JUDGMENT : K Somashekar, J. Though this appeal is listed for admission with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, the same is taken up for final disposal. 2. This appeal is preferred by the appellants/claimants being the wife and children of the deceased-Prakash M against the judgment and award dated 01.03.2014 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T. at Sakaleshpur in MVC No. 1075/2013 seeking enhancement of compensation, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.17,78,645/- with interest at 6% p.a. which found to be inadequacy and also on lower side in support of the income held by the Tribunal also to be considered with regard to the future prospects of the deceased. 3. The factual matrix of the appeal is as under: It is evident in the claim petition that on 20.02.2013 at about 12.30 p.m. the deceased-Prakash M along with his friends proceeded to the house of Sathish Gandi in Kundoor Village, Singatagere Hobli, Hassan Taluk in a Maruti Alto Car bearing Reg.No.KA- 13-N-2174 driven by its driver-Venkatesh and at around 8.30 p.m. near Devanahalli Gate at Bricks Factory, the driver of the aforesaid car drove the same in a greater speed and lost its control, as a result, the said car was capsized and the driver of the said car-Venkatesh A along with inmates of the car by names one Mohan, Vedamurthy have sustained simple injuries and said Prakash M sustained grievous injuries on his head and all over the body. Immediately the said Prakash was shifted to the Government Hospital, Kadoor, after first aid, he was admitted to the Manipal Hospital as an in patient for a period of two days, thereafter, he was shifted to Chigateri Hospital, Davangere as an inpatient but he died on 23.02.2013 at about 11.30 p.m. 4. Deceased-Prakash M was working as a Quality Executive in GOGO International Garments Factory situated by the side of Hassan-Holenarasipura Road in Hassan and earning Rs.13,598.48/- per month. But untimely death of Prakash, wife has lost her companion, children's have lost their beloved father's love and affection. Claimants were depending upon the sources of deceased to eek out their life and they are under depression and also mental agony. The claimants being the dependants of the deceased filed claim petition against the respondents seeking compensation. 5. But untimely death of Prakash, wife has lost her companion, children's have lost their beloved father's love and affection. Claimants were depending upon the sources of deceased to eek out their life and they are under depression and also mental agony. The claimants being the dependants of the deceased filed claim petition against the respondents seeking compensation. 5. First respondent said to be the driver cum owner of the offending car and second respondent said to be insurer of offending vehicle. 6. In pursuance of the service of notice, respondents No.1 and 2 have appeared before the Court and filed their separate written statements. In the written statement, 1st respondent denied that the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the said car. He contended that he has a valid and effective driving licence to drive the said car and insurance policy is in force on the date of accident. Hence, he is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. 2nd respondent insurance company has contended in the written statement that the accident was not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent and the vehicle of the 1st respondent not at all involved in this case and this vehicle is implicated only to claim compensation from this respondent. Hence, prays to dismissal of the claim petition. 7. In order to substantiate their case, claimant No.1 examined herself as P.W.1 and also got examined one more witness as PW2 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P.26. 8. Based upon the evidence of P.W.1, so also the relevant documents viz., Ex.P4-inquest mahazer, Ex.P.5-spot Mahazar, Ex.P.6 post mortem report said to be issued by the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of Prakash, insofar as the deceased said to be a Quality Executive in GOGO International Garments Factory by avocation as such Exs.P.8 to 10 extract have been produced by the claimants in order to establish their case against the respondents. All these vital documents have been appreciated by the Tribunal and awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.17,78,645/- with interest at 6% p.a. Being aggrieved, the claimants are in this appeal by urging various grounds. 9. All these vital documents have been appreciated by the Tribunal and awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.17,78,645/- with interest at 6% p.a. Being aggrieved, the claimants are in this appeal by urging various grounds. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, AIR 2017 SC 5157 , future prospects is to be added to his income. It is based upon the age factor of the deceased and 40% of the income is requires to be added towards future prospects as deceased was aged about 35 years at the time of accident and same is substantiated by the post mortem report at Ex.P6. 10. Further, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads is on lower side. Further, he contends that the Tribunal has grossly erred in passing the impugned judgment and award without following procedure as prescribed under law and by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court. On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellants seeks for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11. Per contra, Sri. H.S.Lingaraju, learned counsel for the insurance company has contended that the Tribunal has rendered the judgment and award based upon the oral and documentary evidence of the appellants. Therefore, the appeal has not called for any interference but this appeal requires intervention by this Court with regard to the future prospects as awarded by the Tribunal. 12. In the background of the contentions taken by learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent-insurer as stated supra, it is relevant to state that there is no dispute that on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car bearing registration No.KA-13-N-2174, on 23.02.2013, the deceased Prakash died due to grievous injuries, the same has been revealed in Ex.P.6-Post mortem report by the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body. It is relevant to state that Ex.P.4 is inquest proceedings over the dead body of the deceased by the concerned authorities in order to file the charge sheet against the accused being the driver of the offending vehicle as per Ex.P.3. 13. The Tribunal has taken the multiplier as 16' as per the decision in Sarla Verma's case. It is relevant to state that Ex.P.4 is inquest proceedings over the dead body of the deceased by the concerned authorities in order to file the charge sheet against the accused being the driver of the offending vehicle as per Ex.P.3. 13. The Tribunal has taken the multiplier as 16' as per the decision in Sarla Verma's case. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, AIR 2017 SC 5157 deals with Sections 167 and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 relating to the future prospects. The same has to be determined keeping in view the age of the deceased. 40% shall be added to the income as future prospects if deceased was below 40 years of age. In the instant case, the deceased was aged about 35 years. The Tribunal has taken the multiplier as 16', which is just and proper. Accordingly, the compensation towards loss of dependency is reworked out as under: Rs.13300X 40%= 5320/- Rs.13300+Rs.5320= 18620/- Rs.18620 x 1/3 = Rs.6206 (18620 - 6206 =12414) Rs.12414/- X12X16= Rs.23,83,488/- is awarded as against Rs.16,64000/- towards loss of dependency awarded by the Tribunal. 14. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards 'loss of consortium', Rs.20,000/- each towards 'love and affection', Rs.10,000/- towards 'funeral expenses and obsequies ceremony. In all Rs.75,000/-. However, keeping in view the law laid down in Pranay Sethi's case referred to supra, the compensation under conventional heads shall not exceed in a sum of Rs.70,000/- or shall not be below Rs.70,000/-. However, in the present case, an amount of Rs.75,000/- is awarded which exceeds Rs.70,000/- Accordingly, it is reduced to Rs.70,000/- out of Rs.75,000/- towards conventional head and reduced in a sum of Rs.5,000/-. Medical bills have already been considered by the Tribunal and same shall be retained. 15. However, keeping in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs. NANU RAM, 2018 SCCONLINESC 1546, has held that: "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. 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. 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, co-operation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation." 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. 16. In the instant appeal, the claimant No.1 is said to be the wife of deceased Prakash as there shall be consideration as spouse consortium, 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, co-operation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation. Insofar as Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent. But in the instant case, deceased Prakash is said to be the father of claimants 2 and 3 who are the children of the deceased. The responsibility will be taken up by his wife. Hence, in accordance with the above said ruling, a sum of Rs.40,000/- each, is awarded to claimant Nos. 2 and 3 towards loss of filial consortium, totaling to Rs.80,000/-. 17. In view of the discussion made above and with the altered factors, the compensation is re-worked out as under:- Compensation awarded under the heads By MACT By this Court Loss of dependency 16,64,000/- 23,83,488 Medical expenses 39,645/- 39,645/- Loss of love and affection 40,000/- 70,000/- Loss of consortium 25,000/- Funeral expenses 10,000/- Filial Consortium - 80,000/- Total 17,78,645 25,73,433 Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.25,73,433/- as against Rs.17,78,645/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation would be Rs.7,94,488/-. The enhanced compensation would be Rs.7,94,488/-. For the reasons and findings as stated above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Appeal is allowed in part. The appellants/claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.7,94,488/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till realisation. The impugned judgment and award dated 01.03.2014 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Sakaleshpur in MVC No.1075/2013, is modified accordingly. Respondent No.2-The National Insurance Co.Ltd. shall deposit the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal as well as the compensation enhanced by this Court, 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. Registry is directed to draw decree accordingly.