JUDGMENT : Sindhu Sharma, J. 1. These two appeals have arisen out of the common vehicular accident occurred on 02.02.2015. The awards passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Samba in MAC No. 48/2015 and MAC No. 50/2015, as such, they were heard and considered together. Mac App No. 151/2020 2.This appeal has been filed against the award dated 29.02.2020 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Samba in MAC No. 48/2015 titled 'Seema Devi & Ors. v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors'. 3. Briefly stated the facts in the appeal are that Bhajan Lal S/o Prakash Chand R/o Village Raipur Nai Basti Tehsil R.S. Pura District Jammu was travelling in a vehicle (Alto Car) on 02.02.2015 from Kathua towards Bari Brahmana. The offending vehicle No. JK02AH-7473 was being driven by respondent No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner, hit the vehicle of deceased near Budhwani. The deceased received serious injuries due to this accident and died on his way to Hospital. 4. Respondents - 1 to 4, i.e., the wife, daughter and parents of the deceased hereinafter referred to as claimants preferred a claim petition before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Samba on 19.08.2015. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:- 1. Whether deceased Bhajan Lal S/o Sh. Prakash Chand R/o Raipur Nai Basti Tehsil R.S. Pura District Jammu while travelling in his own vehicle Alto car bearing Engine & Chassis No. 5365540 & 583358 from Kathua to Bari Brahmana met an accident with offending vehicle car (Chevrolet Spark) bearing registration No. JK02AH-7473 on 02.02.2015 at 9:00 A.M. at Budhwani Samba on Jammu-Pathankot National Highway as result deceased suffered crush injury forehead, fracture skull and expired on spot? OPP. 2. Whether respondent No. 2 was not holding a valid driving license at the time of accident? OPR-1. 3. Whether the respondent No.1 is not liable to pay any compensation as the offending vehicle was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy? OPR-1. 4. In case issue No.1 is proved in affirmative whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and to what extent and from whom? 5. Relief? OP Parties. 5. The claimant No.1, besides herself examined Arvinder Singh and Naveen Chander as witnesses in support of their claim. The appellant Insurance Company did not choose to lead any evidence. OPR-1. 4. In case issue No.1 is proved in affirmative whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and to what extent and from whom? 5. Relief? OP Parties. 5. The claimant No.1, besides herself examined Arvinder Singh and Naveen Chander as witnesses in support of their claim. The appellant Insurance Company did not choose to lead any evidence. The Tribunal decided issue No.1 in favour of the claimants holding that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the driver. Issue Nos. 2 & 3 were also decided in favour of the claimants. 6. As this appeal filed by the Appellant-Insurance Company is only on quantum, therefore, only issue No.4 is required to be considered in this appeal. 7. The appellant not being satisfied by the award has preferred this appeal on the grounds that the Tribunal has made the deduction of tax on hypothetical basis without properly calculating the tax for the year 2014-2015. The claimants have not led any evidence to prove the salary certificate of the deceased, therefore, the award is perverse. The deductions of 1/4th on account of personal and living expenses has been wrongly made as the father was not the dependent and the multiplier too has not been correctly applied, thus, compensation has also been wrongly awarded and the award is passed on no evidence, thus, the same is liable to be set aside. 8. The Tribunal considering the salary certificate of the deceased who was working in the Indian Army issued by the Officer Commanding, 11 JAK Rifle which was not disputed by the appellant took monthly income of the deceased to be as Rs. 32,856/- and he was holding a permanent job, therefore, the Tribunal added 50% to the established income of the deceased for the purposes of computing of future income and prospectus. Accordingly the annual income of the deceased was calculated as Rs. 32,856 + 16428 = Rs. 48284/- which, in fact, should have been Rs. 49,284/- and, thus, took the annual income of the deceased to be Rs. 5,91,408/-. The income tax on this annual income by the rough estimate for the year 2015 was deducted at the rate of Rs. 40,881/- per month. The annual income of the deceased after deduction was considered as Rs. 5,79,408/-. 48284/- which, in fact, should have been Rs. 49,284/- and, thus, took the annual income of the deceased to be Rs. 5,91,408/-. The income tax on this annual income by the rough estimate for the year 2015 was deducted at the rate of Rs. 40,881/- per month. The annual income of the deceased after deduction was considered as Rs. 5,79,408/-. The deceased was survived by his wife, daughter and parents, thus, the deduction towards personal and living expenses was 1/4th from the income of the deceased, as such, the dependency Rs. 5,38,527 – Rs. 1,34,632 = Rs. 4,03,895/-. By applying the multiplier of 16, the Tribunal awarded the compensation as (1) Loss of dependence = Rs. 64,62,320/- (2) Loss of estate = Rs. 15,000/- (3) Loss of spousal/filial consortium @ Rs. 40,000/- = Rs. 1,60,000/- (4) Funeral expenses = Rs. 15,000/- Total = Rs. 6652320/- (rounded off to Rs. 66,52,000/-). Thus, awarded an amount of Rs. 66,52,000/- in equal shares alongwith 7.5% interest from the date of petition till the amount is realized. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not disputed that the deceased at the time of accident was 34 years old and was drawing a salary of Rs. 32,856/-. As the deceased was holding a permanent job, therefore, addition of 50% of the actual salary of the deceased was added towards future prospects as per the guidelines laid down in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi (2017)16 SCC 680 , which reads as under:- "59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusion:- 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 to 50 years. 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." 10. The annual income of the deceased was rightly calculated as Rs. 32856 + 16428 = 49284 x 12 = Rs. 5,91,408/-, thus the annual income of the deceased was subject to income tax though the Tribunal has on rough estimation deducted income tax of Rs. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax." 10. The annual income of the deceased was rightly calculated as Rs. 32856 + 16428 = 49284 x 12 = Rs. 5,91,408/-, thus the annual income of the deceased was subject to income tax though the Tribunal has on rough estimation deducted income tax of Rs. 40,881/- but the appellant submits that the tax on the income of the deceased for the financial year 2014-15 was Rs. 43,260/-. This contention is not disputed by the respondents, accordingly, the income of the deceased after deduction would be Rs. 5,91,300 - 43,260 = Rs. 5,48,040/-. 11. The appellant is also aggrieved of the fact that the Tribunal has wrongly made deduction of 1/4th on account of personal and living expenses of the deceased. The deceased was survived by only three dependents as the father was not a dependent, therefore, deduction of 1/3rd should have been made towards personal and living expenses. In Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 , it was held as under:- "30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six. 32............mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependant on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third". The appellant is right in the contention that the father cannot be considered as dependent, therefore, only wife, daughter and mother being dependent on the deceased, as such, 1/3rd was to be deducted towards the head of 'living and personal expenses'. 12. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the compensation on the conventional heads also has not been correctly awarded in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case. The respondents on the other hand have placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors.', vide which the Apex Court has held as under:- "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. 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." 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." 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. 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. 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 wherefore 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". The compensation on the conventional heads have been rightly awarded by the Tribunal 13. For the foregoing reasons and discussions made hereinabove, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified in the following manners : Income of the deceased Rs.32,856/- (rounded of Rs.32850/-) After adding 50% increase in salary Rs.32,850 + 16,425 = Rs.49,275/- Annual income of the deceased Rs.49,275 x 12 = Rs.5,91,300/- Annual income after deduction of tax Rs.5,91,300 - 43,260 = Rs.5,48,040/- After deduction on 1/3rd towards living and personal expenses of (Rs.1,82,680/-) Rs.5,48,040 - 1,82,680 = Rs.3,65,360/- Multiplier applicable 16 The loss of dependency Rs.3,65,360 x 16 = Rs.58,45,760/- Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Loss of spousal/parental/filial consortium @ Rs.40,000/- Rs.1,60,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Therefore, total compensation Rs.60,35,760/- 14. The rate of interest as awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. 15. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal is modified to the extent as mentioned hereinabove. 16. The award is accordingly modified. Mac App No. 154/2020 17. This appeal has also been filed against the award dated 29.02.2020 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Samba in MAC 50/2015 titled 'Sharda Devi & Ors. v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.'. 18. Briefly stated the facts in the petition are that Purshotam Lal S/o Late Behari Lal R/o Village Meen sarkar Tehsil Bari Brahmana District Samba was also travelling in his own vehicle (Alto Car) bearing Engine No. 5365540 and Chassis No. 583358 on 02.02.2015 from Kathua towards Bari Brahmana. v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.'. 18. Briefly stated the facts in the petition are that Purshotam Lal S/o Late Behari Lal R/o Village Meen sarkar Tehsil Bari Brahmana District Samba was also travelling in his own vehicle (Alto Car) bearing Engine No. 5365540 and Chassis No. 583358 on 02.02.2015 from Kathua towards Bari Brahmana. The offending vehicle No. JK02AH-7473 was being driven by respondent No. 2 rashly, negligently and carelessly which hit the vehicle of deceased near Budhwani. Due to this accident, the deceased received serious injuries and he died on spot. 19. Respondents-Claimant Nos. 1 to 3 preferred a claim petition before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Samba on 19.08.2015. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal : 1. Whether deceased Purshotam Lal S/o Late Behari Lal R/o Village Meen sarkar Tehsil Bari Brahmana District Samba while travelling in his own vehicle Alto car bearing Engine & Chassis No. 5365540 & 583358 from Kathua to Bari Brahmana met an accident with offending vehicle car (Chevrolet Spark) bearing registration No. JK02AH-7473 on 02.02.2015 at 9:00 A.M. at Budhwani Samba on Jammu-Pathankot National Highway, as result deceased suffered crush injury forehead, fracture skull and expired on spot? OPP. 2. Whether respondent No. 2 was not holding a valid driving license at the time of accident? OPR-1. 3. Whether the respondent No.1 is not liable to pay any compensation as the offending vehicle was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy? OPR-1. 4. In case issue No.1 is proved in affirmative whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation under Motor Vehicle Act and if so, from whom and to what extent? 5. Relief? OP Parties. 20. The claimant-Sharda Devi got examined Devinder Singh in their support, the respondents, however, did not lead any evidence. This appeal is filed by the Appellant-Insurance Company is on quantum, therefore, only issue No.4 is required to be considered by this Court. The deceased at the time of his death, was holding the post of Naik in Army and his monthly income was Rs. 33,514/- per month, as the deceased was holding a permanent job, an addition of 50% of the actual salary on the income of the deceased was made towards future prospects. The learned Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. The deceased at the time of his death, was holding the post of Naik in Army and his monthly income was Rs. 33,514/- per month, as the deceased was holding a permanent job, an addition of 50% of the actual salary on the income of the deceased was made towards future prospects. The learned Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 66,52,320/- on the counts mentioned in the impugned award. According to the appellant, the tax deduction on the annual income of the deceased was Rs. 45,650/-. The respondents are also in agreement with the same. Accordingly, Rs. 45,650/- is the tax deduction on the income of the deceased for the financial year 2014-15. 21. The age of the deceased was 36 years, therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (supra), the multiplier applicable for the calculation of loss of dependency would be 15, the Tribunal had wrongly applied the multiplier of 16 but the applicable multiplier in the present case is 15. 22. This apart, the deceased was survived by his wife, son and mother and since the number of dependents are only three, therefore, 1/3rd of the deduction was rightly made by the Tribunal on personal and living expenses of the deceased, as such, the claimants are entitled to compensation on the basis of loss of dependency. 23. The appellant is aggrieved of the fact that the compensation on the conventional heads has not correctly been awarded in view of the Pranay Sethi's (supra) case but I am not in agreement with this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in view of the judgment passed in 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors'. In this matter, the Apex court has granted right of consortium which included that of child, parents and spousal/filial consortium. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors'. In this matter, the Apex court has granted right of consortium which included that of child, parents and spousal/filial consortium. As such, the claimants are held entitled for compensation as under : Income of the deceased Rs.33,514/- After adding 50% increase in salary Rs.33,514 + 16,757 = Rs.50,271/- Annual income of the deceased Rs.50,271 x 12 = Rs.6,03,252/- Annual income after deduction of tax Rs.6,03,252 - 45,650 = Rs.5,57,602/- After deduction on 1/3rd towards living and personal expenses of (Rs.1,85,867/- ) Rs.5,57,602 - 1,85,867 = Rs.3,71,735/- Multiplier applicable 15 The loss of dependency Rs.3,71,735 x 15 = Rs.55,76,025/- Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Loss of spousal/parental/filial consortium @ Rs.40,000/- Rs.1,20,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Therefore, total compensation Rs.57,26,025/- 24. The rate of interest as awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. 25. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal is modified to the extent as mentioned hereinabove. 26. The award is accordingly modified.