JUDGMENT : Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the order and decree, dated 27.12.2006 passed in O.P.No.2360 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”), the appellants/claimants preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The facts, in issue, are as under: 4. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents 1 and 2, claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of the deceased-Srinivasa Rao, who died in a motor vehicle accident. It is stated that on 26.09.2003, the deceased and his friend M.Srinivas, were coming Khairatabad towards Ameerpet on their respective vehicles and the deceased was driving Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing No.AP BA 3727 and when they reached near Erramanzil Colony, a TATA Sumo bearing No.AP 9 W 5295 took a sudden right turn in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motor cycle of the deceased, due to which the deceased fell down, sustained head injury and the driver of the TATA Sumo fled away. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad, where he was declared brought dead. Basing on a complaint, a case in Crime No.1472 of 2003 has been registered against the driver of the TATA Sumo. It is also stated that the deceased was the sole earning member of the family and due to sudden demise of the deceased, the claimants lost their source of income, and therefore, they filed claim-petition claiming compensation of Rs.20.00 lakhs. It is further stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the TATA Sumo, the respondents 1 and 2, being the owner and insurer of the said TATA Sumo are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation. 5. The 1st respondent, who is the owner of the said TATA Sumo, remained ex parte. 6. The 2nd respondent, who is the insurer of the said TATA Sumo, filed counter denying the manner in which the accident took place including the age, avocation and income of the deceased. 5. The 1st respondent, who is the owner of the said TATA Sumo, remained ex parte. 6. The 2nd respondent, who is the insurer of the said TATA Sumo, filed counter denying the manner in which the accident took place including the age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is mainly contended that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased and as such, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay compensation and that the compensation claimed is excessive. 7. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- (1) Whether the accident took place on 26.09.2003 at about 12.30 A.M., due to rash and negligent driving of TATA Sumo vehicle bearing No.AP 9 W 5295 by its driver? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation from the respondents? If so, to what amount and from whom? (3) To what relief? 8. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A12 were marked. On behalf of the Insurance Company, no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B1-copy of Insurance Policy was marked with consent. 9. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident was occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the TATA Sumo and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.5,66,250/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization to be paid by the respondents jointly and severally. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants filed the present appeal. 10. Learned Counsel for the claimants mainly submits that as per the principles laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 ACJ 2700 , the claimants are also entitled to the future prospects. It is further submitted that since the dependents are five in number 1/4th is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, but the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 ACJ 2700 , the claimants are also entitled to the future prospects. It is further submitted that since the dependents are five in number 1/4th is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, but the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd. It is also submitted that the claimants 2 and 3, who are the children, ought to have been granted Rs.40,000/- each towards parental consortium and claimants 4 and 5, who are the parents of the deceased, ought to have been granted filial consortium of Rs.40,000/- each in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 . Therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation. 11. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the income of the deceased has rightly been taken by the Tribunal as Rs.49,125/- per annum relying upon the income tax returns filed by the claimants. On the point of future prospects, learned Counsel submits that the matter has been considered by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others (1 supra) and as per that judgment, the claimants are entitled to 40% of the said amount towards future prospects. It is further submitted that the compensation towards non-pecuniary damages has been rightly granted by the Tribunal and the same need not be enhanced. 12. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in which the accident took place has become final as the same is not challenged by the respondents. 13. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, as per Ex.A5-income tax returns, the income from the business or profession of the deceased was shown as Rs.49,125/-, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased at Rs.49,125/- per annum while calculating the loss of dependency. Admittedly, at the time of his death, the deceased was aged about 31 years, therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (1 supra), the claimants are entitled to 40% of the future prospects. After adding 40% of the future prospects, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.68,775/-(Rs.49,125/-+ Rs.19,650/-). Admittedly, at the time of his death, the deceased was aged about 31 years, therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (1 supra), the claimants are entitled to 40% of the future prospects. After adding 40% of the future prospects, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.68,775/-(Rs.49,125/-+ Rs.19,650/-). From this, 1/4th is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased following Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) as the dependents are five in number. After deducting 1/4th amount towards his personal and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs.51,581.00 per annum. Since, the deceased was aged about 31 years at the time of his death, the Tribunal ought to have adopted the multiplier as ‘16’ as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (3 supra) instead of ‘17’. Adopting multiplier ‘16’, the total loss of dependency would be Rs.51,581/- x 16, which comes to Rs.8,25,296/-. 14. At this stage, learned Counsel for the claimants vehemently argued that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others (2 supra), the claimants 2 and 3, who are the children, ought to have been granted Rs.40,000/- towards parental consortium and claimants 4 and 5, who are the parents of the deceased, ought to have been granted Rs.40,000/- each towards filial consortium. 15. In Pranay Sethi’s case (1 supra) the Apex Court held as under:- “48. Another aspect which has created confusion pertains to grant of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. In Santosh Devi (supra), the two-Judge Bench followed the traditional method and granted Rs. 5,000/- for transportation of the body, Rs. 10,000/- as funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- as regards the loss of consortium. In Sarla Verma, the Court granted Rs. 5,000/- under the head of loss of estate, Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of Consortium. In Rajesh, the Court granted Rs. 1,00,000/-towards loss of consortium and Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses. It also granted Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. In Sarla Verma, the Court granted Rs. 5,000/- under the head of loss of estate, Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of Consortium. In Rajesh, the Court granted Rs. 1,00,000/-towards loss of consortium and Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses. It also granted Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The Court enhanced the same on the principle that a formula framed to achieve uniformity and consistency on a socio-economic issue has to be contrasted from a legal principle and ought to be periodically revisited as has been held in Santosh Devi (supra). On the principle of revisit, it fixed different amount on conventional heads. What weighed with the Court is factum of inflation and the price index. It has also been moved by the concept of loss of consortium. We are inclined to think so, for what it states in that regard. We quote:- “17. … In legal parlance, “consortium” is the right of the spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate. That non-pecuniary head of damages has not been properly understood by our courts. The loss of companionship, love, care and protection, etc., the spouse is entitled to get, has to be compensated appropriately. The concept of non- pecuniary damage for loss of consortium is one of the major heads of award of compensation in other parts of the world more particularly in the United States of America, Australia, etc. English courts have also recognised the right of a spouse to get compensation even during the period of temporary disablement. By loss of consortium, the courts have made an attempt to compensate the loss of spouse’s affection, comfort, solace, companionship, society, assistance, protection, care and sexual relations during the future years. Unlike the compensation awarded in other countries and other jurisdictions, since the legal heirs are otherwise adequately compensated for the pecuniary loss, it would not be proper to award a major amount under this head. Hence, we are of the view that it would only be just and reasonable that the courts award at least rupees one lakh for loss of consortium.” 52. Hence, we are of the view that it would only be just and reasonable that the courts award at least rupees one lakh for loss of consortium.” 52. On a perusal of various decisions of this Court, it is manifest that the Second Schedule has not been followed starting from the decision in Trilok Chandra (supra) and there has been no amendment to the same. The conventional damage amount needs to be appositely determined. As we notice, in different cases different amounts have been granted. A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was granted towards consortium in Rajesh. The justification for grant of consortium, as we find from Rajesh, is founded on the observation as we have reproduced hereinbefore. 53. On the aforesaid basis, the Court has revisited the practice of awarding compensation under conventional heads. 54. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh. It has granted Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/- loss of consortium and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to Santosh Devi, it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads.” 16. In Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others (2 supra) also, the Apex Court held as under:- “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 (supra).” 17. In view of the above, the contention of the learned Counsel for the claimants that the claimants 2 and 3, who are the children and claimants 4 and 5, who are the parents of the deceased, are entitled Rs.40,000/- each towards parental consortium and filial consortium respectively, is hereby rejected. The claimants are entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads as per Pranay Sethi’s case (1 supra). Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs.9,02,296/-. 18. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed. The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.5,66,250/- to Rs.9,02,296/-. The enhanced amount will carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of passing of award by the Tribunal till the date of realization, payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. The enhanced amount shall be apportioned among the claimants in the manner as ordered by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. 19. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.