JUDGMENT S.G. Pandit, J. - The claimants are in this appeal praying for enhancement of compensation not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belgaum (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short) in judgment and award dated 31.07.2013 in MVC No.868/2012. 2. Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for parties, heard finally and taken up for final disposal. 3. The claimants are parents, wife and children of deceased Siddappa Balappa Badakappanavar. It is stated that the claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for the death of deceased Siddappa Balappa Badakappanavar in a road traffic accident. On 04.12.2001 the deceased along with one Vittal Hanumanthappa Naragund was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing No.MH-09/AM-4875 from Gokak towards Yaragatti. At about 7.00 p.m., when they came near the spot of the accident, one Indica Car bearing No.MH-14/AV-3695 driven from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner dashed to the motorcycle due to which the deceased fell down and sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. It is stated that the deceased was working as a Centering Mestri under one Neelesh D Kadam, Venkatesh Consultants, Civil Engineers and Contractors at Kolhapur and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The deceased was aged about 35 years as on the date of the accident. 4. On issuance of notice, respondents 1 and 2 failed to appear before the Tribunal whereas respondent No.3/insurance company appeared and filed its statement denying the claim petition averments. It also denied the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Indica Car. Further stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased. 5. In support of claim, the wife of the deceased i.e. claimant No.3 examined herself as P.W.1 apart from examining P.W.2, the employer of the deceased. The claimants also got marked documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P14(a). No evidence was lead on behalf of the insurance company, however they marked Ex.R.1/insurance policy. 6. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of the documents placed before it, awarded total compensation of Rs.9,35,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum on the following heads:- Heads Amount in Rs. Towards loss of dependency Rs.8,64,000/- Spousal consortium Rs. 20,000/- Loss of love and affection to petitioners 4 and 5 Rs. 40,000/- Loss of expectancy of life Rs. 6. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of the documents placed before it, awarded total compensation of Rs.9,35,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum on the following heads:- Heads Amount in Rs. Towards loss of dependency Rs.8,64,000/- Spousal consortium Rs. 20,000/- Loss of love and affection to petitioners 4 and 5 Rs. 40,000/- Loss of expectancy of life Rs. 10,000/- Towards loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- Towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. Rs. 6,000/- Total Rs.9,35,000/- 7. While awarding the above compensation, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month and applied multiplier of 16, deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased. The claimants not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal are before this Court in this appeal praying for enhancement of compensation. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and learned counsel for respondent/insurance company and perused the entire Trial Court records. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and she further submits that the income of Rs.6,000/- per month assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Further, she submits that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month working as centering mestri under P.W.2. It is submitted that the appellants/claimants have placed on record Ex.P10/salary certificate of the deceased and examined P.W.2, the employer of deceased to demonstrate that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, but the Tribunal without considering the material on record, erroneously assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, which needs to be revised. Learned counsel further contends that the Tribunal failed to award future prospects. The deceased was aged 35 years on the date of the incident and the claimants would be entitled for 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects. The learned counsel also submits that the claimants being parents and children of the deceased would be entitled for filial and parental consortium as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd vs. Nanu Ram and others, (2018) ACJ 2782 and thus, prays for allowing the appeal. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company would submit that the income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.6,000/- per month notionally is appropriate, which needs no interference. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company would submit that the income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.6,000/- per month notionally is appropriate, which needs no interference. He submits that even though claimants have examined P.W.2 and placed on record Ex.P.10/salary certificate, they have not proved the income of deceased as Rs.15,000/- per month and thus he prays to maintain the income assessed by the Tribunal. Further, the learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company submits that the claimants would not be entitled for adding 40% of assessed income towards future prospects. It is the submission of the learned counsel that the deceased was not having established income nor he was receiving fixed salary. Thus, it is submitted that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) AIR SC 5157 , the claimants would not be entitled for future prospects. Further, he submits that the claimants would not be entitled for parental and filial consortium as contended by the learned counsel for claimants/appellants. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the records, the following points would arise for our consideration:- 1. Whether the income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.6,000/- per month is appropriate and correct? 2. Whether the claimants would be entitled for adding 40% of the assessed income as future prospects? 3. Whether the claimants are entitled for filial and parental consortium as contended by the claimants/appellants? 12. We answer the above three points in the affirmative for the following: REASONS 13. The accident is of the year 2011. The accident occurred on 04.12.2011 involving the motorcycle bearing No. MH-09/AM-4875 and Indica Car bearing No.MH-14/AV-3695 and the death of deceased Siddappa Balappa Badakappanavar is not in dispute in this appeal. The claimants are before this Court praying for enhancement of compensation. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. The claimants stated that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- and they rely upon Ex.P.10/salary certificate and the evidence of P.W.2. 14. P.W.2/Proprietor of the firm, where the deceased was working, states in his evidence that he was paying Rs.400/- per day to the deceased, but Ex.P.10 would indicate that the deceased was getting Rs.15,000/- per month. The claimants stated that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- and they rely upon Ex.P.10/salary certificate and the evidence of P.W.2. 14. P.W.2/Proprietor of the firm, where the deceased was working, states in his evidence that he was paying Rs.400/- per day to the deceased, but Ex.P.10 would indicate that the deceased was getting Rs.15,000/- per month. In his cross-examination, P.W.2 has admitted that the deceased was not working under him as regular employee. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the evidence of P.W.2 is inconsistent and cannot be accepted. Therefore, the Tribunal taking overall view of the evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.P.10/salary certificate, assessed the income notionally at Rs.6,000/- per month, which needs no interference. 15. The learned counsel next contended that the Tribunal failed to award any compensation towards future prospects. The deceased was aged 35 years as on the date of the accident. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) has held that whenever the deceased was aged below 40 years, the claimants would be entitled for adding 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects. But the learned counsel for the insurance company pointing out the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the same decision submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the deceased was not having established income or fixed salary, the claimants would not be entitled for adding future prospects. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in subsequently reported decision in (SC) Oriental Insurance Company vs. Hem raj and others, (2018) ACJ 05 has clarified the position as held at para No.7, which reads as under:- "7.We are of the view that there cannot be distinction where there is positive evidence of income and where minimum income is determined on guesswork in the facts and circumstances of a case. Both the situations stand at the same footing. .." 16. Therefore, the following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) as well as Hem Raj (supra), we hold that the claimants are entitled for adding 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects. Both the situations stand at the same footing. .." 16. Therefore, the following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) as well as Hem Raj (supra), we hold that the claimants are entitled for adding 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects. After adding 40% of the assessed income, the monthly income of the deceased would be Rs.8,400/- (Rs.6000 + Rs.2400 = Rs.8400/-) and since there are 5 dependents depending on the deceased, 1/4 of the income needs to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, which would work out to Rs.6300/- (Rs.8400 Rs.2100 = Rs.6300/-). Since the deceased was aged about 35 years as on the date of the accident, the appropriate multiplier would be 16' and hence the claimants would be entitled to Rs.12,09,600/- (Rs.6300 x 12 x 16 =Rs.12,09,600/-) towards loss of dependency and future prospects. 17. The first and second claimants are parents whereas claimants 4 and 5 are the children of the deceased. The parents have lost their son aged about 35 years, who was looking after them. They have lost love and affection of a son in the evening of their life. Therefore, they would be entitled for Rs.40,000/- as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company (supra). 18. The claimants, who are children as stated above, have lost their father at their young age and they have lost father's love and affection rest of their life. Therefore, we hold that the claimants 4 and 5 would be entitled for 40,000/- each on parental consortium. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for the following modified compensation. Heads Amount in Rs. 1. Loss of dependency and future prospects (Rs.6000 + Rs.2400 Rs.2100 = Rs.6300 x 12 x 16 = Rs.12,09,600/- Rs.12,09,600/- 2. Towards filial and parental consortium Rs. 1,60,000/- 3. Conventional Heads Rs. 70,000/- Total Rs.14,39,600/- 19. Accordingly, the claimants would be entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.14,39,600/- as against Rs.9,35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 20. The respondent/insurance company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount before the Tribunal with interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 21. The order of apportionment and deposit would be in the same ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. 20. The respondent/insurance company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount before the Tribunal with interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 21. The order of apportionment and deposit would be in the same ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal stands partly allowed.