JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the Award dated 20.09.2014 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case No.120/2008, whereby and whereunder the learned Tribunal has been pleased to allow the claim petition of the applicants and has held that the claimants are entitled to a total amount of Rs. 3,95,000/-towards compensation to be paid by the O.P. No.2-appellant (herein) through account payee cheque in the joint name of both the applicants-respondent Nos.1 & 2 (herein). The O.P. No.2, National Insurance Co. Ltd. has further been directed to make the aforesaid payment after deducting the amount of Rs.50,000/-paid in compliance of the order passed u/S 140 of the M.V. Act with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing of claim application i.e. 20.09.2008 till the date of payment i.e. one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the O.P. No. 2 shall pay interest @ 9 % per annum from the said date of the receipt of copy of the judgment/award till the date of realization of the awarded amount. It is further held that insurer is not liable to indemnify the insured. 3. As per the claim application, the facts of the case is that the claim application was filed by Ram Kishore Mahto and Righan Devi (respondent Nos. 1 & 2 respectively) claiming for compensation on account of death of their son, who at the time of accident was aged about 13 years. The claimants have asserted that the deceased was a brilliant student of Class-V at Dayanand Arya Vidya Public School, Ranchi. The accident took place on 26.08.2008 at Lohardaga. It is alleged that Dilip Kumar Mahto-deceased was going to his school, when a truck bearing registration No. JH 02 K 3221 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver crushed Dilip Kumar Mahto, to death. The alleged truck was owned by Satendra Kumar Prajapati i.e. Respondent No.3 and insured with the National Insurance Co. Ltd.-appellant compensation to tune of Rs. 2.50 lac has been claim with interest at the rate of 9 % per annum. The alleged truck was owned by Satendra Kumar Prajapati i.e. Respondent No.3 and insured with the National Insurance Co. Ltd.-appellant compensation to tune of Rs. 2.50 lac has been claim with interest at the rate of 9 % per annum. The O.P. No.1/respondent No.3 (herein)/owner has appeared and filed his written statement admitting the vehicle owned by him and has stated that the vehicle was properly insured with the O.P. No.2-Appellant/ Insurance Company Ltd. The accident on account of rash and negligent driving has been denied and it has been stated that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation and in terms of the insurance contract, Insurer has agreed to indemnify the O.P. O.P. No.2/Insurance Company Ltd. herein appellant in its written statement dated 05.10.2012 has stated that the vehicle was running without road permit, as road permit was valid from 28.08.2008 to 14.12.2008. It has been stated that the Insurance Policy is not disputed but there is violation of terms and conditions of the insurance contract and hence, the insurer is not liable to indemnify the insured. Other objection with regard to D.L. etc. has also been taken.. 4. The parties appeared before the Tribunal and were heard. After examining the witnesses and perusing the evidences on record, the learned Tribunal framed the followings issues:- (I) Is the compensation case as framed maintainable? II) Has the claimant/applicant any cause of action or right to claim compensation ? III) Whether the death of the deceased Dilip Kumar Mahto resulted due to motor vehicle accident arising out of the use of Truck No. JH 02 K 3221 ? IV) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of truck bearing No. JH 02 K 3221 ? V) Whether the driver of the truck was having a valid and effective driving licence at the material time of accident and terms and conditions of the insurance policy/cover note was violated ? VI) Whether the claimants /applicants are entitled to get the amount of compensation as prayed for ? if so from whom and to what extent ? VII) Are the claimants /applicant entitled to get any other relief or reliefs ? 5. Learned Tribunal after perusal of the records and examining the evidences and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, came to a finding that the claimants are entitled to a total amount of Rs. if so from whom and to what extent ? VII) Are the claimants /applicant entitled to get any other relief or reliefs ? 5. Learned Tribunal after perusal of the records and examining the evidences and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, came to a finding that the claimants are entitled to a total amount of Rs. 3,95,000/-towards compensation to be paid by the O.P. No.2-appellant (herein) though account payee cheque in the joint name of both the applicants-respondent Nos.1 & 2 (herein). The O.P. No.2, National Insurance Co. Ltd. has further been directed to make the aforesaid payment after deducting the amount of Rs.50,000/-paid in compliance of the order passed u/S 140 of the M.V. Act with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing of claim application i.e. 20.09.2008 till the date of payment i.e. one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the O.P. No. 2 shall be pay interest @ 9 % per annum from the said date of the receipt of copy of the judgment/award till the date of realization of the awarded amount. It is further held that insurer is not liable to indemnify the insured. 6. It has been submitted by Mr. G.C. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-National Insurance Co. Ltd. that the impugned Award is illegal, perverse and bad in law. Learned counsel further argues that on 22.08.2008 i.e. on the date of accident there was no valid permit of the vehicle in question, rather the Road permit was effective from 28.08.2008 to 14.12.2008 only, which is clear cut violation of policy conditions for which Insurance Company should not be held liable for payment of any compensation amount. Learned counsel places heavy reliance upon a reported judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Jala Bharti, reported in ACJ (SC) 2094 and further in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Chaha Brarathma, reported in 2005 (1) TAC -4 (SC) and submits that the Insurance Company should have been granted right to recovery from the owner of the vehicle. Learned counsel further argues that as no appeal has been filed by the claimants, the amount of compensation cannot be enhanced. Ltd. Vs. Chaha Brarathma, reported in 2005 (1) TAC -4 (SC) and submits that the Insurance Company should have been granted right to recovery from the owner of the vehicle. Learned counsel further argues that as no appeal has been filed by the claimants, the amount of compensation cannot be enhanced. Learned counsel further submits that compensation amount is fully justified and liberty may be given to the Insurance Company to pay the compensation at the first instance and recover the same from the owner in accordance with law. 7. However, Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 emphatically argues that there is no illegality in the impugned Award as far as compensation is concerned. Admittedly, the vehicle was new and no evidence has been laid by the Insurance Company whether the vehicle was having valid permit on the date of accident neither it has been brought on record by the owner that he was having a valid permit on the date of accident and as such, claim of the claimants cannot be brushed aside on this score and the Tribunal has rightly saddled the Insurance Company with the compensation amount with a liberty to recover the same from the owner in accordance with law, if it is found that vehicle was not having valid permit. Learned counsel further argues that very meagre amount has been awarded by the learned Tribunal, by way of compensation and it needs interference by this Court and the same ought to be enhanced. Learned counsel further argues that even if no appeal has been filed and if it is found that amount is very meagre, the same may be enhanced. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 places heavy reliance on the reported judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Rani & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2018) 8 SCC 492 , in case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors., reported in 2018 (4) JLJR 230 and in view thereof, respondent Nos. 1 & 2 /claimants are entitled for the enhanced rate of compensation amount and as such, a direction be given for enhanced compensation. 8. Mr. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors., reported in 2018 (4) JLJR 230 and in view thereof, respondent Nos. 1 & 2 /claimants are entitled for the enhanced rate of compensation amount and as such, a direction be given for enhanced compensation. 8. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3-owner submits that though it has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that vehicle was plying without route permit but nothing has been brought on record by the Insurance Company that vehicle was not having valid permit and no evidence to that extent has been laid down. Since the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company, Insurance Company may be directed to make the payment and liability. 9. In view of the submissions of the parties and after perusal of the records and case laws relied upon by the parties, it appears that learned Tribunal framed issue No.5 relating to Driving License and terms of the conditions of the Insurance Policy / cover note and it has been observed that route permit was valid from 28.08.2008 to 14.12.2008, whereas the accident took place on 26.08.2008 and admittedly the vehicle was plying without route permit. It is also admitted that concerned vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company. In absence of route permit, Insurance company at the first instance shall pay the compensation amount to the claimants and recover the same from the owner in accordance with law. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Amrit Paul Singh & Anr. Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance company Ltd. & Ors. (supra) in para 24 has held as under :- “24. In the case at hand, it is clearly demonstrable from the materials brought on record that the vehicle at the time of accident did not have a permit. The appellants had taken the stand that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. That apart, they had not stated whether the vehicle had temporary permit or any other kind of permit. The exceptions that have been carved out under Section 66 of the Act, needless to emphasise, are to be pleaded and proved. The exceptions cannot be taken aid of in the course of an argument to seek absolution from liability. Use of a vehicle in a public place without a permit is a fundamental statutory infraction. The exceptions that have been carved out under Section 66 of the Act, needless to emphasise, are to be pleaded and proved. The exceptions cannot be taken aid of in the course of an argument to seek absolution from liability. Use of a vehicle in a public place without a permit is a fundamental statutory infraction. We are disposed to think so in view of the series of exceptions carved out in Section 66. The said situations cannot be equated with absence of licence or a fake licence or a licence for different kind of vehicle, or, for that matter, violation of a condition of carrying more number of passengers. Therefore, the principles laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 and in case of Lakhmi Chand Vs. Reliance General Insurance, reported in (2016) 3 SCC 100 in that regard would not be applicable to the case at hand. That apart, the insurer had taken the plea that vehicle in question had no permit. It does not require the wisdom of the ‘Tripitaka’, that the existence of a permit of any nature is a matter of documentary evidence. Nothing has been brought on record by the insured to prove that he had a permit of the vehicle. In such a situation, the onus cannot be cast on the insurer. Therefore, the Tribunal as well as the High Court had directed that the insurer was required to pay the compensation amount to the claimants with interest with the stipulation that the insurer shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner and the driver. The said directions are in consonance with the principles stated in Swaran Singh (supra) and other cases pertaining to pay and recover principle.” 11. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is concerned that no appeal has been filed, the claimants are not entitled for enhancement, is not well founded. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Rani & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2018) 8 SCC 492 has held as under : 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Rani & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2018) 8 SCC 492 has held as under : 12. Taking the appeal filed by the legal representatives of the deceased (Satish) first, as mentioned earlier, they did not file any appeal challenging the award passed by the Tribunal determining the compensation amount payable to them at Rs.4,53,000/-(Four lakh fifty three thousand only) with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. It is respondent 1 Insurance Company who had challenged the award in favour of the claimants and in those appeals, the claimants (including appellants in Civil Appeal No. 9078 of 2017) filed cross-objection which, however, came to be dismissed for non-removal of office objections. Nevertheless, the High Court enhanced the compensation amount payable to them by invoking power under Order 41 Rule 33 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The Insurance Company has not challenged the said view taken by the High Court as it has already succeeded in getting a finding from the High Court that the liability to pay compensation amount was restricted to that of the owner of the offending vehicle, namely, respondent 2 herein. 12. The contention of the learned counsel of the appellant-Insurance is that the compensation amount has rightly been award to the tune of Rs. 3,95,000/-and out of which Rs. 2 lac has already been paid to the claimants by the order of this Court is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 has considered the different heads under which the claimants are entitled. Same ratio has been applied in case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. reported in 2018 (4) JLJR 230. Para 8.5, 8.6 and 8.7 are reproduced hereinbelow :- 8.5. The Insurance Company has contended that the High Court had wrongly awarded Rs. 1,00,000 towards loss of love and affection, and Rs. 25,000 towards funeral expenses. The judgment of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) has set out the various amounts to be awarded as compensation under the conventional heads in case of death. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced herein below : "Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. 25,000 towards funeral expenses. The judgment of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) has set out the various amounts to be awarded as compensation under the conventional heads in case of death. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced herein below : "Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/-and Rs. 15,000/-respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact- centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years." (Emphasis supplied) As per the aforesaid judgment, the compensation of Rs. 25,000 towards funeral expenses is decreased to Rs. 15,000. The amount awarded by the High Court towards loss of love and affection is, however, maintained. 8.6 The MACT as well as the High Court have not awarded any compensation with respect to Loss of Consortium and Loss of Estate, which are the other conventional heads under which compensation is awarded in the event of death, as recognized by the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra). The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. The Court is duty-bound and entitled to award "just compensation", irrespective of whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the Claimant. In exercise of our power under Article 142, and in the interests of justice, we deem it appropriate to award an amount of Rs. 15,000 towards Loss of Estate to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 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 SCC 54 . 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 SCC 54 . 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”, (BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (5th ed. 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. 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 & Ors. v. Sohi Ram & Ors 2017 (4) RLW 3368 (Raj); Uttarakhand High Court in Smt. Rita Rana & Anr. 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 & Ors. v. Sohi Ram & Ors 2017 (4) RLW 3368 (Raj); Uttarakhand High Court in Smt. Rita Rana & Anr. v. Pradeep Kumar & 6 Ors., 2014 (3) UC 1687; Karnataka High Court in Lakshman and Ors. v. Susheela Chand Choudhary & Ors , (1996) 3 Kant LJ 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. Taking into account the ratio laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra) as well as Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra), the claimants are entitled for the following compensation amounts : Head Compensation Amount i. Income. Rs.3,000 ii. Future Prospects Rs.1,200 (40 % of the income) iii. Deduction towards personal Expenditure Rs.2,100 (i.e. ½ of 4200) iv. Total Income Rs.2,100 v. Multiplier 15 vi. Loss of future income Rs. 3,78,000 (2,100 x 12 x 15) vii. Loss of Love and affection Rs.1,00,000 viii. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000 ix. Loss of estate Rs.15,000 x. Loss of Filial Consortium Rs.80,000 Total Compensation awarded Rs.5,88,000 along with interest @ 06 % p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment. 14. In view of the aforesaid observation, the award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above. Accordingly, the Insurance Company-appellant is directed to first pay the compensation amount to the claimants/respondent Nos.1 & 2 as indicated hereinabove, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with liberty to recover the same from owner of the vehicle i.e. respondent No.3 in accordance with law. 15. Needless to say that if the claimant have already received any amount, the same shall be deducted from the total amount to be paid to the claimants as awarded hereinabove. 15. Needless to say that if the claimant have already received any amount, the same shall be deducted from the total amount to be paid to the claimants as awarded hereinabove. Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw statutory amount deposited at the time of filing instant appeal. 16. Office is directed to return the lower Court records to the Court below at the earliest. 17. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant Appeal is hereby disposed of. 18. As a sequel to the disposal of the present Appeal, pending I.As. if any, also stand disposed of.