JUDGMENT : ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. J. Mollah, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The appellant has challenged the impugned Judgment and Order dated 29.09.2016 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati, Assam in MAC Case No. 2795/2008, by which the appellant has been directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 20,53,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs fifty three thousand) 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 20.03.2008 at about 10.50 P.M. while the claimant, Mukut Kalita, was proceeding in a motorcycle along with his friend and when reached near Sadilapur, suddenly a vehicle bearing No. AS-01-AC-1678 which was driven in a rash and negligent manner, knocked that aforesaid motorcycle. As a result of which he along with his friend sustained grievous injuries and he was immediately brought to GMCH for treatment, but due to his serious condition he was shifted to GNRC and took treatment there till 12.08.2008 and till date his treatment was going on. Thereafter, a claim petition being MAC Case No. 2795/2008 was preferred before the learned Member, MACT No. 1, Kamrup, (Metro), Guwahati. During pendency of the trial, the claimant died due to accidental injuries. Thereafter, his parents amended the claim-petition and impleaded themselves as the claimants in place of their deceased son. The learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati, Assam in MAC Case No. 2795/2008, directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 20,53,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs fifty three thousand) only to the respondents/claimants with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till it realization. 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. Mollah, learned counsel submits that the claimant is not entitled for interest on future prospects. In support of such submission, Mr. Mollah 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. Mollah, learned counsel submits that the claimant is not entitled for interest on future prospects. In support of such submission, Mr. Mollah 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 events. 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. 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. 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. 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 and (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. 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. Ltd. vs. Smt. Champabati Ray and Others. 12. In view of the above reason, the compensation payable would be as follows: S. No. Head Amount 1. (A) Annual Income Rs. 48,000/- x 17 = Rs. 8,16,000/- (B) Future Prospect @ 40% of income Rs. 3,26,400/- (C) Less 50% Rs. 5,71,200/- Total compensation Rs. 5,71,200/- 2. Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/- 3. Medical expenses Rs. 13,56,000/- 4. (A) Parental consortium Rs. 44,000/- x 2 = Rs. 88,000/- (B) Funeral expenses Rs. 16,500/- Total Rs. 20,48,200/- 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. 3,26,400/- 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 29.09.2016 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati, Assam in MAC Case No. 2795/2008, is hereby modified to the extent indicated above. Appeal is accordingly disposed off. 15. Statutory deposit be released in favour of the Insurance Company after proper verification. 16. Send back the LCR.