JUDGMENT : K. Somashekar, J. Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, the matter is heard for final disposal. 2. This appeal is preferred by the appellants/claimants against the judgment and award dated 25.7.2012 rendered by the Tribunal in MVC No.453/2011 seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. The factual matrix of the appeal is as under: It is stated in the claim petition that on 15.2.2011 at about 7.00 p.m., when deceased Babu Bangera along with his son Kishor, was walking on the left side of NH-48 near Maripalla in a village Pudu in Bantwal Taluk, within the limits of Bantwal Rural Police Station, the rider of the motor cycle bearing Regn.No.KA-19-EB-8944 came riding in a high speed, in rash and negligent manner from B.C.Road side and dashed against the deceased and as a result of the accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries on his person and fell unconscious on the spot and immediately, the second petitioner being his son shifted the injured father to A.J.Hospital, Mangalore and in the said hospital, deceased Babu Bangera was admitted as an inpatient and on 17.2.2011, he was discharged from the said hospital and was shifted to Government Wenlock Hospital, Mangalore. But unfortunately on 18.2.2011, at about 3.55 a.m. in the night hours, deceased succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment. It is stated that prior to the accident he was aged about 48 years and he was working as a Mason under Mahabaleshwara Promoters and Builders and was earning Rs.350/- per day and due to his untimely death, the entire family members are put to great hardship as they were depending upon his income to eak out their livelihood. On these grounds, the claim petition was filed by the claimants being wife and children of deceased Babu Bangera. 4. After service of notice, the second respondent entered appeared appearance and filed written statement resisting the claim petition inter-alia contending that the claim petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts and sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the issues. In order to substantiate their claim, third petitioner got examined as PW.1 and another witness as PW.2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P15. On behalf of the respondents, Ex.R1 was got marked and no oral evidence was let in by the respondents. 5. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the issues. In order to substantiate their claim, third petitioner got examined as PW.1 and another witness as PW.2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P15. On behalf of the respondents, Ex.R1 was got marked and no oral evidence was let in by the respondents. After hearing arguments of learned counsel on both sides and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal gave the findings on the issues and passed the impugned judgment, awarding compensation of Rs.5,44,550/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition. It is this judgment which is under challenge in this appeal, by urging various grounds. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the Tribunal without considering the material produced by the appellants, has awarded lower compensation under all heads. Further, the income assessed by the Tribunal is on lower side as against the age of deceased and his avocation as a Mason at Mahabaleshwara Promoters and Builders and he was earning Rs.350/- per day. The Tribunal has not considered the aspect of future prospects of the deceased while assessing the income of the deceased. Further, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under conventional heads is on lower side and the same needs enhancement. On all these grounds, he prays for allowing the appeal by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 7. Per contra, Sri B. Pradeep, learned counsel for the insurance company contends that the rider of the offending motor cycle was not holding valid driving licence to ride the vehicle as on the date of accident. Further, it is contended that the amount claimed by the claimants is high and exorbitant. It is further contended that the Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, has rightly assessed the income of the deceased and awarded just and fair compensation, and the same does not call for any interference and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 8. In the context of the contentions as taken by the learned counsel for the appellants and so also, learned counsel for respondent - insurance company, it is not in dispute that the accident occurred due to actionable negligence on the part of the motor cycle by its rider, and due to the said accident, Babu Bangera succumbed to the accidental injuries. PW.2 being the son of the deceased Babu Bangera is the eyewitness to the incident and has stated that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle by its rider. 9. First petitioner is the wife, petitioners 2 and 3 are the children of deceased Babu Bangera. Ex.P1 is the FIR, Ex.P2 is the complaint, Ex.P4 is the spot mahazar, Ex.P5 is the postmortem report, Ex.P6 is the charge sheet, Ex.P7 is the IMV report, Ex.P8 is the spot sketch. At the time of accident, deceased Babu Bangera was aged 48 years and was working as Mason at Mahabaleshwara Promoters and Builders and earning Rs.4,100/- p.m. as per Ex.P9, salary certificate. However, the Tribunal while assessing the income of the deceased has taken Rs.4,500/- p.m. and by deducting 1/3 of his income towards personal expenses and applying multiplier of 13 has awarded a sum of Rs.4,68,000/- towards loss of dependency. But, however, having regard to the year of accident i.e., 2011 and the avocation of deceased as Mason, the appropriate income for the said year would be Rs.6,500/- p.m. as per the guidelines and illustrations of the Lok Adalath chart. Further, the Tribunal has not considered the aspect of future prospects as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) AIR SC 5157 and the same requires consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the compensation under the head loss of income is reworked out as under: Income per month 6,500 Add: future prospects @ 25% 1,625 8,125 Less: 1/3rd personal expenses 2,708 Total income 5,417 Rs.5,417 x 12 x 13 = 8,45,052/- Thus, under the head 'loss of dependency' the claimants are entitled for Rs.8,45,052/- as against Rs.4,68,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 10. In so far as compensation under the conventional heads, the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) AIR SC 5157, has awarded in all a sum of Rs.70,000/-. The Tribunal under the conventional heads has awarded in all a sum of Rs.70,000/- and the same appears to be just and proper and does not call for interference. 11. In the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) AIR SC 5157, has awarded in all a sum of Rs.70,000/-. The Tribunal under the conventional heads has awarded in all a sum of Rs.70,000/- and the same appears to be just and proper and does not call for interference. 11. In the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs. NANU RAM, 2018 SCCONLINE(SC) 1546, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "the right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to the family. 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." In the instant case, claimant Nos. 2 and 3 are the sons of deceased Babu Bangera. They have lost their father and lost his love and affection, companionship and there is a reciprocity in between the family and the deceased. Hence, in accordance with the said ruling, a sum of Rs.40,000/- each is awarded to claimants 2 and 3 towards loss of filial consortium totaling to Rs.80,000/-. 12. In view of the discussion made above and with the altered factors, the compensation is re-worked out as under:- Particulars Compensation awarded by MACT Compensation by this Court Loss of dependency 4,68,000 8,45,052 Medical Expenses 6,550 6,550 Loss of consortium 25,000 70,000 Loss of love and affection 30,000 Transportation of dead body 5,000 Cremation and other obsequies ceremony 10,000 Loss of filial consortium - 80,000 Total 5,44,550 10,01,602 Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.10,01,602/- as against Rs.5,44,550/- awarded by the tribunal. The enhanced compensation would be Rs.4,57,052/- rounded of to Rs.457,500/-. For the reasons and findings as stated above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal filed by the appellants/claimants is allowed in part. The appellants/claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.4,57,500/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till realisation. The impugned judgment and award dated 25.07.2012 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.453/2011, is modified accordingly. Respondent - Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation before the Tribunal, along with interest accrued, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment and on such deposit, the same shall be disbursed to the claimants, on proper identification. Respondent - Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation before the Tribunal, along with interest accrued, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment and on such deposit, the same shall be disbursed to the claimants, on proper identification. However, the impugned judgment and award, in so far as it relates to rate of interest, apportionment and deposit is concerned, shall remain unaltered. Office to draw the decree accordingly.