JUDGMENT : 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the claimant against the Judgment and Award of compensation passed in Title (M.V.) Claim Case No. 37 of 2008 by the learned District Judge-VI- Cum- Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Giridih for enhancement of the awarded amount. 2. The learned Tribunal directed the National Insurance Company Ltd. to pay Rs 334000/- after deducting a sum of Rs 50000/- which was paid as interim compensation under section 140 of the Act to the claimants. Thus, after the deduction the awarded amount comes to Rs 2,84,000/-. The Tribunal further directed the Insurance Company to pay the interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 3. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased Anant Kumar was traveling in the vehicle Trakker bearing No. BR-23 7188 on 30.06.2008. He boarded the Trakker at Kowad more for his destination to Charghara. The said Trakker on reaching near Koltar tank at Jorasankh, Giridih on Jamua road turned turtle on the Pakka road due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle resulting the death of Anant Kumar on the spot. The Jamua Police registered the case as Jamua P.S.Case No. 131/2008 on 30.06.2008 for the offences under Section 279, 338, 304A of Indian Penal Code, prepared the inquest report on the spot, and sent the dead body for postmortem examination to the Sadar Hospital. He seized the vehicle and after investigation submitted charge sheet. It has been contended that deceased was a brilliant student having good academic record. It has been further contended that the deceased was aged about 22 years and he was earning Rs 3000/- per month as he was a tutor cum student. 4. After notice insurance company appeared and contested the claim on various ground including that deceased was himself guilty of willful contributory negligence and thus it leads to deduction up to 50% in the payable compensation. 5. The claimants have examined four witnesses and relied on six documents which were marked as exhibits. The tribunal after discussing the evidences and exhibits came to the conclusion that the death of the deceased was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. 5. The claimants have examined four witnesses and relied on six documents which were marked as exhibits. The tribunal after discussing the evidences and exhibits came to the conclusion that the death of the deceased was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The claim application is maintainable and there is valid cause of action. The alleged vehicle was insured by the Insurance Company. 6. The Tribunal considered the income of deceased as Rs. 3000/- per month notionally and awarded the aforesaid amount after deducting 50% from his income towards his personal expenses and applying the multiplier of 18 for loss of dependency. 7. Mr. Prabhash Chandra Sinha assailed the Judgment on the ground that interest @ 8% was provided which is not adequate, the awarded amount is not proper and adequate and is on lesser side, no future prospects has been added in the calculated amount. The multiplier has not been properly adopted. The deduction of 50 % towards personal expenses is not proper. The funeral expenses is provided, Rs 10000/- only which needs to be enhanced. 8. On above grounds the learned counsel of the appellants argued that the compensation allowed is not adequate and thus it needs to be enhanced. 9. Per Contra, Mr. Pratyush Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Insurance Company submitted that there is no illegality in the Award and the awarded amount has already been paid to the claimants. Thus, appeal is liable to be dismissed. 10. Mr. Sinha relied in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . He further relied on the Constitution Bench Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Nanu ram alais Chuhru Ram and others, reported in 2018 (4) JLJR 230 (SC). The learned counsel for the appellant on the strength of these judgments submitted that as per the principle laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court the interference of this court is necessary. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant on the strength of these judgments submitted that as per the principle laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court the interference of this court is necessary. 11. As far as Future prospect is concerned the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) has held that in case the deceased was self employed or on a fixed salary, and was below 40 years of age, an addition of 40% of the established income should be granted towards Future prospects. The deceased was 22 years old at the time of the accident. Hence the Tribunal was incumbent to award 40% of the actual income of the deceased. The Tribunal has not granted any amount in head of Future prospect. Hence, the Judgment of the Tribunal on this issue is modified to 40% of the actual income of the deceased. 12. On point of deduction from the income of the deceased the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Judgment in Sarla Verma (Supra) in paragraph 32 took the view that where the family of the bachelor is large and depended on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third, as contribution to the family will be taken as two-third. Considering that the deceased was looking into his aged mother and father the Tribunal correctly considered the deduction as 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased. Hence, the Judgment of the tribunal on this issue is affirmed. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) in para 59.8, held which read as under: “59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15000, Rs 40000 and Rs 15000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three Years.” The tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses. It has not awarded any compensation with respect to Loss of Consortium and Loss of Estate, which are other conventional heads under which compensation is awarded in the event of death as recognized by the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (Supra). The Act is beneficial and welfare legislation. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses. It has not awarded any compensation with respect to Loss of Consortium and Loss of Estate, which are other conventional heads under which compensation is awarded in the event of death as recognized by the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (Supra). The Act is beneficial and welfare legislation. I deem it appropriate to increase Rs 5000.- towards funeral expenses and to award an amount of Rs 15000/- towards loss of Estate to appellants. Hence, the Judgment of the tribunal on this issue is modified to that extent. 14. In the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Nanu ram alias Chuhru Ram and others, reported in 2018 (4) JLJR 230 (SC) in para 8.7 reads 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 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. 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. 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 of 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. 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 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.” 15. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount on account of Filial Consortium. In light of Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) I am of the considered view that this is a fit case to award an amount of Rs 40,000 each for loss of Filial Consortium. Hence, the Judgment of the tribunal on this issue is modified to that extent. 16. In light of the mentioned discussion the award of Tribunal is modified to the following amounts: (i) 40% of the actual income of the deceased towards Future Prospect, (ii) To increase Rs 5000.- towards funeral expenses (The tribunal has already awarded Rs 10000/- on this head) and to award an amount of Rs 15000/- towards loss of Estate to appellants. (iii) Rs 40,000 each of the appellants for loss of Filial Consortium. 17. (iii) Rs 40,000 each of the appellants for loss of Filial Consortium. 17. Thus, the claimants will be entitled to: (i) Monthly income as per Minimum Wages Rs 3000/- per month in addition to 40% as future prospects, i.e (3000*40/100) + 3000 = Rs 4200/- per month (ii) Thus, the annual loss of dependency = [(4200)*12]/2= Rs 25200/- (iii) Total loss of dependency (25200*18)= Rs 4,53,600/- (iv) Conventional Heads, Rs 15000/- for loss of estate and Rs 15000/- funeral expenses.(v) Rs 40,000/- on account of Filial consortium to each of the parents, (vi) Thus, total payable compensation comes to Rs.( 4,53,600 + 15,000 +15,000+ 80,000) – 50,000/- already paid as No Fault Liabilty Award u/s 140 of the Act = Rs 5,13,600/-. The Learned counsel for Insurance Company has pointed out that a sum of Rs 4,31,528/- has already been paid to the claimant. In view of this the claimants shall be entitled of Rs 5,13,600 - 4,31,528= Rs 82072/-. 18. I allow the appeal in part accordingly. The appellants will be entitled to the said amount of Rs. 82072/- in addition to what is already awarded, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. No order to costs. 19. The appeal is disposed of.