JUDGMENT (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Joymalya Bagchi) MACMA No.2764 of 2015 has been preferred by the wife and two children of the deceased and MACMA No.2771 of 2016 has been preferred by the mother of the deceased challenging the compensation granted in the order, dated 25.08.2015, in MVOP No.205 of 2013 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XV Additional District Judge, Nuzvid, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in their favour primarily on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. 2. Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, learneed counsel appearing for the appellants in MACMA No.2764 of 2015, argues in view of the law declared in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 the Tribunal ought to have granted future prospects at the rate of 40% of the actual salary of the deceased, who was aged 42 years and employed in Singareni Collaries. He further relying on Somwati and others Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited, (2020) 9 SCC 644 argues that compensation for loss of consortium to the mother and children at the rate of 40% each ought to be granted. 3. He has also prayed for enhancement of funeral expenses to Rs.15,000/- and loss of estate at the rate of Rs.15,000/- also. 4. Sri K.Sai Mohan Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-mother of the deceased, in MACMA No.2771 of 2016, while supporting the submissions for enhancement of the compensation payable also prays that proportionate share granted to his client be enhanced. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that future prospects ought to be at the rate of 30% instead of 40%. He further submits that loss of consortium is to be restricted to Rs.70,000/- only. In view of the number of dependants, namely wife, mother and two children, he argues that the personal expenses ought to have been calculated as 1/3rd of the actual salary. 6. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties. 7. With regard to future prospects, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra 1), held as follows: “59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. 7. With regard to future prospects, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra 1), held as follows: “59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 yeaers. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.” 8. With regard to the issue of loss of consortium, in Somwati (supra 2), the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “35. The word “consortium” has been defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, 10th Edn. The Black’s Law Dictionary also, simultaneously, notices the filial consortium, parental consortium and spousal consortium in the following manner: “Consortium 1. The benefits that one person, esp. A spouse, is entitled to receive from another, including companionship, cooperation, affection, aid, financial support, and (between spouses) sexual relations a claim for loss of consortium. .Filial consortium A child’s society, affection, and companionship given to a parent. .Parental consortium A parent’s society, affection and companionship given to a child. .Spousal consortium A spouse’s society, affection and companionship given to the other spouse.” 36. In Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. V. Nanu Ram [ (2018)18 SCC 130 ] as well as United India Insurance Co.Ltd., v. Satinder Kaur [(2021)11 SCC 780], the three- Judge Bench laid down that the consortium is not limited to spousal consortium and it also includes parental consortium as well as filial consortium. In para 87 of United India Insurance Co.Ltd, “consortium” to all the three claimants was thus awarded. Para 87 is quoted below: “87. In para 87 of United India Insurance Co.Ltd, “consortium” to all the three claimants was thus awarded. Para 87 is quoted below: “87. Insofar as the conventional heads are concerned, the deceased Satpal Singh left behind a widow and three children as his dependants. On the basis of the judgments in Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance, the following amounts are awarded under the conventional heads: (i) Loss of estate : Rs 15,000 (ii) Loss of consortium: (a) Spousal consortium : Rs 40,000 (b) Parentalconsortium:40,000x3=1,20,000 (iii) Funeral expenses : Rs 15,000” 37. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Pranay Sethi has only referred to spousal consortium and no other consortium was referred to in the judgment of Pranay Sethi, hence, there is no justification for allowing the parental consortium and filial consortium. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi has referred to amount of Rs.40,000/- to the “loss of consortium” but the Constitution Bench had not addressed the issue as to whether consortium of Rs.40,000/- is only payable as spousal consortium. The judgment of Pranay Sethi cannot be read to mean that it lays down the proposition that the consortium is payable only to the wife. 38. The three-judge Bench in United India Insurance Co. Ltd has categorically laid down that apart from spousal consortium, parental and filial consortium is payable. We feel ourselves bound by the above judgment of the three-Judge Bench. We, thus, cannot accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the amount of consortium awarded to each of the claimants is not sustainable.” 9. In the light of the aforesaid ratio, we are in agreement with the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal did not consider the issue of future prospects of the deceased or grant loss of consortium to the mother as ‘parental consortium’ and to the two children as ‘filial consortium’. 10. Furthermore, compensation awarded under the funeral expenses was less than the amount specified in Pranay Sethi (supra 1) and no amount has been awarded on the score of ‘loss of estate’. With regard to the submission regarding less deduction made on the score of personal expenses, we note that the number of dependants of the deceased was ‘4’ in number i.e., mother, wife and two children and accordingly, the Tribunal rightly deducted 1/4th of the actual salary towards personal expenses. 11. With regard to the submission regarding less deduction made on the score of personal expenses, we note that the number of dependants of the deceased was ‘4’ in number i.e., mother, wife and two children and accordingly, the Tribunal rightly deducted 1/4th of the actual salary towards personal expenses. 11. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, both the Appeals are allowed awarding the compensation as follows: Loss of Dependency Rs.68,88,000=00 Future prospects (at the rate of 30%) Rs.20,66,400=00 Loss of Consortium Rs.50,000=00 Loss of love and affection Rs.50,000=00 Loss of Estate Rs.15,000=00 Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000=00 Total Amount 90,84,400=00 12. Thus, in all, the appellants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.90,84,400/- and the same is rounded off to Rs.91,00,000/-. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to a total sum of Rs.91,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. 13. We have considered the future of the minor children and the widow, who have longer period to live, than the appellant-mother. 14. In such view of the matter and balancing the extent of dependency of the appellants, namely the widow, mother and children on the deceased, their respective ages and other attending circumstances, we direct that the compensation awarded may be shared in the following manner. 1st appellant, wife of the deceased, and appellants 2 and 3, children of the deceased, are awarded a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- each. While, the appellant-mother of the deceased is awarded the remainder sum of Rs.16,00,000/-. As appellant Nos.2 and 3 are minors, the amount awarded to them shall be kept in an interest bearing fixed deposit in any nationalised bank till they attain majority. The impugned order of the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. Accordingly, both the Appeals are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in both the Appeals shall stand closed.