JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal stands directed against the impugned award pronounced by the Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-1, Solan, H.P., wherethrough the learned Tribunal adjudged the compensation amount, comprised in a sum of Rs. 20,49,560/- along with interest at the rate of Rs. 6% per annum, commencing from the date of filing of this petition, till the realization/deposit of the amount, vis-à-vis, the dependants of the deceased, and, the apposite indemnificatory liability, was, fastened upon the insurer of the offending vehicle concerned. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurer, does not contest, the validity of the findings recorded, by the learned MACT, Solan, upon the issue, appertaining the illfated mishap, involving the offending vehicle, being a sequel of rash and negligent driving thereof, by the respondent No. 2. However, he contends, that, computation of an amount of Rs. 1,00,000, under the conventional head, “Loss of consortium”, being beyond the ambit of the verdict rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court, in case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi and others, reported in 217 ACJ 2700. His contention is weighty, and, is accepted. 3. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the appellant has also contended with much vigor, before this Court, that the computation, of, the salary of the deceased, by the learned Tribunal, in a sum of Rs. 9102/- per mensem, and, additions thereon, of, 40 percentum accretion (s), towards future prospects, also being beyond the mandate of, a, verdict recorded by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Pranay Sethi case (supra). However, the aforesaid submission is not acceptable, as the afore computation, of, per mensem salary, of the deceased, comprised in a sum of Rs. 9102/-, is made on anvil, of Ext. PW1/A, (i) exhibit whereof stands cogently and efficaciously proven, (ii) thereupon, and when, within the ambit of a verdict pronounced by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Pranay Sethi’s case, it is permissible to mete 40% hike thereon, towards, future prospects, (iii) thereupon, the, meteing of the afore hikes in the afore percentum, upon per mensem slaray, and, working, towards future prospects, is obviously not beyond the domain, of the, verdict recorded by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), and, the afore meetings, does not warrant any interference. 4. 4. Lastly, the learned counsel for the Insurer, has contended that the policy of insurance, issued, vis-à-vis, the offending vehicle, rather making an interdiction against the fastening, of, the indemnificatory liability, upon, the insurer, upon the vehicle being used, for hire and reward, (i) and with the deceased rather occupying the offending vehicle, not, as a gratuitous passengers, rather for hire and reward, (ii) thereupon the afore interdiction, as embodied, in the Ext. RW1/C, being attracted, thereupon the apposite indemnificatory liability, being not amenable for being fastened, upon the insurer. However, the afore submission is meritless, as no evidence is adduced in support thereof, comprised in the insurer, through, affirmative suggestions being put to the claimants’ witnesses, with echoings therein, qua in the deceased hence occupying the vehicle, his occupation thereof rather being, not, as a gratuitous passengers, rather being for hire and reward, nor hence any affirmative echoing (s), thereto, hence emanating from the claimants’ witnesses, (iii) thereupon, the afore omissions, hence, beget a conclusions, that, in the deceased rather occupying, the vehicle, his occupation thereof being as a gratuitous passenger, and, not for hire and reward, hence, the fastening of the apposite indemnificatory liability, upon the Insurer, is, re-emphasisingly, concluded to be aptly fastened. 5. However, the quantification, of damages, by the learned Tribunal in a sum of Rs.1 lacs vis-a-vis, the widow of deceased, (i) under the head, loss of consortium, (ii) and quantification, of compensation vis-a-vis the claimants No. 2, 3 and 4, under the head, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, and Funeral expenses is (a) in, conflict with the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), (b) wherein, it has been expostulated, that reasonable figures, under conventional heads, namely, loss to estate, loss of expectation of life, and, funeral expenses being quantified, only upto, Rs.15,000/-, (only to widow) Rs.40,000/-, and Rs.15,000/- respectively, (iii) and, with no expostulation occurring therein vis-a-vis the compensation amount (s), being awardable, to the mother, and, to the offspring (s) of the deceased, especially under the head, loss of love and affection, hence reliefs in respect thereto being impermissibly granted. Consequently, the award of the learned tribunal is interfered, to the extent aforesaid, of, its determining compensation, under, the aforesaid heads vis-a-vis the widow of the deceased, as also, vis-avis the off springs, and, mother of the deceased. Consequently, the award of the learned tribunal is interfered, to the extent aforesaid, of, its determining compensation, under, the aforesaid heads vis-a-vis the widow of the deceased, as also, vis-avis the off springs, and, mother of the deceased. Accordingly, in addition to a sum of Rs. 18,34,560 /-, under the head, (loss of dependency to the family), the claimants, are, entitled under conventional heads, namely, loss to estate, loss of consortium, (only to widow) and, funeral expenses, sums of Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively, as such, the total compensation to which the petitioners are entitled comes to Rs. 18,34,560/-+ 15,000/- + Rs. 40,000 +15,000/-= Rs. 19,04,560- (Rs. Nineteen lakhs, four thousand, and five hundred sixty only). 6. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the insurer is partly allowed, and, the impugned award, is, in the aforesaid manner, hence modified. Accordingly, the petitioners, are, held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.19,04,560 /- along with pending and future interest @ 6%, from, the date of petition till the date, of, deposit, of the compensation amount. The amount of interim compensation, if awarded, be adjusted in the aforesaid compensation amount, at the time of final payment. Compensation amount be apportioned, amongst the claimants in the hereinafter extracted manner:- “Petitioners No.1 and 2, are entitled to 40% amount each, along with proportionate interest and consortium (only to widow), as also funeral expenses, and, the remaining amount of 20% with proportionate interest shall fall in equal shares vis-à-vis,the petitioners No. 3 and 4. 7. The shares of the minor child, petitioner No. 2, shall remain invested, in FDR, upto, the stage of his attaining majority. However, interest accrued thereon, shall be releasable vis-a-vis his mother, only when she explains, of, its being required, for, the upkeep and benefit of the minor children. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.