JUDGMENT : I. A. No.243 of 2018 1. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. I. A. No.243 of 2018 has been preferred for condonation of delay of 17 days in preferring this Miscellaneous Appeal for enhancement of compensation amount granted vide award dated 20.09.2017 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Motor Accident Claim case No.06 of 2010. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that because of loss of support, the wife, son and daughters of the deceased, Vijay Kishore Prasad suffered great mental agony and as such, could not prefer the appeal in time as such, delay in preferring the appeal may be condoned. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the same. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the interlocutory application, this court is inclined the condon the delay in preferring the appeal. 6. Accordingly, I. A. No.243 of 2018 is hereby allowed. The delay in preferring the appeal is condoned. M. A. No. 07 of 2018. 7. Pursuant to the order dated 05.03.2018, the notice has been validly served upon the owner of the offending vehicle, respondent no.1 on 01.04.2018 but the owner of the vehicle has not appeared before this Court. 8. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Rajiv Anand and learned counsel for the respondent no.2, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Mr. Ashutosh Anand. 9. The claimants are the appellants before this court. They have preferred this Miscellaneous Appeal for enhancement of the award passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Ranchi vide Award dated 28.09.2017 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.06 of 2010 whereby these four claimants have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.29,45,436/-. Out of the same Rs.50,000/-has already been paid to the claimants, as such, vide impugned award the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.28,95,436/-along with interest @ 9% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of admission of claim application under Section 166 of M. V. Act, 1988 i.e. 23.04.2010. 10. Out of the same Rs.50,000/-has already been paid to the claimants, as such, vide impugned award the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.28,95,436/-along with interest @ 9% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of admission of claim application under Section 166 of M. V. Act, 1988 i.e. 23.04.2010. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that Insurance Company has been given right to recover the said amount from the respondent no.1, Amiteshwar Kumar, owner of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. JH 02K-9809 since he has violated terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy by plying the offending vehicle on the public road without holding certificate of fitness, route permit and driving licence of the chargesheeted driver. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that Tribunal has not considered the future prospect of the claimants in view of judgment of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. as reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . The deceased, Vijay Kishore Prasad died in a motor vehicle accident on 26.10.2009 while he was coming by his scooter bearing registration No. JH 01D-7035 and when he reached Hawai Nagar offending vehicle Mini Truck bearing Registration No. JH-02K-9809 dashed him from behind due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle causing injury upon the person of Vijay Kishore Prasad, who was shifted to Guru Nanak Hospital Station Road, Ranchi and declared dead by the doctor after examination. FIR has been lodged before the Jagarnathpur Police Station vide P.S. Case No.230 of 2009 dated 26.10.2009 against the driver of the offending vehicle 407 Truck bearing Registration No. JH0-2K-9809 for the offence under Sections 279 and 304A Indian Penal Code. After investigation the police has submitted charge-sheet vide no.159 of 2010 against the driver of the offending vehicle, Muneshwar Mahto under Sections 279 and 304A Indian Penal Code. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the deceased, Vijay Kishore Prasad was aged about 54 years, as date of birth was 13.07.1955 and date of accident/death was 26.10.2009 and as such, the bread earner of the family of the claimants lost his life at the age of 54 years leaving the claimants helpless. 13. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the deceased, Vijay Kishore Prasad was aged about 54 years, as date of birth was 13.07.1955 and date of accident/death was 26.10.2009 and as such, the bread earner of the family of the claimants lost his life at the age of 54 years leaving the claimants helpless. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the deceased, Vijay Kishore Prasad was working as Deputy Manager and was withdrawing gross salary of Rs.35,832.15/-before his death. Out of the said amount income tax was deducted to the tune of Rs.500/-. The income tax return for the assessment years 2008 – 2009 (preceding year of death of the deceased) and for the said year shows gross annual income was to the tune of Rs.3,88,047/-, out of the said amount Vijay Kishore Prasad has paid income tax to the tune of Rs.36,480/-thus his net income in view of the judgment of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. as reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 at para-59.4 and Reshma Kumari and others Versus Madan Mohan and another, reported in (2013) 9 SCC 65 at para-39 was Rs.3,51,567/- per annum. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the Tribunal has calculated the income properly but has not granted any future prospect in view of judgment of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. as reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . The future prospect for a person in the age group of 50 -55 is 15%, which has not been taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal while awarding the compensation. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that funeral expenses has been paid to the tune of Rs.25,000/-, loss of Estate has been paid to the tune of Rs.10,000/-and loss of Consortium has been paid to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, loss of Consortium should be Rs.40,000/-and loss of Estate should be Rs.15,000/-as such, such amount may be enhanced. 16. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that loss of Consortium as Rs.40,000/-each to the claimants has to be paid in view of the judgment of Magma Insurance company Vs. 16. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that loss of Consortium as Rs.40,000/-each to the claimants has to be paid in view of the judgment of Magma Insurance company Vs. Nanu Ram reported in 2018 SCC online 1546 corresponding 2018 (4) JLJR 230 and the same has been subsequently also followed in the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Joginder Singh and anther Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited in Civil Appeal No.6291 of 2019 decided on 14.08.2019. 17. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2, Mr. Ashutosh Anand has fairly submitted that Tribunal has not considered the future prospect of the deceased, who died at the age of 54 years and as per the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) the claimants are entitled for future prospect @ 15% of the income. 18. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has submitted that though the Tribunal has given a right to the Insurance Company to recover the said amount from owner of the vehicle, whose vehicle was plying on public road in violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. 19. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has submitted that for just, fair and reasonable compensation, this Court may also consider that where the future prospect is to be enhanced, the loss of Consortium is to be granted, this court may take notice that Tribunal has paid excess amount under the head of funeral expenses to the tune of Rs.25,000/-contrary to the direction passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), which should be Rs.15,000/-. 20. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has submitted that the claimants have been paid less amount under the head of loss of Estate, which should have been Rs.15,000/-instead of Rs.10,000/-, which was granted by the learned Tribunal against the judgment and guidelines passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra). 21. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has submitted that loss of Consortium has been granted by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs.10,000/-while it ought to have been Rs.40,000/-. 22. 21. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has submitted that loss of Consortium has been granted by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs.10,000/-while it ought to have been Rs.40,000/-. 22. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has buttressed his argument contradicting the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants on this point, who puts reliance upon the judgment of Nanu Ram (Supra) and Joginder Singh (Supra) on the ground that Nanu Ram (Supra) judgment has been passed in exercise of power under Article 142 and in the interest of the justice though the same judgment speaks that: “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 (Supra)”. (emphasis supplied) 23. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has submitted that these things have been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) and as such, para-52 may be relied upon, which is quoted hereunder: “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. 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. 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.” 24. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has submitted that at para-59.8 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that loss of Consortium is Rs.40,000/-as such, this court may grant a total of Rs.40,000/-instead of Rs.40,000/-each to the claimants. 25. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that this enhanced amount shall only carry interest from the date of filing of the Miscellaneous Appeal for enhancement of the award, it should not be from the date of filing of the claim application. 26. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and perused the materials brought on record. From perusal of the award, it appears that loss of future prospect has not been considered in accordance with law. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) has laid down principle that loss of future prospect has to be calculated depending upon the age group of the deceased. In the present case the deceased Vijay Kishore Prasad was aged about 54 years at the time of death as such, in view of the principle the claimants are entitled for 15% of the annual income as future prospect. Apart from this the funeral expenses has been paid to the tune of Rs.25,000/-, which ought to have been Rs. In the present case the deceased Vijay Kishore Prasad was aged about 54 years at the time of death as such, in view of the principle the claimants are entitled for 15% of the annual income as future prospect. Apart from this the funeral expenses has been paid to the tune of Rs.25,000/-, which ought to have been Rs. 15,000/-in view of Pranay Sethi (Supra) and the loss of Consortium has been paid Rs.10,000/-, which should have been Rs.40,000/-as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, as such, the claimants/appellants are entitled future prospect @ 15% on the income of Rs.3,51,567/-per annum, which shall be multiplied with multiplier eleven. The same shall carry interest from the date of filing of the application in view of Section 171 of M.V. Act and also in view of the judgment in the case of Amresh Kumari Vs. Niranjan Lal, Gagdish Prasad Jain and Others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 433 . Head Compensation awarded i. Income: Rs. 3,51,567/-per annum. ii. Deduction towards personal expenditure Rs.3,51,567 -1/4 of Rs.3,51,567 = Rs. 2,63,676/- iii. Future Prospects: Rs. 2,63,676 + 15% of Rs. 2,63,676/-= Rs. 3,03,227/- iv. Multiplier: 11 v. Total income Rs. 3,03,227 x 11= Rs. 33,35,497/- vi. Funeral expenses: Rs. 15,000/- vii. Loss of estate: Rs. 15,000/- viii. Loss of Consortium: Rs. 40,000/- ix. Total compensation awarded: Rs. 34,05,497/- x. Total enhanced amount of compensation = compensation amount awarded by this court minus compensation amount awarded by Tribunal i.e. Rs. 34,05,497 – Rs.29,45,436 = Rs.4,60,061/-along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Claim petition i.e. 22.01.2010 till payment. x. Total enhanced amount of compensation = compensation amount awarded by this court minus compensation amount awarded by Tribunal i.e. Rs. 34,05,497 – Rs.29,45,436 = Rs.4,60,061/-along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Claim petition i.e. 22.01.2010 till payment. 27. The liberty given to the Insurance Company to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle by The Tribunal remains intact, as no Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the owner of offending vehicle, Amiteshwar Kumar, nor appeared in this Miscellaneous Appeal even after notice by this Court on 01.04.2018. 28. Accordingly, this Miscellaneous Appeal is hereby allowed with aforesaid observation and direction.