JUDGMENT : 1. The claimants in a motor accident claim have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the ‘Act’) against the judgment dated 30.04.2015 and award dated 13.05.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Faizabad in Claim Petition No.165 of 2013 (Jaishunisha and another v. Pawan Kumar and others) seeking increase in compensation. 2. On 02.09.2012, at about 9.30 a.m., a pickup van bearing registration no. UP 42 T 5256 belonging to Pawan Kumar, respondent no.1, and driven by Sanjay Kumar, respondent no.3, in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and dashed against a motor cycle bearing no. UP 42 S 3262, which was parked on the extreme left side of the road near Tiny Tots school at Lucknow -Faizabad National Highway No.28. As a result of the said accident Mehtab Ahmad, the son of the appellants, who was sitting on the back seat of the said motor cycle, suffered grievous injuries. He was taken to District Hospital, Faizabad from where he was referred to Lucknow for better treatment where he was treated up to 13.09.2012. On 13.09.2012, Mehtab Ahmad was taken back to Faizabad. On reaching Faizabad his condition again became serious and so he was taken to District Hospital, Faizabad where during treatment he died the same day. The post mortem was conducted on 14.09.2012 in District Hospital, Faizabad. FIR was lodged by Kallu Kurashi on 03.09.2012 at Police Station Cantt., District Faizabad. 3. Jaishunisha and Kallu Kurashi, the parents of the deceased, filed a claim petition, under Section 166 of the Act, claiming compensation of Rs.16,80,000/-along with interest @ 14% per annum. The claimants-appellants pleaded that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the pickup van and that at the time of the accident the deceased was 18 years of age and he was employed as mate/supervisor in a private firm Sarkar Associates, Chowk, Faizabad from where he earned a sum of Rs. 6,000/-per month. 4. The respondent no. 1 and 3 contested the claim and filed a joint written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. They denied the involvement of the pickup van in the accident. It was stated that Sanjay Kumar, the driver of the van was a skilled driver and had a valid and effective driving license on the date of the alleged accident. They denied the involvement of the pickup van in the accident. It was stated that Sanjay Kumar, the driver of the van was a skilled driver and had a valid and effective driving license on the date of the alleged accident. They additionally mentioned that the van was insured with respondent no. 2, the Oriental Insurance Company and that there being no breach of the terms and conditions of the policy, the compensation, if any, was to be paid by respondent no.2. Respondent no. 2, the insurer also contested the claim by filing their written statement. 5. Based upon the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed six issues. In support of their case the second appellant examined himself as PW 1 and one Mohd. Idrish was examined as PW 2. On behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 3, Pawan Kumar, the owner of the pickup van was examined as DW 1. No oral evidence was led by respondent no. 2. The parties also filed documentary evidence in support of their respective cases. 6. After analysing the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending van. While deciding the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal, rejected the certificate alleged to have been issued by Sarkar Associates, Chowk, Faizabad and produced by the appellants in support of their case that the deceased was earning Rs. 6,000/-per month. The Tribunal concluded that the certificate could not be duly proved. In the absence of any documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal took the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 3000/-per month. It also determined that the deceased was a bachelor and was aged about 18 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal deducted half of his income towards his personal and living expenses and determined that the effective loss of earnings to the family was Rs. 1,500/-per month (or Rs.18,000/-per annum). The Tribunal then applied the multiplier of 16 and assessed the compensation amount at Rs. 2,88,000/-. In addition, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs. 5,000/-towards loss of estate, Rs. 5000/-towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 5,000/-towards funeral expenses and Rs. 50,000/-towards medical expenses. Thus, the claimants were held entitled to a compensation of Rs. The Tribunal then applied the multiplier of 16 and assessed the compensation amount at Rs. 2,88,000/-. In addition, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs. 5,000/-towards loss of estate, Rs. 5000/-towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 5,000/-towards funeral expenses and Rs. 50,000/-towards medical expenses. Thus, the claimants were held entitled to a compensation of Rs. 3,53,000/-along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the time of actual payment. 7. The appeal has been taken up for hearing in the revised list. No one appears on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 3. 8. Heard Sri Satyendra Srivastava learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Atul Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no. 2. 9. The appellants have sought an enhancement of compensation under the following heads: (i) The income as claimed of Rs. 6,000/-per month should be the basis of computation and not Rs. 3,000/-as allowed by the Tribunal. (ii) As per the age of the deceased the Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 18 instead of 16. (iii) No addition was made on account of future prospects. (iv) The claimants were entitled to higher compensation under the conventional heads. 10. Shri Atul Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no.2, on the other hand, has supported the award. He has, however, submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation for loss of love and affection. 11. (iii) No addition was made on account of future prospects. (iv) The claimants were entitled to higher compensation under the conventional heads. 10. Shri Atul Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no.2, on the other hand, has supported the award. He has, however, submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation for loss of love and affection. 11. While rejecting the claim of the appellants with respect to the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has held as under: ^^eksVj nq?kZVuk ds ekeyksa esa Áfrdj fu/kkZfjr djus ds fy, ÁR;sd ekeys ds vafre fu.kZ; gsrq ml ekeys ds rF;ksa rFkk mlesa ÁLrqr lk{; ij fuHkZj gksuk iM+rk gSA ;kphx.k }kjk ;kfpdk esa e`rd egrkc dh ekfld vk; N% gtkj :i;s vafdr dh x;h gS rFkk i=koyh ij bl lEcU/k esa ljdkj ,lksfl,Vl }kjk fuxZr Áek.ki= isij ua0&62 x nkf[ky fd;k x;k gSA mDr Áek.ki= esa e`rd dks fiNys N% ekg ls esV@lqijokbtj ds in ij dk;Z djuk crk;k x;k gS rFkk mldh ekfld vkenuh N% gtkj :i, vafdr dh x;h gSA ;kphx.k }kjk mDr Áek.ki= ds tkjhdrkZ dks U;k;ky; ds le{k lk{; esa ÁLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS] blfy, mDr Ái= dks tkjhdrkZ }kjk lkfcr u fd, tkus dh fLFkfr esa ml ij fo'okl fd, tkus dk dksbZ vk/kkj ugha gSA blds vykok i=koyh ij ,slk dksbZ lk{; miyC/k ugha gS] ftlls fd e`rd dh okLrfod vk; Kkr gksA e`rd ls lEcfU/kr fdlh cSad vFkok Mkd?kj dh cpr [kkrs dh iklcqd vFkok vU; Ái= bR;kfn Hkh i=koyh esa nkf[ky ugha gSA fo'oluh; lk{; ds vkHkko esa ek= mijksDr lk{;ksa ds vk/kkj ij ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd e`rd ;kphx.k ds dFkukuqlkj vk; vftZr djrk FkkA** (emphasis supplied) 12. In so far as the income of the deceased is concerned, the Tribunal has given cogent reasons for declining to accept the income certificate which was relied upon by the father of the deceased. In his oral evidence, the father of the deceased asserted that Mehtab Ahmad was working in a private firm Sarkar Associates and was earning a salary of Rs. 9,000/-per month and in support of his statement produced a certificate issued by the said firm. No witness was examined on behalf of Sarkar Associates to prove the certificate. Sarkar Associates was, admittedly, a private firm and in the normal course, should have been maintaining the relevant records showing the salary paid to its employees. 9,000/-per month and in support of his statement produced a certificate issued by the said firm. No witness was examined on behalf of Sarkar Associates to prove the certificate. Sarkar Associates was, admittedly, a private firm and in the normal course, should have been maintaining the relevant records showing the salary paid to its employees. No attempt was made to get them produced. There was a failure on the part of the appellants to establish that the deceased, who was 18 years of age at the time of his death, had a monthly income of Rs. 6,000. In the absence of any documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal assumed the notional income of the deceased as Rs 3000/-per month. The assessment of income by the Tribunal, thus, cannot be faulted. 13. In so far as the multiplier is concerned, the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others, (2009) 5SCC121 has held that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the table set out in paragraph 40 of the said judgment which starts with the multiplier of 18. Paragraph 42 of the said report is extracted below: “42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is, M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.” 14. In National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, reproduced paragraph 42 of Sarla Verma’s case and approved the same by stating thus: “42. In National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, reproduced paragraph 42 of Sarla Verma’s case and approved the same by stating thus: “42. As far as the multiplier is concerned, the Claims Tribunal and the courts shall be guided by Step 2 that finds place in para 19 of Sarla Verma read with para 42 of the said judgment.” 15. As the age of the deceased at the time of his death was 18 years, as per Sarla Verma’s case, a multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the age of the deceased, wrongly applied the multiplier of 16. The issue is decided accordingly. 16. The next question relates to the addition of future prospects. The Tribunal, in the present matter, has not awarded any amount towards future prospects. The issue regarding future prospects has now been settled in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). The relevant portion of the said report is extracted below: "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. 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 follow 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) 17. In Hem Raj v. Oriental Insurance Co. 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. 18. In view of the above, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding any amount towards future prospects. The appellants would be entitled to an addition of 40% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects. 19. 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 has to be awarded towards loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses respectively. 20. 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 filial consortium and has inter alia held that in case of death of a child the parents are entitled to compensation under the head of 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. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse *** 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. *** 23. 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. *** 23. 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. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of filial consortium. 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) 21. In view of the above, the compensation awarded under the head of funeral expenses is enhanced from Rs 5,000/-to Rs 15,000. The appellant nos. 1 and 2 are held entitled to a sum of Rs 15,000 towards loss of estate and Rs 40,000/-each towards loss of consortium on the death of their son. 22. In Pranay Sethi’s case no compensation has been awarded under the head of loss of love and affection. Accordingly, Rs 5,000/-awarded towards loss of love and affection is declined. However, the sum of Rs 50,000/- awarded towards medical expenses is maintained. 23. Thus, in the light of the above discussion, the appellants are entitled to the following amounts: Head Calculation Income Rs. 3,000 Future prospects (40% of the income) Rs. 1,200 Deduction towards personal and living expenses - [50% of (Rs. 3000 + Rs. 1200)] Rs. 2,100 Total income Rs. 2,100 Multiplier 18 Loss of future income (2100 x 18 x 12) Rs. 4,53,600 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000 Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000 Loss of filial consortium (Rs. 40,000 each) Rs. 80,000 Medical expenses Rs 50,000 Total expenses awarded Rs. 1,200 Deduction towards personal and living expenses - [50% of (Rs. 3000 + Rs. 1200)] Rs. 2,100 Total income Rs. 2,100 Multiplier 18 Loss of future income (2100 x 18 x 12) Rs. 4,53,600 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000 Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000 Loss of filial consortium (Rs. 40,000 each) Rs. 80,000 Medical expenses Rs 50,000 Total expenses awarded Rs. 6,13,600 24. Thus the total compensation to which the appellants are entitled is Rs. 6,13,600/-The compensation is accordingly increased from Rs. 3,53,000/-to Rs. 6,13,600/-. The increased amount shall 8 carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the time of its actual payment. 25. The impugned judgment and award stands modified to the above extent.