JUDGMENT : ARAVIND KUMAR, J. 1. These two appeals have been filed challenging the judgment and award passed by MACT-II, Bellari, in M.V.C.No.837/2012 whereunder claim petition filed by wife, minor children and parents of deceased Veeresh (father of the deceased died during the pendency of the appeal) has been allowed in part and compensation of Rs.7,20,000/- has been awarded. 2. M.F.A.No.22012/2013 is filed by the Insurance Company/Insurer of offending vehicle and M.F.A.No.24615/2013 is filed by claimants not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation. Hence, we have taken up these two appeals together and heard the arguments of learned advocates appearing for the parties namely Sriyuths R.R.Mane, learned counsel appearing for insurer and Sri Lakshmikant Reddy, learned counsel appearing for claimants. 3. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by the claimants seeking compensation of Rs.24,70,000/- on account of death of Sri Veeresh in a road traffic accident that occurred on 19.05.2012 contending interalia that deceased Veeresh had boarded a bus to proceed to Halekote village on 19.05.2012 at about 11.15 a.m. and on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus, front door of the bus got opened and deceased Veeresh who was standing near the front door inside the bus, fell down from running bus and sustained grievous injuries and later succumbed to said injuries. On service of notice, insurer appeared, filed its statement of objections and except to the extent expressly admitted thereunder, averments made in the claim petition was denied. It was specifically contended that deceased Veeresh had fallen from the bus due to his own negligence. Tribunal after considering the pleadings and evaluating evidence on record, has allowed the claim petition in part and as noticed hereinabove, compensation of Rs.7,20,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. has been awarded and entire liability to indemnify the award has been fixed on Insurance Company. 4. Sri R.R.Mane, learned counsel appearing for Insurer contends that death of Veeresh occurred due to the negligence exhibited by deceased himself and as such 50% negligence has to be attributed to the deceased. He would also submit that there was no valid permit issued to the offending vehicle and as such insurer is not liable to indemnify the claim and same may be fastened or shifted on the owner of the offending vehicle. He would also submit that there was no valid permit issued to the offending vehicle and as such insurer is not liable to indemnify the claim and same may be fastened or shifted on the owner of the offending vehicle. It is also contended when there was no valid permit issued to the offending bus, liability of the insurer would be circumscribed by the conditions stipulated in the policy being and in the instant case, there was no valid permit and as such, insurer is not liable to indemnify the claim. 5. Per contra, Sri Lakshmikant Reddy, learned counsel appearing for claimants would support the findings recorded by Tribunal and with regard to fastening liability on the insurer, he has relied upon the permit issued to offending vehicle which has been filed along with a memo today. Hence, he submits the contention raised by the insurer be rejected. 6. Having heard learned advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of the records, we are of the considered view that following points would arise for our consideration: (i) Whether the tribunal was justified in fastening the liability on the appellant-insurer? (ii) Whether there was any negligence on the part of deceased, so as to, fasten the liability on the deceased himself? and if so, to what extent? (iii) Whether the compensation awarded by tribunal is just and reasonable or it requires to be modified/enhanced? RE:POINT NO.1: 7. Insofar as there being no permit to the offending vehicle, is an argument, which cannot be accepted inasmuch as today during the course of arguments, Shri. Y.Lakshmikant Reddy, learned counsel appearing for claimants has filed a memo enclosing the permit issued to the offending vehicle, which would clearly disclose that as on the date of accident, offending vehicle was having a valid permit issued by the jurisdictional Regional Transport Authority. As such, contention raised by Shri R.R. Mane, learned counsel in this regard cannot be accepted and it stands rejected. RE:POINT NO.2: 8. Having regard to the contention raised by Shri R.R. Mane, we find from the records namely FIR and charge sheet, the offending vehicle i.e., bus in which deceased was traveling was fully crowded. As such, contention raised by Shri R.R. Mane, learned counsel in this regard cannot be accepted and it stands rejected. RE:POINT NO.2: 8. Having regard to the contention raised by Shri R.R. Mane, we find from the records namely FIR and charge sheet, the offending vehicle i.e., bus in which deceased was traveling was fully crowded. Deceased was not standing on the foot board, but he was inside the bus and the fact that deceased was standing inside the bus is also not in serious dispute and neither driver nor conductor nor insured (owner of the bus) or any other passenger of the bus has been examined by the insurer to substantiate their defence in that regard. Hence, said contention cannot be accepted and it stands rejected. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered against the insurer and in favour of the claimants. RE:POINT NO.3: 9. The compensation which has been awarded by the tribunal is as under: Sl. No. Heads Amount 1 Loss of dependency Rs. 6,80,000/- 2 Towards loss of consortium Rs. 15,000/- 3 Towards loss of love and affection of father Rs. 10,000/- 4 Towards loss of estate Rs. 10,000/- 5 Towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- TOTAL Rs. 7,20,000/- 10. Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- p.m. and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, annual income is considered as Rs.40,000/- and after applying the multiplier of 17, compensation of Rs.6,80,000/- has been awarded towards loss of dependency by the tribunal. 11. The wife of deceased who has entered the witness box has categorically stated that entire family was dependant on the income of deceased. Undisputedly, deceased was taking care of his mother, father, wife and minor son i.e, in all four persons were dependant on his income. Deceased Veeresh was aged about 25 years and at the time of accident he was hale and healthy and an able bodied person. He was carrying on agricultural operations and also doing milk vending business according to the claimants. A rustic villager with this profession cannot be expected to produce proof of income. Though claimants have contended that he was earning Rs.1,25,000/- p.a. and Rs.3,000/- p.m from milk vending, there is no positive and/or no corroborative evidence was tendered. He was carrying on agricultural operations and also doing milk vending business according to the claimants. A rustic villager with this profession cannot be expected to produce proof of income. Though claimants have contended that he was earning Rs.1,25,000/- p.a. and Rs.3,000/- p.m from milk vending, there is no positive and/or no corroborative evidence was tendered. When there are four persons to be taken care of, the minimum that would have been earned by deceased would be Rs.7,000/- p.m. which we feel would be a just and reasonable income which can be construed as the income of deceased. In the light of judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 , 40% of the income is to be added towards future prospects and thereby total gross income of the deceased would be Rs.9,800/-. Since four persons were dependant on his income, 1/3rd requires to be deducted towards personal and living expenses and when so deducted, net loss of income to the dependants by virtue of the demise of bread earner would be Rs.6,534/- p.m. (Rs.9,800 less Rs.3,266). Thus, total loss of income to the dependants would be: Rs.6,534X12 monthsX17=13,32,936/- 12. As per Pranay Sethi s case, claimants would be entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and accordingly, we award the same. 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Nanu Ram and others, (2018) ACJ 2782, has held to the following effect: 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. 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. 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. As such, parents, wife and son of the deceased would be entitled to compensation towards loss of consortium, parental consortium and filial consortium in a sum of Rs.80,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively. 14. As such, parents, wife and son of the deceased would be entitled to compensation towards loss of consortium, parental consortium and filial consortium in a sum of Rs.80,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively. Thus, in all the claimants would be entitled to the compensation as under: Sl. No. Heads Amount 1 Loss of dependency Rs. 13,32,936/- 2 Towards funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- 3 Towards loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- 4 Towards loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/- 5 Towards parental consortium Rs. 50,000/- 6 Towards filial consortium Rs. 80,000/- Total Rs. 15,32,936/- 15. Hence, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) MFA No.22012 of 2013 is dismissed and MFA No.24615 of 2013 is allowed in part. (ii) Judgment and award dated 05.12.2012, passed by MACT, Ballari, in MVC No.837 of 2012 is hereby modified and in substitution to the award passed by the tribunal, a total sum of Rs.15,32,936/- is hereby awarded, which shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit or payment, whichever is earlier. (iii) The compensation awarded herein is apportioned in the ratio of 35:40:25 between claimant Nos.1, 2 and 4. (iv) Insofar as compensation awarded to minor son i.e., second claimant, same is ordered to be kept in a Fixed Deposit in any nationalized or scheduled Bank of first claimant s choice and she would not be entitled to draw periodical interest till he attains the age of majority and on his attaining majority proceeds of fixed deposit shall be paid to him. (v) Out of the compensation amount awarded to the claimant Nos.1 and 4, 50% shall be released in their favour with proportionate interest and 50% shall be kept in a Fixed Deposit in any nationalized or scheduled Bank of their choice for a period of three years and they would be entitled to draw periodical interest. (vi) The amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the jurisdictional tribunal forthwith for being disbursed as ordered herein above, on proper identification along with original records. (vii) The Insurance Company is hereby directed to deposit the entire compensation amount excluding the amount already deposited with interest before the jurisdictional tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. I.A.No.1 of 2019 filed for withdrawal of amount does not survive for consideration and it stands rejected.