant who is mother of deceased Soaib Rahman Ansari preferred a claim petition before the motor accident claims tribunal which was registered as motor accident claim petition No.379 of 2008 claiming a sum of Rs.46,00,000 as compensation. 9. The tribunal after affording opportunity to the parties to contest the case, upon their pleading, framed seven issues. While deciding issue nos.1 and 5, after considering the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, it found that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle number UP 32 T-6968 and as a result of the aforesaid accident Soaib Rahman Ansari sustained grieves injuries and ultimately which led to his death. The tribunal also found that the offending vehicle had a valid insurance and its driver also possessed a valid driving licence. 10. The tribunal also found that the offending vehicle had a valid insurance and its driver also possessed a valid driving licence. 10. After considering the issue no.7 regarding the quantum of compensation, the tribunal found that since the deceased was 20 years of age and was pursuing his career in medical sciences his income though notional was assessed at Rs.4500/- per month from which a deduction of 2/3rd was made and applying a multiplier of 11 considering the age of the claimant's mother at 52 years, the tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs.1,98,000/-, to which it added Rs.2000/- as funeral expenses and Rs.2500/- as loss of estate and considering the expenses incurred during his treatment between 11.12.2007 to 13.12.2007, a total sum of Rs.2,25,000/- along with 6% interest was awarded in favour of the claimant and the liability was fixed on the insurance company. 11. The insurance company has not assailed the award nor has filed any cross appeal or objection. It is the learned counsel for the appellant who has stated that the tribunal has granted the compensation on the lower side as it has incorrectly assessed the multiplier upon the age of the claimant rather it should have been assessed on the age of the deceased. It has further been urged that since the deceased was a bachelor, the tribunal has erred in making a deduction of 2/3rd in his income and rather the income should have been deducted only 50% as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It has also been urged that the amount towards funeral expenses and loss of estate and filial consortium has also been inadequately awarded. 12. It has also been urged that the tribunal has not considered the future prospects of the deceased since he was a first year B.D.S. student and had a bright future and also the tribunal specifically failed to consider that the deceased had left behind his unmarried sister and widowed mother and there was no other male member in the family. The tribunal has also granted interest of 6% which is on the lower side and the learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that the interest ought to have been granted @ 12% per annum. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant has cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. D.T.C., (2009) 6 SCC 121 . 13. The learned counsel for the appellant has cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. D.T.C., (2009) 6 SCC 121 . The learned counsel has also cited the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2011 33 SCC 566 to indicate that multiplier ought to have been considered according to the age of the deceased and not on the age of the parents. The learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi., (2017) 16 SCC 680 . 14. In light of the above judgments, he urged that the tribunal below has erred in not considering the future prospect and for the above mentioned cumulative reason, the tribunal has granted an inadequate compensation which requires to be enhanced by this Court. 15. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record the point for determination involved in the above appeal is; whether the amount of compensation granted by the tribunal is just and proper. 16. Upon considering the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant and going through the record, this Court finds that the tribunal has not appreciated the correct position of law while granting the compensation. It is not disputed that the deceased was 20 years of age. It is also not disputed that he was a first year B.D.S. student and had a future ahead of him in the field of medical science. 17. It is trite law that while considering the compensation, the multiplier to be adopted is based upon the age of the deceased and not on the age of the parents as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) followed in P.S. Somnathan Vs. District Insurance Officer, (2011) 3 SCC 566 wherein it has held in para 16 as under:- "The High Court unfortunately took a very technical view in the matter of applying the multiplier. The High Court cannot keep out of its consideration the claim of the daughter of the first claimant, since the daughter was impleaded, and was 49 years of age. Admittedly, the deceased was looking after the entire family. The High Court cannot keep out of its consideration the claim of the daughter of the first claimant, since the daughter was impleaded, and was 49 years of age. Admittedly, the deceased was looking after the entire family. In determining the age of the mother, the High Court should have accepted the age of the mother at 65, as given in the claim petition, since there is no controversy on that. By accepting the age of mother at 67, the High Court further reduced the multiplier from 6 to 5, even if we accept the reasoning of the High Court to be correct. The reasoning of the High Court is not correct in view of the ratio in Sarla Verma (supra). Following the same the High Court should have proceeded to compute the compensation on the age of the deceased. Thus, the finding of the High Court is contrary to the ratio in Sarla Verma (supra), which is the leading decision on this question and which we follow." 18. Accordingly, since the undisputed fact is that the deceased at the time of the accident was 20 years of age accordingly as per the multiplier applicable in his case as held in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) wherein in para 42 it has been held as under:- "We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years." Thus, he would be entitled to a multiplier of 18. 19. 19. The tribunal has also erred in making a deduction of 2/3rd from his income whereas in terms of the settled proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) wherein it has been held in paras-30 and 31 as under:- "30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six. "31.Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependant on the father." 20. Thus upon the death of a bachelor 50% deduction ought to have been made. Since the income as assessed by the tribunal was Rs.4500/- which has not been challenged by the respondent, consequently the same is affirmed and upon which 50% deduction is made and the income available to be considered, would be Rs.2250/-. 21. Learned counsel for the appellant is right in suggesting that in light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Parnay Sethi (supra) followed in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. 21. Learned counsel for the appellant is right in suggesting that in light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Parnay Sethi (supra) followed in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram,2018 SCCOnLineSC 1546 that future prospects have to be considered and in respect of future prospect it has been held as under:- "10.With respect to the issue of Future Prospects, a Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) has held that in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, and was below 40 years of age, an addition of 40% of the established income should be granted towards Future Prospects. Future Prospect are to be awarded on the basis of: 1. the nature of the deceased's employment; 2. the age of the deceased." 22. Thus, the future prospect also ought to have been considered and considering the fact that the deceased as indicated above was a first year B.D.S. student and expecting to have a good career accordingly 40% of the aforesaid income is also added towards future prospect making the same as Rs.2250 + 900, thus the income available would be Rs.3150/-. 23. The Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd (supra) considering and following the case of Pranay Sethi on the question regarding law for grant of compensation under the head of loss of consortium has held in paras 8.7 as under:- "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. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse., Rajesh and Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 . 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. vs. 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 (5t 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. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss 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. 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." 24. Thus, this Court finds that the appellant is entitled to Filial Consortium and the compensation is redetermined as under:- (1) Income = 4500 per month (ii) 40% addition for future prospect = 1800 per month (ii) Thus total income (4500+1800)= 6300 per month (iv) Deduction @ 50% being a bachelor=3150- per month (v) Multiplier 18. Thus 3150x12x18= 6,80,400 (vi) For filial consortium = 40,000/- (viii) For loss of estate and funeral expenses= 15000+15000=30,000.Total compensation= Rs.7,50,400/- 25. Thus this Court finds that the appellant is entitled to a total sum as determined above. 26. However, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant regarding the enhancement rate of interest from 6% to 12% is turned down; inasmuch as the grant of 6% of interest is absolutely just and proper and it requires no interference. 27. This Court is fortified in its view in light of a recent judgment reported in Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Bhairav Prasad and others, 2019 1 ADJ 538 wherein the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court have been followed. 28. Thus, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.7,50,400/- along with interest @ 6% per annum as per the direction of the tribunal. Since an amount of Rs.3,25,000 has already been awarded by the tribunal thus the appellant shall be entitled to an additional sum of Rs.4,25,400/-. 29. The appeal stands partially allowed in light of the direction given above, the award passed by the motor accident claims tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Lucknow dated 12.05.2010 shall stand modified to the above extent. There shall be no order as to costs. 30. The record of the motor accident claim petition shall be remitted back to the tribunal concerned within a period of three weeks.