JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mohd. Asim Zulfiquar, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Rajieev Ojha, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Sri Y.S. Bohra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. This appeal has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by award dated 13.09.2018 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Rampur, in Motor Claim Petition No.212 of 2017 (Smt. Shamshad Begum and others vs. Bheemsen and others) Computing Registered No.181/17 on the grounds, namely: (1) Deceased was engaged as a driver of Bolero on the date of accident i.e. 21.04.2017 and drawing salary Rs.15,000/- per month for his duties; (2) Though the income has been proved by P.W.3 Tarik Mohd. learned tribunal has construed notional income to be Rs. 3,000/-per month in an arbitrary and illegal manner; (3) It is submitted that age of the deceased was 42 years on the date of accident, but no future prospects has been awarded though as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported 2017 (4) T.A.C. 673 (S.C.) it is held that while determining the income, an addition of 25% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased was an a fixed salary and was between the age of 40 to 50 years. (4) It is further submitted that learned claims tribunal has made deduction of 1/4th amount on account of death of the deceased, who is survived by 9 legal heirs including father and mother, whereas 1/5th deduction should have been made as per law laid down in case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in 2009 (2) TAC 677. (5) It is next submitted that under the conventional heads sum of Rs.30,000/-has been awarded, whereas sum of Rs.70,000/- should have been awarded. (6) It is also submitted that as per law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others reported in 2018 (4) T.A.C. 345 (S.C.), that father and sister of the deceased were awarded sum of Rs.40,000/-for loss of filial consortium, similarly in the present case also each of the claimants should have been awarded sum of Rs. 40,000/- for loss of filial consortium. 3. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others reported in 2018 (4) T.A.C. 345 (S.C.), that father and sister of the deceased were awarded sum of Rs.40,000/-for loss of filial consortium, similarly in the present case also each of the claimants should have been awarded sum of Rs. 40,000/- for loss of filial consortium. 3. Sri Rajesh Ojha, does not dispute on the aforesaid facts but submits that the award is just and correct therefore, there is no need for any enhancement. Looking to the facts that on the date of the accident, which is an admitted position that deceased was working as driver and Supreme Court in Case of Minu Rout and another vs. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra and others reported in 2013 ACJ 2544 has considered that car driver to be a skill labourer and same view has been taken by Division Bench of this Court in case of Amina Khatoon and others vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others reported in 2015 ACJ 1542 , this Court is of the opinion that learned claims tribunal did not apply its mind, while computing the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month. There is no justification for such computation, tribunal should have at least considered minimum wages as were operational on the date of the accident for such computation. 4. This approach of the tribunal, needs to be rectified and therefore, since driver has been considered as a skilled labourer, minimum wages on the date of accident for a skilled labourer were to be tune of Rs. 9,188.66 per month or Rs. 1,10,263.92 rounded off to Rs. 1,10,264/-per annum then 1/5th is deducted towards the personal expenses as deceased is admittedly surviving by 9 legal heirs, dependency will come out to Rs. 88,211.00 per annum. Multiplier of 14 will be applicable as per law laid down in case of Sarla Verma(supra) taking total compensation to Rs. 12,34,954/-over and above, which 25% cent is to be added towards future prospects taking total compensation to Rs. 15,43,692.50 (Rs.fifteen lakhs, forty-three thousand, six hundred, ninety two and fifty paise only). 5. Learned claims tribunal is awarded only sum of Rs.30,000/-under the non pecuniary heads, which needs to be enhanced to Rs.70,000/-taking total compensation to Rs.16,13,692.50. 6. In case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra) a sum of Rs. 15,43,692.50 (Rs.fifteen lakhs, forty-three thousand, six hundred, ninety two and fifty paise only). 5. Learned claims tribunal is awarded only sum of Rs.30,000/-under the non pecuniary heads, which needs to be enhanced to Rs.70,000/-taking total compensation to Rs.16,13,692.50. 6. In case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra) a sum of Rs. 40,000/-for loss of filial consortium each of respondent is considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court. In case of Pranav Sethi and others (Supra) Constitution Bench has taken all these aspects into consideration and law, which was available at the point of time has been revisited and the amounts awarded by Supreme Court in case of Rajesh vs. Rajbir Singh (2013) 9SCC 54: 2013 (3) T.A.C. 679 has been held to be excessive. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. 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. 7. This aspect has not been considered, therefore, this court would be guided by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court and rejects contention of the appellant for enhancement under the heads of filial consortium and loss of love and affection for each of the respondents. 8. In the above terms, the total compensation payable to the claimants will be Rs. 16,13,692.50 (sixteen lakhs, thirteen thousand, six hundred, ninety two and fifty paise only) which will be appropriated amongst the claimants in the same proportion as per the ratio laid down by the learned Claims Tribunal. Enhanced amount may be invested in Indian Postal Office under the Scheme of Monthly Income Scheme (MIS), to fetch secured and better returns. 9. In the above terms, the F.A.F.O. is disposed of.