JUDGMENT : Heard Mr R Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr P Borah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. 2. This appeal is directed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter in short, the “MV Act”), against the Judgment and Award dated 27.03.2017, passed by the learned Member, MACT, Sonitpur, in MAC Case No. 69 of 2014 (D), awarding Rs. 10,25,000/-(Rupees Ten Lacs Twenty Five Thousand) Only in favour of the claimant/respondent. 3. The factum of accident has not been challenged in the case. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company has argued that the deceased was a law student and although she was stated to be working in M/s Trident Infra-projects Private Ltd., drawing a salary of Rs. 10,000/-per month but her income was not proved but as per settled provision of law, the provision for enhancement of the income for future prospect is only for salaried persons, fixed income or self employed. In the present case, the salary of the deceased was not proved and an income of Rs. 5,000/-was presumed by the learned Member MACT, while making assessment of compensation and as such, the claimant is not entitled to the benefit of addition of 50% of the notional income to the income of the deceased under the head of future prospect. 4. It is also submitted that the error committed by the learned Member, MACT, has resulted in over compensation, which would militate against the concept of ‘just compensation’ as envisaged in the MV Act. 5. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has cited one caselaw, Oriental Insurance Company Limited –vs-Meena Varial & Ors.; reported in (2007) Vol 5 SCC 428. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant has filed a cross objection, under Order XLI, Rule-22 of CPC, praying for enhancement of the compensation awarded in favour of the claimant/respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent/claimant has argued that the deceased was studying LLB at Gauhati University and she could have a promising career, had she been alive. The daughter of the claimant used to earn Rs. Learned counsel for the respondent/claimant has argued that the deceased was studying LLB at Gauhati University and she could have a promising career, had she been alive. The daughter of the claimant used to earn Rs. 10,000/-by doing a part time job in a private firm, namely, M/s Trident Infraprojects Private Ltd. at Guwahati at the time of her death and one salary certificate of the deceased was exhibited vide Exhibit-5, but the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the instant case and awarded compensation on the basis of notional income of Rs. 5,000/-which is lower in side. 7. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant that learned Tribunal has wrongly taken up the multiplier as 15 instead of 18 for the age group of 15 to 25 years. As the deceased was 23 years of age, the multiplier should be 18 and not 15. As such, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal should be set aside. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the claimant/respondent has relied on the case law of Sarala Verma –Vs- DTC; reported in (2009) Vol.-6 SCC 121. 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the record of MAC Case No. 69/2014 and the documents available in the record. 9. It is seen that both the parties have filed the present appeal as well as cross objection on quantum of compensation. 10. Regarding income of the deceased, as per claim petition, the deceased was working in M/S Computer Heart, at Tezpur, wherein she was working as a Receptionist since Feb 2012 to July 2013 and her monthly salary was Rs. 4,500/-and thereafter, she had joined M/s Trident Infraprojects Private Ltd. at Guwahati, wherein she used to work as an Front Office Assistant from October 2013 till her death and earning Rs. 10,000/-per month. In support of the fact, the claimant has submitted one certificate from M/S Computer Heart, vide Exhibit-5, certified by the proprietor, that the deceased Sikha Moni Baruah had been working in M/s Computer Heart, Aziz Market, Tezpur as a receptionist from Feb 2012 to July 2013 and used to earn Rs. 4,500/-per month as salary, but the person who issued the certificate (Exhibit-5) as proprietor of M/s Computer Heart was not examined before the Tribunal. 4,500/-per month as salary, but the person who issued the certificate (Exhibit-5) as proprietor of M/s Computer Heart was not examined before the Tribunal. Hence, the Tribunal did not consider the Exhibit-5, the salary certificate of the deceased. The claimant did not produce any other document to prove the fact that the deceased was also working in M/s Trident Infraprojects Private Ltd. at Guwahati and earning Rs. 10,000/-per month. As the income of the deceased was not proved by producing any document before the learned Tribunal, the Tribunal considered the income of the deceased on notional income of Rs. 5,000/-per month, which appears to be reasonable in the year 2014, when the accident occurred. 11. In the case of National Insurance Company Limited–Vs-Pranay Sethi & Ors., Reported in SLP (Civil) No. 25590/2014, it was observed that while determining the income of the deceased in case of 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 40-50 years and 10%, where the deceased was between the age of 50-60 years, should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. 12. In the instant case, as the deceased was 23 years of age at the time of accident, hence, 40% should be added along with her established income of Rs. 5,000/-. As such, monthly income of the deceased is considered as Rs. 5,000/-+ Rs. 2,000/-(40%) = Rs. 7,000/-. 13. Regarding age of the deceased, the claimant has produced the birth certificate of the deceased, which shows that her date of birth is 16.02.1991. The accident occurred on 27.04.2014. It transpires that the deceased was around 23 years of age at the time of accident, which has also not been disputed by the Insurance Company. As per Sarala Verma (supra), the multiplier would be 18. 14. In the instant case, the deceased was a bachelor at the time of accident. As such, the standard of deduction towards personal and living expenses is applicable as stated in the case of Sarala Verma(supra).As the deceased was a bachelor, 50% income is required to be deducted with the presumption that had the deceased been alive, she could have spent 50% for her personal and living expenses. 15. As such, the standard of deduction towards personal and living expenses is applicable as stated in the case of Sarala Verma(supra).As the deceased was a bachelor, 50% income is required to be deducted with the presumption that had the deceased been alive, she could have spent 50% for her personal and living expenses. 15. In the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited–Vs-Nanu Ram reported in (2018) ACJ 2782, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that MV Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families in cases of genuine claims. In case, where a parent has lost their minor child or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded for loss of consortium under the head of filial consortium. In the said case, Hon’ble Supreme Court awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/-each, towards loss of filial consortium to the father and sister of the deceased. 16. In the case in hand, the appellant/claimant Smti Minita Baruah, is the mother of the deceased, Sikha Moni Baruah. As such, she is entitled to get the filial consortium for the death of her daughter. 17. As per the case of Pranay Sethi(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has fixed the compensation in case of death reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-and Rs. 15,000/-respectively. As per the impugned judgment, the aforesaid amount shall be enhanced @ 10% in every 3 years. Hence, the amount of loss of estate and funeral expenses would come to Rs. 16,500/-on each count. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the computation of compensation is awarded as follows- A. Annual Income of the deceased Rs. 7000 X 12 = Rs. 84,000/-. B After deducting 50% of the income of the deceased, the amount comes to = Rs. 42,000/- C. After multiplied with multiplier, the amount comes to Rs. 42,000/-x 18 = Rs. 7,56,000/- D. Funeral expenses = Rs. 16,500/- E. Filial Consortium = Rs. 40,000/- F. Loss of Estate = Rs. 16,500/- Total – Rs. 8,29,000/-(Rupees Eight Lacs Twenty Nine Thousand) only 19. In the result, appeal is partly allowed, with the aforesaid modification, awarding Rs. 8,29,000/-(Rupees Eight Lacs Twenty Nine Thousand) only, with interest thereon @ 6% per annum, from the date of filing of the case till full and final realization. 40,000/- F. Loss of Estate = Rs. 16,500/- Total – Rs. 8,29,000/-(Rupees Eight Lacs Twenty Nine Thousand) only 19. In the result, appeal is partly allowed, with the aforesaid modification, awarding Rs. 8,29,000/-(Rupees Eight Lacs Twenty Nine Thousand) only, with interest thereon @ 6% per annum, from the date of filing of the case till full and final realization. The Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited is directed to discharge the liability of the award within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. 20. The Insurance Company is directed to make payment of the aforesaid amount of compensation to the savings account of the claimant/respondent, Smt Minita Baruah, through NEFT. She is directed to furnish her bank details of any nationalized bank to the Insurance Company for necessary payment. 21. The amount already paid be adjusted accordingly. Cross-objection filed by the claimant/respondent is dismissed. 22. Statutory amount in deposit be refunded to the Insurance Company. 23. Send down the LCR.