JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. R. C. Paul, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. R. Deka, learned counsel for the claimant/respondent No. 1 and Mr. S. C. Biswas, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. 2. The present appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Award dated 03.10.2015, passed in MAC Case No. 1728/2011 by the learned Member of MACT, No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati. 3. The case of the claimants in brief is that on 26.07.2011, when the deceased was proceeding on National Highway No. 52 on foot, suddenly the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-12/H-7524, driven in a rash and negligent manner, knocked down the deceased from back side, causing grievous injuries to the person which resulted in his death later. 4. In the present appeal, neither the accident is disputed nor the liability to pay compensation has been disputed. The only point urged by Mr. R. C. Paul, learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal below while calculating the income of the deceased has not deducted the professional tax of Rs. 208/-from the salary of the deceased and calculated the compensation on the basis of gross salary of the deceased and therefore, the learned Tribunal below has committed serious error of law inasmuch as the tax cannot be added to income. However, Mr. R. Deka, learned counsel for the claimant respondent has brought to the notice of this Court that the learned Tribunal below has already deducted such tax amount, while calculating the income of the deceased. Therefore, this appeal should be dismissed being devoid of any merit, submits the learned counsel for the claimant/respondent. 5. This Court has also perused the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal below and found that the learned Tribunal has duly deducted the professional tax from the salary of the deceased, while calculating the income of the deceased. Such decision is quoted herein below:- “Regarding income of the deceased, according to claimant No. 1 (PW-1), his salary was Rs. 16,424/- per month at that time. Ex-8 is the income certificate issued by the Commandant, 12th Assam Police Battalion, Gamugurihat, Sonitpur, Govt of Assam, which shows that his gross salary was Rs 16,424/- and there was deduction of Rs. 1000/- towards GPF, Rs.200/- towards GIS and Rs. 208/- on account of professional tax. 16,424/- per month at that time. Ex-8 is the income certificate issued by the Commandant, 12th Assam Police Battalion, Gamugurihat, Sonitpur, Govt of Assam, which shows that his gross salary was Rs 16,424/- and there was deduction of Rs. 1000/- towards GPF, Rs.200/- towards GIS and Rs. 208/- on account of professional tax. But GPF & GIS are not deductible and only tax components are to be deducted from the gross salary and after such deduction, i.e. Rs. 208/- as professional tax, his monthly salary comes to Rs. 16.216/-”. 6. Thus, from the aforesaid, it is apparent that this present appeal is a misconceived appeal. Though this Court was inclined to impose heavy cost upon the Insurance for filing such appeal, however, Mr. R. C. Paul, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company prayed that such cost should not be imposed and ascertained that his client satisfied the award within a period 30 days from the date of this order. On such submission of Mr. R. C. Paul, learned counsel, this Court has retrained itself from imposing to cost, however, it is made clear that the Insurance Company should not file such kind of misconceived appeal in future. 7. Learned counsel for the claimant respondent submits that the claimant is entitled for just compensation as determined in National Insurance Company Limited –Vs- Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company Limited –VS-Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and Others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 , that no appeal has been filed by the claimant. 8. A coordinate Bench of this Court in MACApp./202/2012 in its Judgment 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 & Others (Supra), Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra) and Sarla Verma & 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. 9. This Court is in total agreement with the aforesaid view of the Coordinate Bench. Accordingly, it is held that though 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 & Others (Supra), Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra) and Sarla Verma & Others (Supra). 10. In the case of Pranay Sethi & 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 & Others (Supra). 11. The Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 9581 of 2018 has held that the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi & 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 v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Ors (supra), the Apex Court has further held that the word “consortium” encompasses the following:- (1) Spousal consortium (2) Parental consortium and (3) Filial consortium. In the above case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Ors (supra), the Apex Court has further held that 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. 12. In view of the above reason, the compensation payable would be as follows:- SL No. Head Amount 1. A. Annual Income Rs.16,216/-X12 Rs.1,94,592/- B. Future Prospect @ 30% of income. Rs. 58,378/- C. Less 1/3 rd Rs. 1,68,646/- D. Add Multiplier 13x1,68,646/-= Rs. 21,92,398/- Total compensation Rs. 21,92,398/- 2. Loss of Estate Rs. 16500/- 3. A. Spousal Consortium for wife Rs. 44,000/- B. Filial Consortium for children’s Rs. 44,000/-X2= Rs. 88,000/- C. Funeral expenses Rs. 16500/- Total = Rs.23,57,398/- 13. The award of interest @ 6%, as awarded by the learned Tribunal shall remain same. 14. Consequently, the impugned Judgment dated 03.10.2015 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Kamrup, Metro in MAC Case No. 1728/2011 is hereby modified to the extent indicated above. 15. It is directed to the Insurance Company to pay the compensation within a period of 30 days from today. However, it is also made clear that if the payment is not made within the period as stipulated, the same shall carry on additional interest @ 2% from expiry of such period till payment. 16. With the aforesaid observation, this appeal stands disposed of. 17. LCR be sent back forthwith to the learned tribunal below.