JUDGMENT : K.R. MOHAPATRA, J. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) has been filed by the Claimants-appellants against the Award dated 29.04.2003 passed by learned Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal”), in Misc. Case No.582 of 1994 awarding a sum of Rs.37,500/-to the claimants-appellants along with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e., 12.08.1994 till realization along with cost. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the case of claimants as revealed from the Claim Petition is that on 31.07.1994, a truck bearing registration No.WB-23-1207 (for short, ‘offending truck’) being driven in a rash and negligent manner ran over a 13 years old girl, a student (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) causing her instantaneous death. The offending truck had valid insurance policy issued by respondent No.2-Insurance Company covering the date of accident. As such, the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act was filed claiming compensation of Rs.80,000/-. Taking into consideration the materials on record, the impugned award has been passed. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that appellant No.1 (mother of the deceased) died on 13.08.2009) during pendency of the appeal leaving behind her husband (appellant No.2) as her only legal heir who is already on record. Hence, no substitution is necessary. In support of his submission, learned counsel submitted an attested photocopy of death certificate of appellant No.1 which is taken on record. As such, the name of appellant No.1 is deleted from the cause title of the appeal memo. 4. Learned counsel for appellant No.2 argued that the instant appeal has been filed for enhancement of the compensation amount. Learned Tribunal, while adjudicating the claim petition, did not take into consideration the materials on record and the case law cited on behalf of the claimants. A meager compensation of Rs.37,500/-as awarded by learned Tribunal is also without any basis. Learned Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the legal position while assessing the compensation for death of a minor girl. The 2nd Schedule of Section 163-A of the Act clearly provides that notional income of a non-earning person should be Rs.15,000/-per annum. Further, the deceased being 13 years old at the time of her death, multiplier 15 should have been applied while assessing the compensation. The 2nd Schedule of Section 163-A of the Act clearly provides that notional income of a non-earning person should be Rs.15,000/-per annum. Further, the deceased being 13 years old at the time of her death, multiplier 15 should have been applied while assessing the compensation. The appellant No.1 is also entitled to compensation on heads of non-pecuniary damages like loss of estate and loss of consortium etc. In that view of the matter, the compensation as awarded by learned Tribunal warrants interference and the same is liable to be enhanced. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company, on the other hand, submitted that the deceased being a minor girl of 13 years old and a student at the time of her death, the notional income as prescribed in the 2nd Schedule is not applicable. Further, when the deceased is a non-earning person, question of adopting multiplier to assess the loss of income does not arise. The plea of loss of consortium is also a misnomer in the instant case. It is only applicable in case of death of a spouse or an earning child of the parents. In absence of any such material, learned Tribunal has arrived at a just conclusion, which needs no interference. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The first and most important issue that arises for assessment of compensation, is income of the deceased. The deceased was a girl of 13 years old and a student at the time of her death. Naturally, she did not have any income of her own. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in absence of any known source of income of the deceased, the compensation can be assessed on the basis of structured formula as envisaged in Section 163-A read with Second Schedule of the Act. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company, however, submits that when the claimants have not prayed for assessment of the compensation on the basis of structured formula as envisaged under Section 163-A of the Act, such a plea at a belated stage in the appeal is not acceptable. I am unable to accept the submissions of learned counsel for the Insurance Company for the reason that provisions have been made in the Act to award a just compensation to the claimant for the loss sustained in a motor accident. I am unable to accept the submissions of learned counsel for the Insurance Company for the reason that provisions have been made in the Act to award a just compensation to the claimant for the loss sustained in a motor accident. The claims Tribunal constituted under the Act have jurisdiction to award compensation more than what is claimed in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, if it feels in the facts and circumstances of a particular case, to award so which would be a just compensation. In my view, a just compensation cannot be less than the amount to be assessed under the structured formula prescribed under Section 163-A of the Act. My view gets support from a decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Sunanda Nayak Vs Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company and another, reported in Vol. 96 (2003) CLT 515. “14. In another decision reported in Fatama Matul Bibi v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2003 ACJ 365 (Calcutta), a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court while dealing with a case of death of two children who were aged 12 years and were students of classes III and IV, held thus: “Different High Courts considered the future prospects of the child and also dependency benefits or accretion to the estate, but fact remains that in ultimate analysis in the matter of assessment, no guideline was applied and we do not find any reason on what basis ultimately the amount which was awarded in each case, which appears to us, to be quite nugatory. We are not inclined to follow such decisions. The reason is as pointed out hereinbefore, although we are concerned that in determination of compensation element of speculation may be more in case of a minor, and future dependency benefit or accretion to the estate in such cases can be determined after taking into consideration the family background, academic achievement of the child and other material available, but even such determination, it appears to us, remains in the realm of speculation. We are of the view that structured formula is a safer guidance for arriving at the amount of compensation in any other matter, even in case when the child is victim…” Thus, the contention of learned counsel for the Insurance Company is not sustainable. We are of the view that structured formula is a safer guidance for arriving at the amount of compensation in any other matter, even in case when the child is victim…” Thus, the contention of learned counsel for the Insurance Company is not sustainable. It is held that in absence of any other mode of assessment, the structured formula as provided in Section 163-A read with Second Schedule of the Act is applicable, even if the claimant has not taken a specific plea to that effect in the claim petition under section 166 of the Act. 7. True it is that the deceased was a girl of 13 years old and a student at the time of her death, but Clause-6 of Second schedule of Section 163-A of the Act does not discriminate between a minor and an able-bodied major, who is capable of earning. It is applicable to all irrespective of the age, where the victim of an accident has no known source of income. It prescribes as follows:- “xx xx xx 6. Notional income for compensation to those who had no income prior to accident: Fatal and disability in non-fatal accidents: (a) Non-earning person Rs.15,000 p.a. (b) Spouse Rs.1/3rd of income of the earning surviving spouse. In case of other injuries only “general damage” as applicable.” 8. Thus, I have no hesitation to assess the annual notional income of the deceased, who was a non-earning minor child at Rs.15,000/-per annum. There is some controversy as to what amount would be deducted from the income of the deceased towards her personal/living expenses and what would be the multiplier. An argument is advanced by learned counsel for the claimant-appellant that the deceased being a child of 13 years at her death, no personal expenses would be deducted from the notional income, as all her expenses was being borne by her parents. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that since the deceased was a bachelor, 50% should be deducted from her notional income towards personal and living expenses. He placed reliance on the case of Sarala Verma –v-Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , wherein it has been held as follows:- “25. We have already noticed that the personal and living expenses of the deceased should be deducted from the income, to arrive at the contribution to the dependants. He placed reliance on the case of Sarala Verma –v-Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , wherein it has been held as follows:- “25. We have already noticed that the personal and living expenses of the deceased should be deducted from the income, to arrive at the contribution to the dependants. No evidence need be led to show the actual expenses of the deceased. In fact, any evidence in that behalf will be wholly unverifiable and likely to be unreliable. The claimants will obviously tend to claim that the deceased was very frugal and did not have any expensive habits and was spending virtually the entire income on the family. In some cases, it may be so. No claimant would admit that the deceased was a spendthrift, even if he was one. 26. It is also very difficult for the respondents in a claim petition to produce evidence to show that the deceased was spending a considerable part of the income on himself or that he was contributing only a small part of the income on his family. Therefore, it became necessary to standardise the deductions to be made under the head of personal and living expenses of the deceased. This lead to the practice of deducting towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, one-third of the income if the deceased was married, and one-half (50%) of the income if the deceased was a bachelor. This practice was evolved out of experience, logic and convenience. In fact one-third deduction got statutory recognition under the Second Schedule to the Act, in respect of claims under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the MV Act”, for short). But, such percentage of deduction is not an inflexible rule and offers merely a guideline.” Law is well-settled that there cannot be a straitjacket formula to determine the compensation in a motor accident. However, a structured formula has been provided under Section 163-A read with Second Schedule of the Act to determine the compensation. Although Hon’ble Supreme Court has found mistakes/inaccuracy in the Second Schedule of the Act, in the case of Munna Lal Jain and Another v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and Others, reported in (2015) 6 SCC 347 . It is held as under:- “2. Although Hon’ble Supreme Court has found mistakes/inaccuracy in the Second Schedule of the Act, in the case of Munna Lal Jain and Another v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and Others, reported in (2015) 6 SCC 347 . It is held as under:- “2. In the absence of any statutory and a straitjacket formula, there are bound to be grey areas despite several attempts made by this Court to lay down the guidelines. Compensation would basically depend on the evidence available in a case and the formulas shown by the courts are only guidelines for the computation of the compensation. That precisely is the reason the courts lodge a caveat stating “ordinarily”, “normally”, “exceptional circumstances”, etc., while suggesting the formula.” Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case has discussed the ratio decided in Sarala Verma (supra) and Reshma Kumar v. Madan Mohan, reported in (2013) 9 SCC 65 and other leading cases in this field. In the case of United India Insurance Company Limited and Others v. Patricia Jean Mahajan and Others, reported in AIR 2002 SC 2607 , Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:- “22. We therefore, hold that ordinarily while awarding compensation, the provisions contained in the Second Schedule may be taken as a guide including the multiplier, but there may arise some cases, as the one in hand, which may fall in the category having special features or facts calling for deviation from the multiplier usually applicable.” Thus, in my view, when the structured formula under Section 163-A of the Act has not yet been declared invalid/void/ultra vires, it still holds the field. As there is no special features in the case at hand, and this Court has resorted to the structured formula, it should not in the mid-way leave it and adopt any other method/formula for assessment of compensation. Thus, restriction provided/prescribed in the Second Schedule is applicable in the case at hand. In the ‘Note’ to Second Schedule it is prescribed as follows: “Note-The amount of compensation so arrived at in the case of fatal accidents claims shall be reduced by 1/3rd in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive.” 9. Thus, I don’t find any force in the submission of either learned counsel for the claimant-appellants or respondent-Insurance Company. Thus, I don’t find any force in the submission of either learned counsel for the claimant-appellants or respondent-Insurance Company. Taking into consideration the structured formula, this Court adopts multiplier 15 for determination of loss of dependency and hold that the same shall be reduced by 1/3rd towards her personal and living expenses while determining the compensation. Accordingly, the compensation on pecuniary damages is assessed as under:- • Deducting 1/3from the income of the deceased, which comes to Rs.5,000/-per annum, the annual notional income of the deceased would be Rs.10,000/-. • Further adopting multiplier 15, it comes to Rs.10,000/-x 15 = Rs.1,50,000/-. Thus, the total pecuniary damages due to the death of the deceased is assessed at Rs.1,50,000/-. 10. Again, another important issue that needs consideration is, what would be the loss of future prospect of the income of the deceased. The principles laid down in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 has great relevance in this aspect. It is held in paragprah-59 of Pranay Sethi (supra) as follows: “59. In view of aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record own conclusions: 59.1 xxx xxx xxx 59.2. xxx xxx xxx 59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.” However, it does not specifically consider the case of a child of tender age. The established income means the income minus the tax component.” However, it does not specifically consider the case of a child of tender age. In the case of R.K. Malik and another v. Kiran Pal and others, reported in 2009 (3) TAC 1 (SC), the said issue has been specifically taken care of. In the said case, 29 innocent of school going children between the age group of 10 to 18 years and three of them being less than 10 years died in a road accident, when the bus in which they were proceeding to school fell in Yamuna River at Wazirbad Yamuna Bridge. In the said case, Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue of future prospect, held as follows:- “34. In view of the discussion made hereinbefore, it is quite clear that the claim with regard to future prospects should have been addressed by the courts below. While considering such claims, child's performance in school, the reputation of the school, etc. might be taken into consideration. 35. In the present case, records show that the children were good in studies and studying in a reasonably good school. Naturally, their future prospects would be presumed to be good and bright. Since they were children, there is no yardstick to measure the loss of future prospect of these children. But as already noted, they were performing well in studies, natural consequence supposed to be a bright future. 36. In Lata Wadhwa [ (2001) 8 SCC 197 ] and M.S. Grewal [ (2001) 8 SCC 151 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1426] the Supreme Court recognized such future prospects as the basis and factor to be considered. Therefore, denying compensation towards future prospects seems to be unjustified. Keeping this in background, the facts and circumstances of the present case, and following the decision in Lata Wadhwa[ (2001) 8 SCC 197 ] and M.S. Grewal [ (2001) 8 SCC 151 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1426] , we deem it appropriate to grant compensation of Rs 75,000 (which is roughly half of the amount given on account of pecuniary damages) as compensation for the future prospects of the children, to be paid to each claimant within one month of the date of this decision. We would like to clarify that this amount i.e. Rs 75,000 is over and above what has been awarded by the High Court.” The case of R.K. Malik (supra) being more akin and apt to the facts and circumstances of the case, I assess the future prospect at Rs.75, 000/-. 11. Now, let me consider the compensation for non-pecuniary damages, i.e., loss of estate, loss of consortium and future prospect etc. As held in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the loss of estate should be Rs.15,000/-and it appears to be reasonable in the facts and circumstances of this case. 12. The next and a vital issue that arises for consideration is the loss of consortium and whether the Court/Tribunal can award compensation on this head, when deceased is a child, as it is generally awarded in a case of death of spouse or parents. The issue is well-settled in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others, reported in 2018 (4) T.A.C. 345 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph-8.7, held as under:- “8.7 A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is Loss of Consortium. 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, Rajesh and Ors. V. Rajbir Singh and Ors., (2013) 9 S.C.C. 54 : 2013 (3)T.A.C. 679. 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, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation.” [BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (5E.1979] 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. 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. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world over have recognized that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium. Parental Consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count.[Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram @ Jagmal Singh and Ors. V. Sohi Ram and Ors., 2017 (4) R.L.W.3368 (Raj.); Uttarakhand High Court in Smt. Rita Rana and Anr. V. Pradeep Kumar and 6 Ors., 2014 (3) U.C. 1687; Karnataka High Court in Lakshman and Others v. Susheela Chand Choudhary and Otherrs, (1996) 3 Kant. L.J.570 (DB)]. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of Filial Consortium. 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). In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs. 40,000 each for loss of Filial Consortium.” 13. 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). In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs. 40,000 each for loss of Filial Consortium.” 13. On a plain reading of the case laws referred to above, it can be safely said that a ‘filial consortium’ is the right of the parents, namely, the appellants (now appellant No.2), in the instant case, when they lose their minor child in a motor accident. The compensation of loss of filial consortium would be guided by the principles laid down in case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Adopting guidelines as aforesaid in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), I assess the loss of filial consortium at Rs.25,000/-. Further, the parents (appellants) must have spent some amount towards funeral expenses. In absence of any materials and taking into consideration the ratio of Pranay Sethi (supra), I assess the same at Rs.15, 000/-. Thus, the appellant No.2 would be entitled to compensation.— (i) For death Rs.1,50, 000.00 (ii) Funeral expenses Rs.15,000.00 (iii) Loss of filial consortium Rs.25, 000.00 (iv) Loss of estate Rs.15,000.00 (v) Future prospect Rs.75,000.00 Total Rs.2,80,000.00 14. Accordingly, I direct that the appellant No.2 shall be entitled to Rs.2, 80, 000/-(two lakh eighty thousand rupees) only with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e., 12.08.1994 till its realization. 15. It is submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company that the insurer has already satisfied the impugned award. In that event, the amount so deposited by the Insurance Company-respondent No.2 shall be set off from the aforesaid amount. It is further directed that the awarded compensation along with interest shall be deposited within a period of eight weeks hence, which shall be released in favour of the appellants forthwith. Needless to mention that the aforesaid compensation amount shall be released in favour of appellant No.2 on payment of requisite court fee. 16. Before parting with the case, I must record my note of appreciation to Mr. Bibhudendra Dash, Advocate and Mr. Santosh Mohanty, who have effectively assisted the Court for adjudication of the issues involved in this appeal. 17. The instant appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.