JUDGMENT : ARAVIND KUMAR, J. 1. This is a claimants' appeal for enhancement of compensation, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the IX Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Addl. MACT, Belagavi in M.V.C. No.282/2014 dated 07.04.2016. 2. Claimants being the minor son, father and mother of deceased Vijay Khannukar filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.1,50,00,000/-. It was contended that deceased along with his wife Smt. Smitha and other relatives had proceeded to Sankeshwar in a car to have Ganesh Darshan and while returning to Belagavi on National Highway 4, at about 01:00 p.m. near Ontamuri Ghat, a truck bearing registration No.MH-04/DD-7475 coming from opposite side deviation from Belagavi side towards Sankeshwar was driven in high speed and that too negligently dashed to the road divider and crossed over to the other side of the road and dashed against the incoming vehicles including the car bearing registration No.KA-22/P- 4586 driven by deceased Vijay Khannukar. It was further contended that due to the impact, deceased Vijay Khannukar and his wife Smt. Smitha died at the spot on account of grievous injuries sustained. Hence, contending that deceased was working as a Deputy Manager, Marketing in Ashok Iron Works Private Limited, Belagavi and earning Rs.65,000/- per month, compensation was sought for by the minor son and parents of deceased Sri.Vijay Khannukar. 3. Tribunal after issuing notice to the insurer and the insured and after considering the objections filed on behalf of insurer, allowed the claim petition in part by awarding a total compensation of Rs.16,65,000/- with interest at 6% per annum. Compensation awarded under various heads by the tribunal is as follows: Towards loss of dependency Rs.15,36,000/- Towards loss of love and affection Rs.1,00,000/- Towards funeral expenses Rs.25,000/- Towards transportation of dead body Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.16,65,000/- Hence, this appeal by the claimants for enhancement. 4. We have heard the arguments of Shri B.M.Patil, learned counsel appearing for appellants - claimants, Shri R.R.Mane, learned counsel appearing for the insurer - respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 - insured is served and unrepresented. 5. 4. We have heard the arguments of Shri B.M.Patil, learned counsel appearing for appellants - claimants, Shri R.R.Mane, learned counsel appearing for the insurer - respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 - insured is served and unrepresented. 5. It is the contention of Shri B.M.Patil, learned counsel appearing for claimants that tribunal has not considered the evidence in proper perspective and has awarded abysmally very less compensation and as such, he has sought for enhancement of compensation under all heads and prays for allowing the appeal by granting the compensation as sought for in the application filed before the Tribunal. 6. Per contra, Shri R.R.Mane learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent insurer would submit that compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and proper and it would not call for any interference and as such, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records secured from the tribunal, we are of considered view that following point would arise for our consideration: "Whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal in M.V.C. No.282/2014 is just and reasonable or it requires to be enhanced? If so, to what extent?" 8. Since issues relating to accident in question having occurred on 22.09.20013, death of 1st claimant's father including his mother, issuance of policy to the offending vehicle and same being in force as on date of accident, as also the fact that driver of the offending vehicle having been charge sheeted by the jurisdictional Police for negligent driving, are all undisputed facts and as such, they are not delved upon in this appeal, as it would be repetition of facts. RE. ANSWER ON THE POINT FORMULATED HEREINABOVE: 9. Tribunal while assessing compensation towards loss of dependency has noticed that as per Ex.P-33, deceased had been appointed as Deputy Manager, Marketing at Ashoka Iron Works Private Limited, Belagavi and his total salary was Rs.48,920/-. Income Tax returns of the deceased filed for five years (which was collectively marked as Ex.P-34) and the salary statement (Ex.P-35) was also noticed. In order to prove the contents of Ex.P- 35, claimants had examined P.W.4, who was working as officer in H.R. Department of M/s. Ashok Iron Works Private Limited, Belagavi. Income Tax returns of the deceased filed for five years (which was collectively marked as Ex.P-34) and the salary statement (Ex.P-35) was also noticed. In order to prove the contents of Ex.P- 35, claimants had examined P.W.4, who was working as officer in H.R. Department of M/s. Ashok Iron Works Private Limited, Belagavi. On the ground that P.W.4 is not the Appointing Authority and Chairman being the Appointing Authority, tribunal has arrived at a conclusion that it is not possible to accept the evidence of P.W.4. This is rather intriguing and surprising. 10. At the outset, it requires to be noticed that deceased was a Diploma Holder as per certificate Ex.P.31 and was also a graduate in MBA as per Marks Card Ex.P.37. His appointment letter Ex.P.33 would clearly indicate he was working as Deputy Manager, Marketing at M/s.Ashok Iron Works Private Limited and Manager of H.R.Department of said Company, has reiterated this fact. The income tax returns of the deceased filed for the past four years preceding the date of accident which was collectively marked at Ex.P.34 would clearly disclose the details of the salary drawn by the deceased, the amount of tax deducted at source etc., and in spite of said cogent evidence available on record, tribunal committed a serious error in disbelieving said evidence. A notional income of Rs.12,000/- has been taken into consideration to determine the loss of dependency which was impermissible. This error which has crept in the award both on facts and contrary to evidence available on record requires to be set right by modifying the judgment and award suitably. 11. As per salary certificate Ex.P.33, deceased was drawing gross salary of Rs.5,87,044/- per annum or Rs.45,297/- p.m. The salary register extract which has been produced as per Ex.P.35, the authenticity of which cannot be disbelieved particularly in the background of PW-4-Ravi R. Kulkarni, an officer working in Human Resources Department of M/s.Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd., Udyambag, Belagavi, having entered the witness box deposing with regard to salary of the deceased. The salary statement produced at Ex.P.35 and which was got marked through PW-3 (Sri Parashuram Gundu Khannukar-father of deceased) and no contra evidence being produced to disbelieve the contents of Ex.P.35 deserves to be accepted. The salary statement produced at Ex.P.35 and which was got marked through PW-3 (Sri Parashuram Gundu Khannukar-father of deceased) and no contra evidence being produced to disbelieve the contents of Ex.P.35 deserves to be accepted. It is also to be noticed that Form No.16 issued by deductor which relates to deduction of tax at source in respect of salaried persons is pertaining to the deceased has been produced and collectively marked as Ex.P.34 including income tax returns for the assessment year 2010-2011. The certified extract of computation of income of the deceased has also been produced. Thus, taking these documents cumulatively into consideration, gross income of the deceased can be safely concluded as Rs.39,326/- as reflected in salary statement Ex.P.35. A sum of Rs.2,000+Rs.200 is to be deducted towards income tax and professional tax from the gross income which has also been deducted by the employer. When same is deducted, net salary of deceased would be Rs.37,126/- (Rs.39,326-Rs.2,200=Rs.37,126/-) which can be rounded off to Rs.37,125/-. On account of his sudden demise, dependants would be entitled to compensation towards loss of dependency and as deceased was aged 33 years, appropriate multiplier to be adopted would be 16 and rightly so same has been adopted by the tribunal. 12. However, tribunal has not taken into consideration loss of future prospects and this issue being no more res integra and same having been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS, (2017) AIR SC 5157, 40% of the income of the deceased requires to be added to the net income of deceased and 40% of the net income would be Rs.14,850/- and thereby gross loss of dependency would be Rs.51,975/-. Wife, son and parents of the deceased were his dependent (wife has also expired on account of injuries sustained in the same accident) and as such, 1/3rd deserves to be deducted towards living expenses from out of the gross monthly income of the deceased i.e., a sum of Rs.17,325/- thereby net loss of income to the dependants would be Rs.34,650/- (Rs.51,975-Rs.17,325/-). Thus, claimants would be entitled to compensation of Rs.66,52,800/- (Rs.34,650x12X16) towards loss of income. 13. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Thus, claimants would be entitled to compensation of Rs.66,52,800/- (Rs.34,650x12X16) towards loss of income. 13. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Nanu Ram and others, (2018) ACJ 2782 has held where deceased has left his parents and children, there would be loss of love and affection namely parental love as also shock and agony and it came to be held by the Hon'ble Apex Court: "8.7 A Constitution Bench of this court in Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC), 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 v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) ACJ 1403 (SC)]. 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, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation'. [Black's Law Dictionary: 5th Edn., 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 the 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. Modern jurisdictions the 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 towards loss of 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 the parents have 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 the children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. 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, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC)." 14. On account of sudden death of father, 1st claimant-minor son has lost parental love and affection, aid and protection. Likewise, parents i.e., claimants 2 and 3 having lost their young son, would have caused shock and agony to them and as such, 1st claimant would be entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/- and claimants 2 and 3 would be entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- each. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case, towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, a sum of Rs.15,000/- under each of the head deserves to be awarded. Accordingly, it is awarded. Thus, claimants would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.68,12,800/- under the following heads: Sl. No. Heads Amount 1 Loss of dependency Rs. 66,52,800/- 2 Towards parental consortium - 1st claimant Rs. 50,000/- 3 Towards filial consortium to parents at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- each Rs. 80,000/- 4 Towards loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- 5 Towards funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- TOTAL Rs. 68,12,800/- 15. Tribunal has awarded interest @ 6% p.a. However, we have consistently held that claimants would be entitled to interest @ 8% p.a. and accordingly, we award interest at 8% p.a. on the compensation awarded hereinabove payable from date of petition till payment or deposit whichever is earlier. 16. 15,000/- 5 Towards funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- TOTAL Rs. 68,12,800/- 15. Tribunal has awarded interest @ 6% p.a. However, we have consistently held that claimants would be entitled to interest @ 8% p.a. and accordingly, we award interest at 8% p.a. on the compensation awarded hereinabove payable from date of petition till payment or deposit whichever is earlier. 16. For the reasons aforesaid, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed in part, (ii) Judgment and award passed in MVC No.282/2014 by IX Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional MACT, Belagavi dated 07.04.2016 is hereby modified and in substitution to the award of compensation granted by the Tribunal, a sum of Rs.68,12,800/- is awarded which shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of petition till date of payment or deposit whichever is earlier, (iii) Respondent No.2-Insurer is directed to deposit the compensation amount before jurisdictional tribunal with interest within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order excluding the amount deposited already if any, (iv) Apportionment shall be in the ratio of 50% to the first claimant (Kumar Mohit) and 25% each in favour of claimant Nos.2 and 3 i.e., Sri.Parashuram and Smt.Shanta, (v) Entire amount awarded in favour of first claimant minor Mohit shall be kept in a Fixed Deposit in any nationalized bank or scheduled bank of choice of claimant Nos.2 and 3 and the said amount shall be released in his favour on his attainment of majority along with interest, (vi) Insofar as compensation awarded in favour of claimants Nos.2 and 3 is concerned, 50% shall be kept in a Fixed Deposit in any nationalized bank or scheduled bank of their choice for a period of three years and they would be entitled to draw periodical interest. Remaining 50% with proportionate interest is ordered to be released in their favour i.e., claimant Nos.2 and 3 by the MACT, Belagavi on proper identification, (vii) Registry to return the original records to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith.