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 31.7.2012 rendered by the Member, MACT-III and II Addl.District Judge, D.K., Mangalore in MVC No.767/2010 seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. The factual matrix of the appeal is as under: It is stated in the claim petition that on 27.3.2010, deceased Chandrashekar along with his son Vishwanatha was returning towards his house by walk on the extreme side of the road after purchasing some household items. When they reached Marodi village of Belthangadi taluk at about 3.00 p.m., at that time, the driver of autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-21/A 1979 drove the same in high speed and in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. Immediately, he was taken to Spandana Hospital, Karkala and further, he was advised to take better treatment at super specialty hospital, therefore, he was shifted to Mangalore, but on the way to Mangalore, deceased succumbed to the injuries. 4. It is contended that the deceased was hale and healthy prior to accident. He was aged 45 years and by working as a Mason, earning Rs.350/- per day. Petitioners having lost the earning member of the family and who were depending upon his income to eak out their livelihood, filed the claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation. 5. After service of notice, respondent no.1 did not appear all throughout the proceedings and was placed exparte. Respondent No.2 entered appearance and filed written statement denying the petition averments and sought for dismissal of the petition. 6. Based upon the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the issues. In order to prove their case, petitioner no.4 was examined as PW.1 and got marked documents as per Exs.P1 to P9. On behalf of respondents, Ex.R1 was got marked. After hearing the arguments advanced by learned counsel on both sides and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment, awarding compensation of Rs.5,44,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners being the wife and children of the deceased, have preferred the present appeal on various amongst other grounds. 7. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners being the wife and children of the deceased, have preferred the present appeal on various amongst other grounds. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side and it has been awarded without considering the material produced by the appellants. The monthly income of Rs.4,000/- assessed by the Tribunal, while calculating the loss of dependency is arbitrary and contrary to evidence on record, as the deceased was working as a Mason and was earning Rs.350/- per day. Further, the Tribunal has erred in not adding 30% of the income to the actual income while calculating the loss of dependency which is against the rulings of Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Tribunal also erred in awarding meager compensation of only Rs.40,000/- under the conventional heads. On all these grounds, learned counsel for the appellants, seeks interference of this Court prays for enhancing the compensation by allowing the appeal. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - insurance company disputes the age factor of deceased - Chandrashekar Das and the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased at 45 years. But the age of claimant no.2 being the elder daughter of deceased is shown as 27 years and the learned counsel disputes the age gap between the deceased and claimant no.2. Having regard to this age factor, he contends that the multiplier adopted should have been 13 instead of 14. Further, he contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and it does not call for interference of this Court and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 9. In the backdrop of the contentions as taken by learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the respondent - insurance company, it is relevant to note that deceased Chandrashekar Das who sustained fatal injuries in a road traffic accident said to have occurred on 27.3.2010 at about 3.00 p.m. near Panalu, in Marodi village, Belthangadi Taluk and succumbed to the injuries on the way to hospital due to actionable negligence on the part of driver of the offending autorickshaw bearing Regn.No.KA-21/A 1979, is not in dispute. To prove the accident, petitioner no.4 - Vishwanatha, son of deceased Chandrashekar Das who was examined as PW.1 in his evidence has stated that he is an eye witness to the accident and due to the accidental injuries his father on the way to the Hospital has died. In proof of the same, he has produced documents such as Ex.P1 - FIR, Ex.P2 - complaint, Ex.P4 - spot panchanama and Ex.P5 - post mortem report which clearly indicates that deceased died due to the injuries to brain and intra-cranial hemorrhage. Ex.P6 is the sketch, Ex.P7 is the IMV report and Ex.P8 is the charge sheet. 10. First petitioner is the wife, petitioners 2, 3, 5 and 6 are daughters and petitioner no.4 is the son of deceased Chandrashekar Das. At the time of accident, it is said that deceased was aged 45 years and by working as mason was earning Rs.350/- per day. But there being no documentary evidence in this regard, the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/-. But having regard to the year of accident which is of 2010 and in the absence of any materials regarding nature of work and corroborative evidence of PW.1, it is just and proper to hold income of the deceased at Rs.5,500/-p.m. 11. Further, keeping in view the submission of learned counsel for the insurance company and the dispute with regard to the age of deceased is concerned, I deem it appropriate to hold multiplier of 13' as the deceased would fall under the age group of 46 - 50 years as per Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) ACJ 1298. 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 dependency is reworked out as under: Income per month 5,500 Add: future prospects @ 25% 1,375 6,875 Less: 1/4th personal expenses 1,719 Total income 5,156 Rs.5,156 x 12 x 13 = 8,04,336/- Thus, under the head 'loss of dependency' the claimants are entitled for Rs.8,04,336/- as against Rs.5,04,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 12. 12. In so far as compensation under conventional heads, as per Pranay Sethi's case stated supra, the compensation under the conventional heads should not be more than Rs.70,000/-. But the Tribunal under the conventional heads has awarded in all a sum of Rs.40,000/-. Hence, an additional amount of Rs.30,000/- is awarded under the conventional heads. 13. In the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs. NANU RAM, 2018 SCCONLINESC 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, 3, 5 and 6 are the daughters and claimant No.4 - Vishwanatha is the son of deceased Chandrashekar Das. They have lost their father and lost his love and affection, companionship and there is a reciprocity in between the family and the deceased. The deceased was contributing his income to the entire family for their sustenance and survival. The claimants being the children have lost the passionate of their father Chandshekar Das. Keeping in view the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a sum of Rs.40,000/- each is awarded to claimants 2 to 6 towards loss of filial consortium totaling to Rs.2,00,000/-. 14. 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 5,04,000 8,04,336 Loss of expectancy of life, loss of consortium to Ist petitioner, conveyance and funeral expenses, loss of love and affection 40,000 70,000 Loss of filial consortium - 2,00,000 Total 5,44,000 10,74,336 Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.10,74,336/- as against Rs.5,44,000/- awarded by the tribunal. The enhanced compensation would be Rs.5,30,336/- rounded of to Rs.5,30,500/-. 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.5,30,500/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till realisation. The impugned judgment and award dated 31.07.2012 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.767/2010, is modified accordingly. The appellants/claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.5,30,500/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till realisation. The impugned judgment and award dated 31.07.2012 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.767/2010, is modified accordingly. Respondent - Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation before the Tribunal, along with accrued interest, 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.