JUDGMENT : Aravind Kumar, J. This appeal is preferred by the insurer calling in question the correctness and legality of judgment and award passed by MACT, Belagavi in MVC No.1030/2014, dated 25th April 2015, where under claim petition filed by wife, mother and children of the deceased Shri Halasiddappa under Section 166 of M.V. Act came to be allowed in part by awarding a total compensation of Rs.70,05,000/- win interest @ 8% p.a. from date of petition till the date of payment or deposit, whichever is earlier. 2. Though matter is listed for admission, by consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 3. We have heard the arguments of Shri N.R. Kuppelur, learned advocate appearing for the appellant Insurer; Shri Suni S.Desai, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3; respondent No.4 is served and unrepresented and notice to respondent No.5 has been held sufficient vide order dated 08.08.2018. 4. It is the contention of Shri N.R. Kuppelur, learned advocate appearing for appellant Insurer that tribunal had committed a serious error in directing the insurer to indemnify the claim, though driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence namely transport vehicle licence and as such relying upon the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., vs. Roshan Ben Rehamansha Fakir, (2008) AIRSCW 4048, he prays for allowing the appeal. He would also submit that quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants under conventional heads is contrary to the dicta laid down by Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) ACJ 2700 and in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Nanu Ram and others, (2018) ACJ 2782. Hence, he seeks for modification of the judgment and award passed by the tribunal. He would also submit that tribunal committed an error in not considering the fact that driver of the offending vehicle was intoxicated and as such he was charge sheeted by the jurisdictional Police, which fact is ignored by the tribunal and as such there is no liability on the part of insurer to indemnify the claim. 5. He would also submit that tribunal committed an error in not considering the fact that driver of the offending vehicle was intoxicated and as such he was charge sheeted by the jurisdictional Police, which fact is ignored by the tribunal and as such there is no liability on the part of insurer to indemnify the claim. 5. Per contra, Shri Sunil S.Desai, learned advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 would support the impugned judgment and award passed by the tribunal and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records, we notice that issue relating to non possessing of the driving licence by the driver of the offending vehicle as on the date of accident is a no more res integra. Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2017) 14 SCC 663 has held that holder of a driving licence to drive class of light motor vehicle as provided in Section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg or a motor car or tractor or road roller, the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. In the light of the law laid down in Mukund Dewangan case, we are of the considered view that first contention raised by Shri N.R. Kuppelur requires to be considered for the purpose of outright rejection and accordingly it is rejected. 7. Insofar as second contention with regard to quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal under conventional heads merits partial acceptance. As could be seen from the judgment and award passed by the tribunal, wife of the deceased (first claimant) has been awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium; insofar as loss of love and affection to claimants are concerned, tribunal has awarded Rs.4,00,000/- i.e., Rs.1,00,000/- each to the claimants; towards funeral expenses, a sum of Rs.25,000/-; the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi has held that wife would be entitled to compensation towards loss of consortium in a sum of Rs.40,000/- accordingly, said compensation deserves to be awarded. Likewise, compensation towards loss of estate and compensation towards funeral expenses, a sum of Rs.15,000/- under each head deserves to be awarded and accordingly, it is hereby awarded. Likewise, compensation towards loss of estate and compensation towards funeral expenses, a sum of Rs.15,000/- under each head deserves to be awarded and accordingly, it is hereby awarded. Insofar as compensation towards loss of love and affection i.e., parental consortium, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., held that children, who are of tender age have lost the love and affection of their father, they would be entitled to the compensation by way of loss of love and affection and as such has ordered for payment @ Rs.50,000/- to each child. Hence, we award a sum of Rs.50,000/- each to claimant Nos.2 and 3; insofar as mother of the deceased is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., referred to supra has also held that filial consortium is a right of the parents in case of accident and death of a child, the agony for a parent is to loose their child during their life time is eternal. Hence, we are of the considered view that mother of the deceased would also be entitled to compensation towards filial consortium to the tune of Rs.40,000/- and accordingly, we award a sum of Rs.40,000/-. Thus, in substitution of total sum of Rs.5,25,000/- awarded by the tribunal under conventional heads, we hereby award a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- under conventional heads. Thus, to the extent of Rs.3,15,000/- compensation awarded by the tribunal being excessive, the judgment and award passed by the tribunal requires to be modified accordingly. 8. Insofar as the contention raised by Shri N.R. Kuppelur with regard to driver of the offending vehicle was intoxicated as on date of accident is concerned we brush aside said contention, though he was charge sheeted for the said offence, fact remains he was acquitted of the said offence and that apart, tribunal on appreciation of entire evidence has held that plea of the insurer has remained as a plea without proof, which finding of fact, we do not propose to interfere with the same. Hence, we pass the following: ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) Judgment and award passed by the MACT, Belagavi in MVC No.1030/2014, dated 25th April 2015 is hereby modified. Hence, we pass the following: ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) Judgment and award passed by the MACT, Belagavi in MVC No.1030/2014, dated 25th April 2015 is hereby modified. In substitution to a sum of Rs.70,05,000/- awarded by tribunal, we award a sum of Rs.66,90,000/- with interest @ 8% p.a. from date of petition till date of deposit or payment whichever is earlier. (iii) Appellant-insurer shall deposit the entire compensation amount with interest calculated up to date before the jurisdictional tribunal within an outer limit of six weeks from today. (iv) The amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the jurisdictional tribunal. (v) The order of payment, deposit, apportionment as directed by the tribunal shall hold good for the modified award also.