JUDGMENT : M Venkata Ramana, J. This appeal is directed against decree and award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum the Court of learned Principal District Judge, Chittoor, in M.V.O.P.No.422 of 2008 dated 28.03.2011. 2. By this award, out of a claim for Rs.2,00,000/-, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,30,000/- under different heads. 3. This appeal is preferred by the claimants. They are unfortunate parents of a boy Master Oleti Kusumanth, who was 11 years old and was studying 6th class in R.K.Vidyalaya School, Chittoor. On 08.04.2008, according to the case of the appellants, when he was returning from school in school bus KA-25-4773 when he was alighting, he fell down from the foot board on to the road and when the rear wheel of the bus ran him over causing instantaneous death. It was on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus, according to them. 4. The first respondent is the owner of the bus and it was insured with the second respondent on the date of the accident. The second respondent denied the claim of the appellants mainly on the ground that it is not liable to satisfy their claim since the first respondent did not engage on contract additional worker and further stating that the claim is excessive. 5. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent's bus bearing No.KA25-4773? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation for the death of O.Kusumanth, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 6. Basing on the evidence of the claimants, through their witnesses, viz., P.W.1 and P.W.2 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 and considering the defence of the second respondent, which produced Ex.B1 the copy of insurance policy, the Tribunal passed an award for compensation as stated above against respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. 7. Dissatisfied, the claimants preferred this appeal. 8. Sri S.V.Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants assailed the reasons assigned by the Tribunal in awarding compensation on the premise that it is meager and various parameters required as per law were not considered. 7. Dissatisfied, the claimants preferred this appeal. 8. Sri S.V.Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants assailed the reasons assigned by the Tribunal in awarding compensation on the premise that it is meager and various parameters required as per law were not considered. It is further pointed out that sums awarded particularly in applying a multiplier considering the age of the mother, deduction effected towards personal expenses of the deceased and failure to consider appropriately towards future prospects as well as loss of estate and funeral expenses had lead to failure of justice. Thus contending, it is requested to reevaluate compensation to be awarded. 9. None represented the second respondent-insurer, when the matter was listed on 28.01.2020 and thereafter this matter was posted to this day for orders. There is no representation on behalf of the second respondent-insurer even this day. In the above circumstances, this appeal is being disposed of basing on the material available since arguments have already been advanced on behalf of the appellants on 23.01.2020. 10. Now, the point for determination is : - "Whether the Tribunal considered the matter in proper perspective in awarding compensation under different heads and if it is 'just compensation' as envisaged under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act?" 11. The appeal being by the claimants, since there is no material that the respondents either collectively or individually preferred any appeal, the findings of the Tribunal with reference to rash and negligence being cause for the death of the deceased, recorded on issue No.1, need not be considered. For the present purpose, issue No.2 settled by the Tribunal alone shall be considered with reference to findings recorded therein. 12. The Tribunal took into consideration the age of the deceased being 11 years old on the date of the accident and having regard to the material on record, it is not necessary to reconsider such finding. Schedule II of M.V.Act then in vogue was also considered by the Tribunal basing on PRABODH DHAND TYAGI v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, (2004) ACJ 1352, for the purpose. The deceased being a child of 11 years old, in R.K.MALIK v. KIRAN PAL, (2009) ACJ 1924 the same parameter was adopted. It provides for a multiplier of 15' in case, where the age of the victim was less than 15 years and between 15 years but not exceeding 20 years. The deceased being a child of 11 years old, in R.K.MALIK v. KIRAN PAL, (2009) ACJ 1924 the same parameter was adopted. It provides for a multiplier of 15' in case, where the age of the victim was less than 15 years and between 15 years but not exceeding 20 years. Learned counsel for the petitioners apart from relying the ruling, relied on further in MAJU DEVI v. MUSAFIR PASWAN, (2005) ACJ 99 13. In R.K.Malik's case, general principles relating to awarding compensation either under pecuniary damages or non-pecuniary damages was considered. Case of LATA WADHAWA & OTHERS v. STATE OF BIHAR & OTHERS, (2001) 8 SCC 197 was considered, where in case of children between 10 to 18 years, compensation of Rs.4.10 lakhs was awarded including conventional compensation, for the reason that the contribution of each child towards family stood at Rs.24,000/- per annum. It was so arrived at basing on an un-written rule in TATA IRON AND STEEL COMPANY, JAMSHEDPUR, where every employee could get one of his children employed in the said company. In that context, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that future prospects of the children should also be considered in addition to awarding compensation. These observations in Para-31 of this ruling in R.K.Malik case, are as under: "It is well settled legal principle that in addition to awarding compensation for pecuniary losses, compensation must also be granted with regard to the future prospects of the children. It is incumbent upon the Courts to consider the said aspect while awarding compensation." 14. It is also observed in this ruling that denying compensation towards future prospects is unjustified. 15. Bearing in mind the principles so laid down by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the basis laid by the appellants for awarding compensation in this case has to be revisited. 16. Following schedule-II of M.V. Act, notional income of the deceased child shall be taken at Rs.15,000/- per annum, in view of the rulings of Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred to above. 17. Assessment of possible expenses the child could have incurred as out of pocket expenses, indeed is a difficult task. However, the Tribunal considered at 50% of the notional income of the child basing on the age of his mother relying on U.P.STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS v. TRILOK CHANDRA AND OTHERS,1996 2 ACJ 831. 17. Assessment of possible expenses the child could have incurred as out of pocket expenses, indeed is a difficult task. However, the Tribunal considered at 50% of the notional income of the child basing on the age of his mother relying on U.P.STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS v. TRILOK CHANDRA AND OTHERS,1996 2 ACJ 831. But, in a recent constitution bench judgment in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. PRANAY SETHI, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , it is held that age of the deceased should be considered for the purpose of arriving at compensation. 18. Having regard to number of claimants (appellants) being only two, if deemed to be dependants on the deceased, appropriate deduction towards out of pocket expenses shall be 1/3rd following SMT.SARLA VARMA AND ANOTHER v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS, (2009) ACJ 1298. 19. In such an event, towards loss of income, Rs.1,50,000/- has to be awarded (Rs.15,000/- 3 X 15). 20. The Tribunal has chosen to award Rs.5,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses respectively. Conventional amounts of Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses are directed to be awarded, in Pranay Sethi supra by Hon'ble Supreme Court. 21. In MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. NANU RAM ALIAS CHUHRU RAM AND OTHERS, (2018) 18 SCC 130 different kinds of consortia have been explained in para-21 and relevant observations in consequence thereto are hereunder: "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, so lance 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. 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. 22. 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. 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." 22. Therefore, in view of the above observations, filial consortium shall be appropriate for the present purpose and following Pranay Sethi case, Rs.40,000/- has to be awarded. 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." 22. Therefore, in view of the above observations, filial consortium shall be appropriate for the present purpose and following Pranay Sethi case, Rs.40,000/- has to be awarded. Though it is not specifically claimed by the claimants, it is not a bar to consider having regard to scope and ambit of Section 166 of M.V. Act, which requires 'just compensation' to be awarded. It includes compensation based on pecuniary damages, which the claimants have to prove producing appropriate evidence and non-pecuniary damages, which includes a claim based on consortium. Towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, needless to state that following Pranay Sethi case, appropriate amounts have to be awarded. 23. Thus, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of filial consortium, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses respectively have to be awarded in this case. 24. Measure of future prospects is also stated in Pranay Sethi case. However, the direction therein is difficult to apply in this case even if the child is treated that he was earning fixed salary, on account of acceptance of notional income measured by Schedule-II of M.V.Act. The reason is that such income should be considered as 'established income' as directed by Pranay Sethi. Notional income considered in respect of a child cannot be 'an established income'. 25. However, in R.K.Malik case, having regard to background of the child concerned to the accident therein, it was felt appropriate to grant compensation of Rs.75,000/-. It was in relation to an incident occurred in or about in the year 2004. When the accident concerned to this case was in the year 2008, it is reasonable to consider future prospects of the child with an incremental increase by 1/3rd to what was decided in R.K.Malik case. Therefore, if Rs.1,00,000/- is added, being appropriate compensation towards future prospects, it is just and appropriate. 26. As observed in R.K.Malik case, being a part of non-pecuniary damages, it accounts for such immeasurable elements as pain and suffering, loss of amenity, enjoyment of life and the comfort with the child would have afforded to this family had he been alive should be the consideration. 26. As observed in R.K.Malik case, being a part of non-pecuniary damages, it accounts for such immeasurable elements as pain and suffering, loss of amenity, enjoyment of life and the comfort with the child would have afforded to this family had he been alive should be the consideration. In this context, observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in STATE OF HARYANA v. JASBIR KAUR extracted in para-33 of R.K.Malik case, referred to above, are apt to note hereunder: "It has to be kept in view that the Tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in Section 168 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which is to be in the real sense "damages" which in turn appears to it to be 'just and reasonable'. It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. But at the same time it has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit; but the same should not be a pittance. The Courts and Tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just. What would be "just" compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of "just" compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Though by use of the expression "which appears to it to be just" a wide discretion is vested on the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness. The expression "just" denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness, and non- arbitrary. If it is not so it cannot be just." 27. The expression "just" denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness, and non- arbitrary. If it is not so it cannot be just." 27. While granting compensation, rigid confines of the claim set forth by the claimants in their petition, need not be given due cognizance if the facts and circumstances warrant for justifiable reasons, compensation which is 'just' in the opinion of the Tribunal or the Court shall be the order, particularly having regard to the effect of Section 166 and Section 168 of M.V.Act and observations of Jasbir Kaur, referred to supra. 28. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the compensation arrived at exceeds the claim set forth by the claimants before the Tribunal. The material on record in this case justifies awarding such an extent. Therefore, the compensation awarded under different heads is as under: 1. towards loss of income Rs.1,50,000/- 2. towards loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- 3. towards funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- 4. towards loss of filial consortium Rs. 40,000/- 5. towards future prospects Rs.1,00,000/- Thus, the total compensation awarded in this case stands at Rs.3,20,000/ 29. The respondents 1 and 2 are bound to satisfy the claim of the appellants awarded to the extents stated above. Primary liability stands on the first respondent and since it is indemnified by the contract of insurance under Ex.B1, the second respondent shall be liable therefor. 30. Thus, this point is answered directing enhancement of compensation as stated above in favour of the appellants and against the respondents. 31. In the result, this M.A.C.M.A. is allowed subject to following directions: 1. the appellants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.3,20,000/- with proportionate costs and with future interest thereon at 7.5% per annum from the date of presentation of the petition till realization; 2. if the second respondent has already paid or deposited the compensation awarded by the Tribunal with proportionate costs and proportionate interest, such amount shall be deducted out of the amount payable in terms of clause-I; 3. the appellants are entitled for apportionment of compensation so awarded at 50% each; 4. the second respondent is directed to deposit the amount as per this judgment within two months from this day; 5. on such deposit, the appellants are permitted to withdraw the same; 6. advocate's fee is Rs.7,500/-; and 7. the appellants are entitled for apportionment of compensation so awarded at 50% each; 4. the second respondent is directed to deposit the amount as per this judgment within two months from this day; 5. on such deposit, the appellants are permitted to withdraw the same; 6. advocate's fee is Rs.7,500/-; and 7. the appellants are directed to deposit the stamp duty on enhanced amount and the Tribunal is directed to collect the same. All pending petitions, stand closed.