JUDGMENT : ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. S. Mushahary, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. D.J. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. F.A. Hassan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 and Ms. K.K. Bhatta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7. 2. The appellant has challenged the impugned Judgment and Order dated 30.01.2018 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Bongaigaon in MAC Case No. 64/2015, by which the appellant has been directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 34,58,500/- (Rupees thirty four lakhs fifty eight thousand five hundred) only to the respondents/claimants with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till it realization. 3. The brief fact of the case is that on 09.05.2015 at about 11 A.M. while Shirajul Islam was going from Bartalowa towards SBI, BRPL Complex Branch, Dhaligaon by riding his motorcycle bearing registration No. AS-26/A-0936 and reached near Dhaligaon Traffic Point, suddenly the offending vehicle bearing registration No. AS-17/B-3117 (Oil Tanker) coming from the same direction knocked down the deceased from the back side, as a result of which he sustained injuries and died on the spot and accordingly a claim petition was preferred by the respondents/claimants. The learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bongaigaon, Assam in MAC Case No. 64/2015, directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 34,58,500/- (Rupees thirty four lakhs fifty eight thousand five hundred) to the respondents/claimants with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till final payment 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Insurance Company is not raising any dispute regarding the other part of the award that has been made by the learned Tribunal below. However, Mr. Dutta, learned Senior counsel submits that the claimant is not entitled for interest on future prospects. In support of such submission, Mr. Dutta relies on a judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court passed in MAC App. No. 378/2017 vide order dated 01.10.2019 in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Champabati Ray and Others. However, Mr. Dutta, learned Senior counsel submits that the claimant is not entitled for interest on future prospects. In support of such submission, Mr. Dutta relies on a judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court passed in MAC App. No. 378/2017 vide order dated 01.10.2019 in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Champabati Ray and Others. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is extracted herein-below: “Another ground of challenge to the impugned judgment is that the learned Tribunal had awarded interest on future prospects, which could not be done. In the case of Khusboo Chirania @ Kanta Chirania vs. Kamal Kumar Sovasaria, 2018 (0) Supreme (Gau) 966 and Nasima Begum vs. Keramat Ali, 2019 (0) Supreme (Gau) 507, this Court has stated no interest on future prospects should be given. Though no reasons have been enunciated in the above judgments, the reasons for the same seems to be due to the fact that future prospects is relatable to an income to be received in the future and as such, there could not be any loss to the claimants for the payment of future prospects, at the time the deceased met with the accident. The reason for awarding interest on the compensation amount, minus the future prospects is due to the fact that though the loss of dependency starts from the date of the accident and the compensation amount is computed on the date of the Award of the Tribunal, interest is awarded to compensate the loss of money value on account of lapse of time, such as time taken for the legal proceedings and for the denial of right to utilize the money when due. However, future prospects is with regard to the probable income to be received in the future and as such there is no requirement to compensate the claimant by way of future interest, for the loss that is to occur in the future, as the future is yet to happen. Further, future prospects is given for the entire future and as such, the claimant is getting compensation in a lump-sum under future prospects prior to the occurrence of future event/s. Thus, with regard to future prospects, this Court is also of the view that there cannot be any interest on future prospects, as the same relates to an income to be given in the future.” (Emphasis supplied) 5. This Court is in total agreement with same view. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the claimant is entitled for just compensation as determined in Pranay Sethi and Others (Supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), that no appeal has been filed by the claimant. 7. A coordinate Bench of this Court in MAC App. No. 202/2012 in its Judgment and Order dated. 04.02.2022, while dealing with an issue whether the claimants are entitled to an enhanced compensation in absence of a cross appeal or a cross objection, after elaborately discussing different judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court and taking note of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure held that while Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers an appellate court to pass appropriate order to do justice but subject to certain limitation as judicially formulated whereas Section 168 of MV Act imposes a statutory obligation upon the tribunal as well as the appellate court sans way any appeal or cross objection filed to award a compensation which is just and reasonable. Accordingly, it was held that the appellate court is bound to maintain the balance while exercising power under Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure within the limitation imposed and also keeping in mind the statutory duty imposed upon it by Section 168 of MV Act, 1988. After holding such, the learned Bench held in that case that though there was no cross objection however, the benefit of Pranay Sethi and Others (Supra), Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra) and Sarla Verma and Others (Supra) can be made applicable keeping in mind the statutory duty imposed upon the appellate court under Section 168 of the MV Act, 1988 to award the just and reasonable compensation. 8. This Court is in total agreement with the aforesaid view of the Coordinate Bench. Accordingly, held that though there is no cross objection or appeal has been preferred by the present appellant, the appellant shall be entitled for the benefit given under the dicta of Pranay Sethi and Others (Supra), Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra) and Sarla Verma and Others (Supra). 9. Accordingly, held that though there is no cross objection or appeal has been preferred by the present appellant, the appellant shall be entitled for the benefit given under the dicta of Pranay Sethi and Others (Supra), Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra) and Sarla Verma and Others (Supra). 9. In the case of Pranay Sethi and Others (Supra), the Apex Court has awarded compensation only for specific conventional heads and held that the amount to be paid for funeral expense and loss of estate will be Rs. 15,000/- each. It has also held that Rs. 40,000/- should be paid for loss of consortium. No other compensation amount has been reflected in respect of other conventional heads in Pranay Sethi and Others (Supra). 10. The Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others, Civil Appeal No. 9581 of 2018 has held that the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi and Others (supra) has dealt with the various heads under which compensation can be awarded in a death case, which includes loss of consortium. In the above case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and Others (supra), the Apex Court has further held the word “consortium” encompasses the following: (1) Spousal consortium. (2) Parental consortium. (3) Filial consortium. (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, co-operation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation.” (2) Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of parent, for loss of “parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training.” (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. 11. However, at the same regarding the payment of interest on future prospect, this Court is in total agreement with the decision of the Coordinate Bench made in MAC App. No. 378/2017 (The Oriental Insurance Co. Children are valued for their love, affection companionship and their role in the family unit. 11. However, at the same regarding the payment of interest on future prospect, this Court is in total agreement with the decision of the Coordinate Bench made in MAC App. No. 378/2017 (The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Champabati Ray and Others). 12. In view of the above reason, the father shall be entitled for an amount of Rs. 44,000/- against parental consortium and he will not entitle for any share of compensation determined by the learned Tribunal below. As per the decision of the Pranay Sethi and Others (Supra), Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra) and Sarla Verma and Others (Supra) funeral expense and loss of estate will be Rs. 15,000/- each. In addition to that the wife shall be entitled for additional compensation for an amount of Rs. 44,000/- against spousal consortium and three children shall be entitled for an amount of Rs. 44,000/- each against filial consortium. The mother of the deceased shall get 1/4th compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal below and additional amount of Rs. 44,000/- as parental consortium. Thus the compensation payable would be as follows: S. No. Head Amount 1. Total Compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal Rs. 33,88,654/- 2. Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/- 3. (A) Spousal Consortium for wife Rs. 44,000/- (B) Filial Consortium for children’s Rs. 44,000/- x 3 Rs. 1,32,000/- (C) Parental Consortium for Mother Rs. 44,000/- (D) Parental Consortium for Father Rs. 44,000/- (E) Funeral expenses Rs. 16,500/- Total Rs. 36,85,654/- It is further clarified that mother shall get 1/4th of the compensation i.e. Rs. 33,88,502/- and in addition to that parental consortium of Rs. 44,000/-. The father will get only the parental consortium of Rs. 44,000/- and after paying the aforesaid, the balance amount would be paid to the wife and the children. 13. While not interfering with the award of interest @ 6%, awarded by the learned Tribunal, it is made clear that the interest awarded must not be calculated on the amount of compensation awarded against future prospects of Rs. 3,63,932/- in view of the decision of Coordinate Bench in MAC App. No. 378/2017 (The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Champabati Ray and Others). 14. 3,63,932/- in view of the decision of Coordinate Bench in MAC App. No. 378/2017 (The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Champabati Ray and Others). 14. Consequently, the impugned Judgment and Order dated 30.01.2018 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Bongaigaon in MAC Case No. 64/2015 is hereby modified to the extent indicated above. Appeal is accordingly disposed off. 15. Send back the LCR.