JUDGMENT Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, counsel appearing for the appellants. 2. Heard Mr. G. C. Jha, counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3- Insurance Company. 3. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2. 4. Counsel for the appellants, at the outset, submits that this appeal has been filed challenging the quantum of compensation which has been awarded by the learned court below. 5. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants arising out of judgment and award dated 05.03.2003 passed by Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case No. 102 of 1992, wherein claim under the provisions of Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been disposed of by allowing a sum of Rs. 1,55,296/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of application till payment after deducting the amount paid, if any. Compensation was to be paid within a period of 30 days from the date of award, failing which it was directed that interest at the rate of 12% per annum would be payable. There is no dispute that after the passing of the impugned judgment and award, the amount which was payable by the respondent Insurance Company was deposited and the impugned award has been complied with so far as the insurance company is concerned. 6. Counsel for the appellants submits that the amount which was to be paid by the owner of the truck to the extent of 50% of the total compensation amount, has not yet been paid by the private respondents herein, who are not even appearing in this case today. 7. Compensation Case No. 102 of 1992 was filed by the claimants for realization of the compensation amount on account of death of Shamshu Ansari @ Shamshul Haque in a motor vehicle accident. The claimants are the widow, children and parents of the deceased. 8. The counsel for the appellants also submits that arising out of the same accident, a number of compensation cases were instituted as a large number of persons had died and suffered injuries. As various compensation cases arose out of the same accident, all such cases were amalgamated and heard together. However, this appeal is confined to Compensation Case No. 102 of 1992. 9. As various compensation cases arose out of the same accident, all such cases were amalgamated and heard together. However, this appeal is confined to Compensation Case No. 102 of 1992. 9. Counsel submits that on 17.05.1992, the deceased in all the compensation cases as well as injured were travelling in the bus bearing registration no. BR-14M-0350 being driven rashly and negligently in high speed. When the said bus reached near State Bank of India, Branch near Rangamati, from opposite direction a truck bearing no. BIN-9329 was coming in a high speed driven rashly and negligently and the two vehicles collided with each other. As a result of the said collusion, several persons received grievous injuries and some died on the spot. Accordingly, Tamar P.S. Case No. 52 of 1992 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 335 of 1992 was instituted. All the claimants claimed to be dependent upon the income of the deceased and the injured, who sustained injuries in the said accident. Owner of the bus as well as the owner of the truck had appeared and the owner of the bus claimed that the vehicle was insured by the insurance company and further took a stand that the accident was due to fault of the driver of the truck. The bus was covered by the insurance policy, which was valid for the period from 24.06.1991 till 23.06.1992 and accordingly, on the date of accident, the bus was duly insured. 10. In Compensation Case No. 102 of 1992, the wife of the deceased namely, Naseeban Bibi and her son namely, Mozammil Ansari were examined. The wife, inter alia ,deposed that the deceased was having income of 3,500/- per month and the son, inter alia, deposed that his father was working as a grinder in a glass factory and was getting a salary of Rs. 3,500/- per month. 11. The learned court below framed the following issues for consideration: "I. Whether there was valid cause of action before the claimants to file this compensation cases and it is maintainable? II. Whether deceased Shamshu Ansari, Kisun Machhua, Talib Hussain, Parimal Sarkar, Md. Lucman, Eqramul Haque Khan, Abdul Rahim Gaddi, Master Saurav, Pramod Bihari Sinha and Smt. Manorma Sinha died in a motor vehicle accident and injured Maloy Kr. Sarkar received injuries in the said accident due to rash and negligent driving by the drivers of the bus bearing Reg. II. Whether deceased Shamshu Ansari, Kisun Machhua, Talib Hussain, Parimal Sarkar, Md. Lucman, Eqramul Haque Khan, Abdul Rahim Gaddi, Master Saurav, Pramod Bihari Sinha and Smt. Manorma Sinha died in a motor vehicle accident and injured Maloy Kr. Sarkar received injuries in the said accident due to rash and negligent driving by the drivers of the bus bearing Reg. No. BR-14M-0350 and Truck bearing Reg. No. BIN9329? III. Whether there was violation of terms and conditions of the policy? And IV. Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation? If yes, to what extent and from whom? The present miscellaneous appeal arises out of Compensation Case No. 102 of 1992 which was filed by the dependents of deceased Shamshu Ansari @ Shamshul Haque, who died in the said accident. 12. After considering the evidences led by the parties, the learned court below held that due to rash and negligent act of the drivers of both the vehicles i.e. the bus and the truck, the accident took place and it was a head-on collusion between the vehicles and therefore, there was valid cause of action to file the claim for compensation. The learned court further rejected the contention that there was violation of terms and conditions of the policy and also held that on the date of the accident, the bus was duly covered by the insurance policy issued by the respondent insurance company and as the accident had taken place due to negligence of driver of both the vehicles , therefore, the owner of the truck and the insurance company with whom the bus was insured, were held to be liable to pay compensation to the claimants to the extent of 50% each. 13. On the point of quantum of compensation, the learned court below considered that the witnesses on behalf of the claimants i.e. the wife and son of the deceased had claimed that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs. 3,500/- per month and that he was working as a grinder in a glass grinding factory, but, there was no cogent evidence on record with regard to income of the deceased. In such circumstances, the learned court took the age of the deceased as between 40 to 45 years and the notional income was taken as Rs. 15,000/- per annum for the purposes of calculation of the compensation. In such circumstances, the learned court took the age of the deceased as between 40 to 45 years and the notional income was taken as Rs. 15,000/- per annum for the purposes of calculation of the compensation. The learned court found that the deceased had his widow, 6 minor children, mother and father, total nine dependents of the deceased. A sum of Rs. 2142/- was deducted on account of his personal expenses leaving a balance of Rs. 12358/- to his family members which was taken as yearly loss to the dependents of the deceased. The multiplier of 12 was taken and the compensation was assessed to Rs. 1,48,296/-. The damages under the conventional head on account of loss of expectation of life was assessed at Rs. 5,000/-, funeral expenses at Rs. 2,000/- and the total compensation was calculated to be Rs. 1,55,296/- and the claimants were found to be entitled for its payment with interest at the rate of 9% per annum within a period of 30 days from the date of award, failing which it was directed that interest at the rate of 12% per annum would be payable from the date of filing the claim petition till payment . 14. Counsel for the appellants, while assailing the impugned award, has submitted that compensation is required to be enhanced on account of following reasons: (a)The wife as well as the son of the deceased claimed that the income of the deceased was Rs. 3,500/- per month, but in spite of such claim, the court below has taken the annual income of the deceased at the rate of 15,000/- per annum as per the Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for a notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum, in those cases where the deceased has no income prior to the accident. He further submits that there is no dispute that the deceased was working as a grinder in glass grinding factory and the wife as well as the son of the deceased had deposed to the said effect. He submits that there was neither any evidence on this point from the side of the opposite parties nor proper cross examination on this point and there were only some suggestions. He submits that there was neither any evidence on this point from the side of the opposite parties nor proper cross examination on this point and there were only some suggestions. (b)So far as the deduction from income of the deceased on account of his personal expenses are concerned, the same should be 1/5th as the number of claimants are more than six. He submits that this is in view of the judgment passed by Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in ( Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 ). (c) The multiplier of 12 has been taken by the learned court below, although the multiplier in terms of the judgment passed by Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in ( Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 ) ought to be 14 as the age of the deceased was between 41 to 45 on the date of accident. (d)Counsel for the appellants further submits that so far as the future income is concerned, an amount equal to 25% of the notional income ought to have been added for the purposes of calculation of compensation, but this aspect of the matter has been totally ignored by the learned court below. For this also the counsel refers to the aforesaid judgements of Hon''ble the Supreme court. (e) By referring to the compensation under the heading loss of estate, he submits that an amount of Rs. 5,000/- has been given by the learned court below, but in view of the latest judgment passed by Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in ( National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680 ), the compensation on account of loss of estate is to be given to the extent of Rs. 15,000/-. (f) So far as the funeral expenses of the deceased is concerned, an amount of Rs. 2,000/- has been awarded, but the same should have been Rs. 15,000/- in view of the aforesaid judgment reported in ( National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680 ). (g)So far as the loss of consortium is concerned, he submits that nothing has been awarded under this head and as per the judgment passed by Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in ( National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680 ). (g)So far as the loss of consortium is concerned, he submits that nothing has been awarded under this head and as per the judgment passed by Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in ( National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680 ) read with judgment reported in (S.C.) ( Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., (2018) 4 JLJR 230 ), the amount on account of loss of consortium should be at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- for each of the claimants. (h)He further submits that if any amount of compensation is enhanced then claimants are also entitled to interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition on the differential amount of compensation to be paid within the stipulated time-frame, failing which 12% interest should be directed to be paid. 15. Counsel for the respondent- insurance company, on the other hand, submits that admittedly the accident had taken place on account of negligence on the part of drivers of both the vehicles and the insurance company was rightly held to be liable to pay only to the extent of 50% of the entire compensation amount which the respondent- insurance company has already paid. 16. He further submits that so far as the calculation of notional income is concerned, there is no documentary evidence produced by the claimants before the learned court below in this regard and accordingly, there was no proof that the income of the deceased was Rs. 3,500/- per month. In such circumstances, counsel for the respondents submits that the learned court below has rightly taken the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum as per the provisions of the Act contained in Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Accordingly, he submits that this Court may not interfere in the calculation of the notional income in the instant case. 17. So far as the multiplier factor is concerned, the counsel for the respondents submits that the age of the deceased was between 40 to 45 years and accordingly, the multiplier of 14 ought to have been awarded and on this point, he does not dispute the claim of the claimants/appellants. 18. 17. So far as the multiplier factor is concerned, the counsel for the respondents submits that the age of the deceased was between 40 to 45 years and accordingly, the multiplier of 14 ought to have been awarded and on this point, he does not dispute the claim of the claimants/appellants. 18. So far as the expenses on account of funeral is concerned, Counsel for the respondents submits that this point appears to be fully covered by the judgment passed by Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in ( National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680 ) wherein an amount of Rs. 15,000/- has been quantified against funeral expenses. 19. So far as the claim of consortium is concerned, counsel for the appellants submits that in the aforesaid judgment reported in ( National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680 ) , an amount of consortium has been quantified at Rs. 40,000/- and he does not oppose to payment of Rs. 40,000/- in this case to the appellants as a whole, but he has opposed the prayer of the appellants for making payment of Rs. 40,000/- for each of the claimants and he submits that there is no such indication in Pranay Sethi''s case (Supra) that consortium has to be paid at the rate of 40,000/- for each of the claimants. 20. Counsel for the respondents further submits that as per Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the amount against loss of consortium is available only if the beneficiary is the spouse and as per the Schedule, the amount has been projected as Rs. 5,000/- only and it is amount under this head only, which has been quantified to be 40,000/- in the aforesaid judgment reported in ( National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680 ). Counsel further submits that in such circumstances, the argument on behalf of the claimants that an amount of Rs. 40,000/- to each of the claimants is required to be awarded against loss of consortium, is devoid of any merits. 21. Counsel for the respondents further submits that so far as the judgment passed by Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in (S.C.) ( Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. 40,000/- to each of the claimants is required to be awarded against loss of consortium, is devoid of any merits. 21. Counsel for the respondents further submits that so far as the judgment passed by Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in (S.C.) ( Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., (2018) 4 JLJR 230) is concerned, the same was passed in the peculiar facts of the said case and no such issue was involved in the said case as to whether each of the claimants would be entitled to Rs. 40,000/- as loss of consortium. Accordingly, he submits that the law laid down by Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi''s (Supra) would still continue to govern the claim . 22. Counsel for the respondent has also submitted that even this Court in subsequent judgments including in M.A. No. 202 of 2013 disposed of on 06.12.18, has not passed orders for payment of consortium to each and every claimant and a consolidated consortium of Rs. 40,000/- has been awarded after taking note of the judgment passed by Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 as well as the judgment passed by Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in 2018 (4) JLJR 230 (S.C.). 23. So far as the deduction from the notional income is concerned, he submits that 1/5th of the income is required to be deducted on account of personal expenses of the deceased under the facts and circumstances of this case as the number of dependents of the deceased in the instant case is more than six and accordingly, he does not dispute the submission of the claimants on this aspect of the matter. 24. So far as the future prospects of the deceased is concerned, he submits that in judgement reported in ( National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680 ) , this issue has been taken care of. The deceased would be entitled to an addition of 25% of his notional income as he was between the age from 40 to 50 years. 25. The counsel for the respondents has strongly opposed the claim of interest which is being claimed by the appellants in the event this Court finds it fit to enhance the compensation. The deceased would be entitled to an addition of 25% of his notional income as he was between the age from 40 to 50 years. 25. The counsel for the respondents has strongly opposed the claim of interest which is being claimed by the appellants in the event this Court finds it fit to enhance the compensation. He submits that there has been laches on the part of the appellants in conducting the instant case in as much as the perusal of the order-sheet shows that the appellants had taken repeated adjournments in the matter for which the respondent-insurance company cannot be blamed. He also submits that the judgment passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 has been pronounced now and during the pendency of this case, the compensation has been awarded on the basis of the judgments passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court which were prevalent at the relevant point of time. In such circumstances, there is no laches on the part of the respondentinsurance company, who have already paid the amount of compensation which they were supposed to pay. Accordingly, counsel submits that there may not be any direction for making payment of any interest on the additional compensation, if any. However if the amount is not paid within the stipulated timeframe, then there may be a question of payment of interest. 26. Considering the aforesaid submissions of the parties, this Court finds that the only point to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the appellants are entitled to any enhancement of compensation and if yes, to what extent? 27. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after considering the materials on record, this Court finds that the facts regarding the accident is not in dispute. From the perusal of the records, this Court finds that the accident involved in this case had taken place on 17.05.1992 as a result of head-on collusion between a bus and a truck having registration nos. BR-14M-0350 and BIN-9329 respectively. Admittedly, the bus was insured with the respondent-insurance company and the collusion was a result of negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles, which resulted in death of several persons and also caused injuries to several persons. BR-14M-0350 and BIN-9329 respectively. Admittedly, the bus was insured with the respondent-insurance company and the collusion was a result of negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles, which resulted in death of several persons and also caused injuries to several persons. Arising out of aforesaid accident, a number of compensation cases were instituted including Compensation Case No. 102 of 1992, which is the only compensation case involved in this case. This compensation case was filed by the widow of Shamshu Ansari @ Shamshul Haque and the claimants were his widow, six children and his parents, total being nine in number. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was between 41 to 45 years. ON THE POINT OF DETERMINATION OF MONTHLY INCOME OF THE DECEASED 28. The widow as well as one of the sons of the deceased had deposed before the learned court below. The widow had claimed that the deceased was earning an income of Rs. 3,500/- per month and the son also supported and stated that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs. 3,500/- per month and was working as a grinder in a glass grinding factory. 29. This Court has gone through the deposition of the widow of the deceased and his son and finds that both the witnesses have made statements claiming the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,500/- per month and that it was claimed before the learned court below that he was working as a grinder in a glass grinding factory. No documentary evidence as such was brought on record before the learned court below with regard to the income of the deceased. This Court finds that as per the statements made by both the aforesaid witnesses in their deposition, the income of the deceased was about Rs. 3,500/- per month, and there was neither any evidence on behalf of the opposite parties on the point of income of the deceased nor proper cross-examination of the witnesses on the point of the income of the deceased but there were only some suggestions. Accordingly, this Court finds that both the witnesses having deposed that the income of the deceased was about Rs. 3,500/- approximately per month, this statement could not have been rejected by the learned court below merely on account of absence of documentary proof of income. Accordingly, this Court finds that both the witnesses having deposed that the income of the deceased was about Rs. 3,500/- approximately per month, this statement could not have been rejected by the learned court below merely on account of absence of documentary proof of income. Accordingly, the learned court below was not justified in taking the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum for the purposes of calculation of the compensation amount. 30. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and considering the fact that the witnesses might have claimed some excess amount as the monthly income of the deceased, this Court finds it fit to take the notional income at Rs. 3,000/- per month or Rs.36,000/- per annum instead of Rs.15,000/- per annum. DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL EXPENSES 31. So far as the deduction on account of personal expenses is concerned, this Court finds that as the deceased had a number of dependents exceeding six in number, therefore, 1/5th amount of his notional income is fit to be deducted as his personal expenses and the remaining to be considered as the amount which he used to spend on his family members i.e. the claimants. This view is being taken in the light of para 30 to 32 of the judgement passed by Hon''ble Supreme court in the case of Sarla Verma, (2009) 6 SCC 121 which are quoted 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 standardised 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 dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds 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. 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 dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. 32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to onethird and contribution to the family will be taken as twothird." This view of the case of Sarla Verma''s case has been approved by the Hon''ble Supreme court in the case of Reshma Kumari, (2013) 9 SCC 65 in the following manner :- 41. The above does provide guidance for the appropriate deduction for personal and living expenses. One must bear in mind that the proportion of a man''s net earnings that he saves or spends exclusively for the maintenance of others does not form part of his living expenses but what he spends exclusively on himself does. The percentage of deduction on account of personal and living expenses may vary with reference to the number of dependent members in the family and the personal living expenses of the deceased need not exactly correspond to the number of dependants. 42. The percentage of deduction on account of personal and living expenses may vary with reference to the number of dependent members in the family and the personal living expenses of the deceased need not exactly correspond to the number of dependants. 42. In our view, the standards fixed by this Court in Sarla Verma on the aspect of deduction for personal living expenses in paras 30, 31 and 32 must ordinarily be followed unless a case for departure in the circumstances noted in the preceding paragraph is made out. 43. In what we have discussed above, we sum up our conclusions as follows: 43.1. In the applications for compensation made under Section 166 of the 1988 Act in death cases where the age of the deceased is 15 years and above, the Claims Tribunals shall select the multiplier as indicated in Column (4) of the Table prepared in Sarla Verma read with para 42 of that judgment. 43.2. In cases where the age of the deceased is up to 15 years, irrespective of Section 166 or Section 163-A under which the claim for compensation has been made, multiplier of 15 and the assessment as indicated in the Second Schedule subject to correction as pointed out in Column (6) of the Table in Sarla Verma should be followed. 43.3. As a result of the above, while considering the claim applications made under Section 166 in death cases where the age of the deceased is above 15 years, there is no necessity for the Claims Tribunals to seek guidance or for placing reliance on the Second Schedule in the 1988 Act. 43.4. The Claims Tribunals shall follow the steps and guidelines stated in para 19 of Sarla Verma for determination of compensation in cases of death. 43.5. While making addition to income for future prospects, the Tribunals shall follow para 24 of the judgment in Sarla Verma. 43.6. Insofar as deduction for personal and living expenses is concerned, it is directed that the Tribunals shall ordinarily follow the standards prescribed in paras 30, 31 and 32 of the judgment in Sarla Verma subject to the observations made by us in para 41 above. 43.7. The above propositions mutatis mutandis shall apply to all pending matters where above aspects are under consideration." This method has been approved in the judgement reported in ( National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. 43.7. The above propositions mutatis mutandis shall apply to all pending matters where above aspects are under consideration." This method has been approved in the judgement reported in ( National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680 ) in para 41 by holding as follows:- "41. On a perusal of the analysis made in Sarla Verma which has been reconsidered in Reshma Kumari, we think it appropriate to state that as far as the guidance provided for appropriate deduction for personal and living expenses is concerned, the tribunals and courts should be guided by Conclusion 43.6 of Reshma Kumari. We concur with the same as we have no hesitation in approving the method provided therein." FUTURE PROSPECTS 32. So far as the future prospects are concerned, it has been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in ( National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680 ) that the future prospects in connection with the deceased aged between 40 and 45 years can be taken to be 25%. In the concluding para 59 of the said judgement in para 59.3 and 59.4 it has been held as follows:- 59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. Considering the facts of this case, this Court finds that there is nothing on record to suggest that the deceased had a permanent job, but as per the evidence of the wife and son of the deceased , he was working on a fixed salary . Accordingly, considering the age of the deceased between 40 to 50 years , 25% of his income is taken as loss on account of future prospects. MULTIPLIER 33. So far as multiplier is concerned, in the case reported in ( National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680 ) , at para 42 43 and 44 it has been held as under :- "42. As far as the multiplier is concerned, the Claims Tribunal and the courts shall be guided by Step 2 that finds place in para 19 of Sarla Verma read with para 42 of the said judgment. For the sake of completeness, para 42 is extracted below: "42. 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." 43. In Reshma Kumari, the aforesaid has been approved by stating, thus: "37. It is high time that we move to a standard method of selection of multiplier, income for future prospects and deduction for personal and living expenses. The courts in some of the overseas jurisdictions have made this advance. In Reshma Kumari, the aforesaid has been approved by stating, thus: "37. It is high time that we move to a standard method of selection of multiplier, income for future prospects and deduction for personal and living expenses. The courts in some of the overseas jurisdictions have made this advance. It is for these reasons, we think we must approve the Table in Sarla Verma for the selection of multiplier in claim applications made under Section 166 in the cases of death. We do accordingly. If for the selection of multiplier, Column (4) of the Table in Sarla Verma is followed, there is no likelihood of the claimants who have chosen to apply under Section 166 being awarded lesser amount on proof of negligence on the part of the driver of the motor vehicle than those who prefer to apply under Section 163-A. As regards the cases where the age of the victim happens to be up to 15 years, we are of the considered opinion that in such cases irrespective of Section 163-A or Section 166 under which the claim for compensation has been made, multiplier of 15 and the assessment as indicated in the Second Schedule subject to correction as pointed out in Column (6) of the Table in Sarla Verma should be followed. This is to ensure that the claimants in such cases are not awarded lesser amount when the application is made under Section 166 of the 1988 Act. In all other cases of death where the application has been made under Section 166, the multiplier as indicated in Column (4) of the Table in Sarla Verma should be followed." 44. At this stage, we must immediately say that insofar as the aforesaid multiplicand/multiplier is concerned, it has to be accepted on the basis of income established by the legal representatives of the deceased. Future prospects are to be added to the sum on the percentage basis and "income" means actual income less the tax paid. The multiplier has already been fixed in Sarla Verma which has been approved in Reshma Kumari with which we concur." In the instant case, in view of the aforesaid judgement the multiplier would be 14 and there is nothing on record to suggest any deduction on account of tax paid. FUNERAL EXPENSES 34. The multiplier has already been fixed in Sarla Verma which has been approved in Reshma Kumari with which we concur." In the instant case, in view of the aforesaid judgement the multiplier would be 14 and there is nothing on record to suggest any deduction on account of tax paid. FUNERAL EXPENSES 34. So far as the funeral expenses are concerned, there is no dispute that the same would be to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- as per the judgement passed by Hon''ble Supreme court reported in ( National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680 ) . LOSS OF ESTATE 35. Further compensation on account of loss of estate of the deceased would be at Rs. 15,000/- in view of the judgment passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in ( National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680 ) . CONSORTIUM 36. In connection with the consortium, this Court finds that in the judgment reported in ( National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680 ) , the Hon''ble Supreme Court has taken note of the Schedule II providing for general damages in case of death and loss of consortium as per the 2nd Schedule was available only if the beneficiary is the spouse. The findings of the Hon''ble Supreme court in the said judgement with respect to loss of consortium are in paragraphs 49 to 52 which are quoted below for ready reference:- "49. As far as multiplier or multiplicand is concerned, the same has been put to rest by the judgments of this Court. Para 3 of the Second Schedule also provides for general damages in case of death. It is as follows: "3. General damages (in case of death): The following general damages shall be payable in addition to compensation outlined above: (i) Funeral expenses- Rs 2000 (ii) Loss of consortium, if beneficiary is the spouse Rs 5000 (iii) Loss of estate- Rs 2500 (iv) Medical expenses - actual expenses incurred before death supported by bills/vouchers but not exceeding- Rs 15,000" 50. On a perusal of various decisions of this Court, it is manifest that the Second Schedule has not been followed starting from the decision in Trilok Chandra and there has been no amendment to the same. The conventional damage amount needs to be appositely determined. On a perusal of various decisions of this Court, it is manifest that the Second Schedule has not been followed starting from the decision in Trilok Chandra and there has been no amendment to the same. The conventional damage amount needs to be appositely determined. As we notice, in different cases different amounts have been granted. A sum of Rs 1,00,000 was granted towards consortium in Rajesh. The justification for grant of consortium, as we find from Rajesh, is founded on the observation as we have reproduced hereinbefore. 51. On the aforesaid basis, the Court has revisited the practice of awarding compensation under conventional heads. 52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh. It has granted Rs 25,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to Santosh Devi, it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads." In the concluding para 59 of the said judgement in para 59.8 it has been held as follows:- "59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years." 37. This Court further finds that the loss on account of consortium has been quantified by the Hon''ble Supreme Court at Rs. 40,000/- and there is no indication in the said judgment that the amount of Rs. 40,000/- is to be paid to each and every claimant. So far as the judgment passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in (S.C.) ( Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., (2018) 4 JLJR 230 ) is concerned, this Court finds that in the said case the mother of the deceased had pre-deceased him and the claimants were his aged father and unmarried sister and the specific case of the insurance company before the Hon''ble Supreme Court was that the aged father and the unmarried sister cannot be held to be the dependent of the deceased. This contention of the appellant-insurance company was rejected by the Hon''ble Supreme Court and the Hon''ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the concept of consortium, held that in legal parlance, "Consortium" is a compendious term which encompasses ''spousal consortium, ''parental consortium'', and ''filial consortium''. In the facts and circumstances of the said case, the Hon''ble Supreme Court awarded filial consortium to the aged father and the sister at Rs. In the facts and circumstances of the said case, the Hon''ble Supreme Court awarded filial consortium to the aged father and the sister at Rs. 40,000/- payable to each, although, the point as to whether each of the dependent would be entitled to an equal amount of consortium of Rs. 40,000/- was not as such an issue before the Hon''ble Supreme Court. The Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that the filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in case of an accidental death of a child and in case where the parents have lost their minor child or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to payment of loss of consortium under the head of filial consortium. However, in the facts and circumstances of the said case , the loss of filial consortium was given not only to the father of the deceased, but also to the sister of the deceased as the deceased was unmarried son. Further , the Hon''ble Supreme Court specifically held in the said case that the principle of awarding compensation under loss of consortium is to be governed by the law laid down in the case reported in ( National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors, (2017) 16 SCC 680 ) . The judgment passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in (S.C.) ( Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., (2018) 4 JLJR 230 ) is clearly distinguishable on facts of the present case and accordingly has no applicability in the instant appeal. 38. This Court further finds that the aforesaid judgment reported in (S.C.) ( Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., (2018) 4 JLJR 230) was cited before this Hon''ble Court in M.A. No. 202 of 2013, but in spite of that, this Hon''ble Court has been pleased to grant a consolidated amount on account of loss of consortium to the extent of Rs. 40,000/- to the claimants as a whole. 39. Accordingly, the contention of the appellants that each and every claimant is entitled to Rs.40,000/- on account of loss of consortium is hereby rejected. It is held that total compensation amount payable on account of consortium is Rs. 40,000/- to the claimants as a whole. 39. Accordingly, the contention of the appellants that each and every claimant is entitled to Rs.40,000/- on account of loss of consortium is hereby rejected. It is held that total compensation amount payable on account of consortium is Rs. 40,000/- to the appellants as a whole in view of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case reported in ( National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680 ) INTEREST 40. So far as the claim of interest on the differential amount is concerned, this Court finds that the learned court below has awarded interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim till three months from the date of award and upon failing, it was indicated that the rate of interest would be 12%. This Court further finds that the amount of compensation in the instant case has already been paid by the respondent-insurance company to the extent they are liable i.e. to the extent of 50%, to the claimants within the time stipulated in the award along with the interest awarded. 41. From the perusal of the records of this case, this Court finds that this miscellaneous appeal was filed on 12.06.2003 and on some of the occasions, the appellants were not represented before the Court and the defects were also removed at a later date. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds it proper that on the differential amount the claimants would be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the present appeal till the date of payment to be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This court finds that even in judgement passed in M.A. No. 202 of 2013 , the interest on the enhanced amount has been paid @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the appeal. If the amount is not paid within the stipulated time, the claimants would be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The differential amount of compensation with its interest is directed to be equally shared between the owner of the truck ( respondent no. 2 ) and the insurance company ( respondent no. 3). COMPUTATION 42. If the amount is not paid within the stipulated time, the claimants would be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The differential amount of compensation with its interest is directed to be equally shared between the owner of the truck ( respondent no. 2 ) and the insurance company ( respondent no. 3). COMPUTATION 42. In view of the aforesaid findings, the compensation amount is calculated as follows:- Head Compensation Income Rs. 3000/- per month Future prospects 25% Rs. 750/- per month Deduction towards personal expenses - one fifth of (3000/- plus 750/-) Rs. 750/- per month Total income per month for the purposes of calculation of compensation Rs. 3000/- (4/5th of 3000/- plus Rs. 750/- ) Multiplier 14 Compensation in relation to income Rs. 3000/- X 14 X 12 = Rs. 5,04,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/- Total Rs. 5,74,000/- Compensation Amount already awarded Rs. 1,55,296/- Differential amount on account of enhancement of compensation Rs. 4,18,704/- To be payable with interest as aforesaid. To be shared to the extent of 50% on behalf of the respondent insurance company and the owner of the truck (respondent no. 2) 43. The impugned award is modified to the aforesaid extent. 44. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the counsel for the appellants and counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 45. This miscellaneous appeal is accordingly disposed of.