JUDGMENT : 1. The claimants-appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment and award dated 17.08.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Faizabad in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 147 of 2016 (Smt. Shail Kumari & Ors. v. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.) seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. On 10.04.2016, at 04.00 a.m. in the morning, a mini truck bearing registration No. UP 14AJ 1765 dashed against the truck bearing registration no. UP 78T 1031 near Prakash Hospital in village Tenua, Police Station Haraiya, District Basti. As a result of the said accident, Ram Jit Yadav and Sanjiv Kumar Srivastava died on the spot. The deceased, Sanjiv Kumar Srivastava, was the husband of the appellant no. 1 and father of appellant no. 2 and son of appellant nos. 3 and 4 herein. The claimants-appellants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the ‘Act’) against New India Insurance Company Limited, respondent no. 1, the insurer of the offending truck No. UP 78 T 1031, Yatish Kumar Singh and Vishwanath, the owner and driver of the offending truck, and Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. respondent no. 2 herein the insurer of the mini truck no. UP 14 AJ 1765. A claim for compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,06,000/-along with interest was made. They pleaded that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending truck which was owned by respondent no. 2. At the time of his death, the deceased was 35 years of age and he was earning a sum of Rs. 6,000/-per month. The claim was contested by the respondents. 3. After analyzing the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of truck no. UP 14AJ 1765. While deciding the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that the income of the deceased was Rs. 4,000/-per month. The Tribunal deducted 1/3rd of his monthly income towards his personal living and expenses and determined the loss of earning to the family as Rs. 32,000/-per annum. The Tribunal then applied the multiplier of 16 and held that the claimants were entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,12,000/-as compensation. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/-to the appellant no. 32,000/-per annum. The Tribunal then applied the multiplier of 16 and held that the claimants were entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,12,000/-as compensation. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/-to the appellant no. 1, wife of the deceased towards loss of consortium. A sum of Rs. 5,000/-was awarded towards loss of estate and Rs. 3,000/-towards funeral expenses. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 5,30,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the time of actual payment. 4. Sri Mukesh Singh, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants were also entitled to future prospects and the Tribunal has committed a manifest error of law in not awarding any amount under the said head. It has been further submitted that the amount awarded under the conventional heads also deserves to be enhanced. The determination of income, the deduction regarding living and personal expenses and the multiplier applied by the Tribunal has not been challenged by the appellants. 5. Sri Ashok Kumar Rai, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 and Sri Ashok Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 have supported the impugned award. No one appeared on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4 in spite of sufficient service. 6. The questions regarding addition of future prospects and the addition of non-pecuniary damages towards loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses are no more res integra. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , has comprehensively laid down the law regarding these questions. 7. The Tribunal, in the present matter, has not awarded any amount towards future prospects. In Pranay Sethi (supra) the Apex Court has held as under: "56. .... We are inclined to think that there can be some degree of difference as regards the percentage that is meant for or applied to in respect of the legal representatives who claim on behalf of the deceased who had a permanent job than a person who is self employed or on a fixed salary. But not to apply the principle of standardisation on the foundation of perceived lack of certainty would tantamount to remaining oblivious to the marrows of ground reality. And, therefore, degree-test is imperative. But not to apply the principle of standardisation on the foundation of perceived lack of certainty would tantamount to remaining oblivious to the marrows of ground reality. And, therefore, degree-test is imperative. Unless the degree test is applied and left to the parties to adduce evidence to establish, it would be unfair and inequitable. The degree-test has to have the inbuilt concept of percentage. Taking into consideration the cumulative factors, namely, passage of time, the changing society, escalation of price, the change in price index, the human attitude to fo ow a particular pattern of life, etc., an addition of 40% of the established income of the deceased towards future prospects and where the deceased was below 40 years an addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years would be reasonable." (emphasis supplied) 8. In Hem Raj v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 15 SCC 654 , the Apex Court repelled the submission made on behalf of the Insurance Company that in the absence of actual evidence of income the principle of granting compensation on account of future prospects cannot be applied where income is determined by guesswork. It was held that there cannot be any distinction between a case where there is positive evidence of income and where minimum income is determined on guesswork. 9. In so far as conventional heads are concerned, in Pranay Sethi (supra), the Apex Court has held that as a rule of thumb Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/-and Rs. 15,000/-are to be awarded towards loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses respectively. 10. In so far as consortium is concerned the Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 has introduced the concept of spousal, parental and filial consortium. The relevant portion of the report is extracted below: “21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi 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. 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: 21.1. 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. 21.2. 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. 21.3. 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. *** 24. 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. 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.” (emphasis supplied) 11. In light of the above mentioned principles, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal needs to be determined again. 12. Since the age of the deceased was less than 40 years, an addition of 40% of the annual income should be made on account of future prospects on the basis of Pranay Sethi(supra). Taking the annual income of Rs. 48,000/-, as determined by the Tribunal, and adding 40% as future prospects, we arrive at the sum of Rs. 67,200/-. After deducting 1/3rd of the income, the contribution of the deceased to his family is assessed as Rs. 44,800/-per annum. By applying the multiplier of 16, the loss of dependency is assessed as Rs. 44,800 x 16 = Rs. 7,16,800/-. In addition to the above, the appellants are also entitled to Rs. 15,000/-towards funeral expenses and Rs. 67,200/-. After deducting 1/3rd of the income, the contribution of the deceased to his family is assessed as Rs. 44,800/-per annum. By applying the multiplier of 16, the loss of dependency is assessed as Rs. 44,800 x 16 = Rs. 7,16,800/-. In addition to the above, the appellants are also entitled to Rs. 15,000/-towards funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/-for loss of estate. Furthermore, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), an amount of Rs. 40,000/-each is payable to the appellant nos. 1 and 2 towards loss of spousal and parental consortium respectively and Rs. 40,000/-each to appellant nos. 3 and 4 towards filial consortium. 13. In view of the above, the compensation to which the appellants are entitled is Rs. 7,46,800/-rounded off to Rs 7,50,000/-. Out of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 7,46,800/-, a sum of Rs 3,75,000/-shall be payable to the wife of the deceased, Rs. 2,25,000/-shall be payable to the minor son and the balance amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-shall be payable to the parents of the deceased in equal proportion. In addition to the amounts mentioned above, the appellants would also be entitled to a sum of Rs. 40,000/-each under the head of loss of consortium. The appellants would also be entitled to proportionate interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the above amounts, from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 14. Out of Rs. 3,75,000/-awarded to wife, the Tribunal shall keep Rs 2,00,000/-in a fixed deposit in a nationalised bank, for a period of 5 years, giving highest rate of interest. The interest payable on this amount shall be released on quarterly basis to her. On maturity of the fixed deposit, the maturity proceeds will be paid to her. The Tribunal shall keep the entire amount awarded to the minor son in a fixed deposit in a nationalised bank, for a period of 5 years, giving highest rate of interest. The interest payable on this amount shall be released on quarterly basis to the mother of the child. The Tribunal shall keep renewing the amount on these terms till the minor attains majority. 15. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award stands modified to the above extent. 16. The parties shall bear their respective costs. 17. The Tribunal shall keep renewing the amount on these terms till the minor attains majority. 15. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award stands modified to the above extent. 16. The parties shall bear their respective costs. 17. The record of the case shall be sent back to the Tribunal forthwith.