ORDER : 1. This is an admitted appeal. It is heard finally. 2. The instant appeal has been preferred against the award dated 28.4.2015 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund in Claim Case No.H-224 of 2014, whereby the Tribunal has passed the award of Rs.10,27,000 in favour of Respondents 1 to 4/claimants. 3. Facts of the case, in short, are that Respondents 1 to 4/claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act alleging inter alia that on the date of accident, i.e., 3.11.2014, Mukesh Sahu, who was working as a conductor/cleaner, was accompanying Respondent 5/driver in truck bearing registration No.CG 04 DB 3195, which, due to rash and negligent driving by Respondent 5 caused an accident on the way and as a result of which, Mukesh Sahu received serious injuries and died on the spot. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 24 years and was earning Rs.6,000 per month from his occupation. The claimants have preferred the claim petition claiming Rs.30,50,000 as compensation against Respondents 5 and 6, i.e., driver and owner of the offending truck as well as the Appellant/insurer of the said truck. 4. In their reply, Respondents 5 and 6/driver and owner pleaded that as the truck was insured and the driver was driving the truck having a valid and effective driving licence, liability to pay the compensation would be upon the insurance company. 5. The Appellant/insurance company pleaded that the driver of the offending truck was not having a valid and effective driving licence. The deceased was travelling as a passenger in the goods carrying vehicle and hence his risk was not covered under the insurance policy. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. 6. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the Tribunal, vide the impugned award, granted the claimants a compensation of Rs.10,27,000 along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, payable within 1 month, failing which, penal interest @ 9% per annum is granted. Hence, this appeal by the insurance company. 7. 6. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the Tribunal, vide the impugned award, granted the claimants a compensation of Rs.10,27,000 along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, payable within 1 month, failing which, penal interest @ 9% per annum is granted. Hence, this appeal by the insurance company. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/insurance company submits that as the deceased was working as a conductor/cleaner in the offending truck, as pleaded by the claimants, they have sought compensation under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 and not under the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly, when the claimants have failed to prove rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the insured truck, the claim under the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable. He further submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has awarded higher compensation on conventional heads. The Tribunal has also awarded penal interest which is not permissible in law. In this regard, reliance has been placed on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court passed in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Manorama Devi, (2011) 2 TAC 317 . 8. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/insurance company and perused the impugned award passed by the Tribunal and the evidenced adduced by the parties before the Tribunal. 9. It is not in dispute that at the time of accident the deceased was a bachelor and his age was about 24 years. Before the Tribunal, Respondent 5/driver of the offending truck examined himself. He categorically deposed that the deceased was working as a conductor/cleaner with him and he was being given Rs.6,000 per month. The above statement of this witness is unrebutted and contrary to this no evidence was adduced by any of the parties before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.6,000. As he was aged about 24 years, in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the Tribunal has rightly added 30% of the established income on the head of future prospects. Thus, yearly income of the deceased was also rightly held as Rs.93,600 by the Tribunal. Thus, yearly income of the deceased was also rightly held as Rs.93,600 by the Tribunal. As the deceased was unmarried, 50% amount of the yearly income has been rightly deducted towards his personal and living expenses. Looking to the age of the deceased, the Tribunal has also rightly applied the multiplier of 15. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the loss of dependency as Rs.7,02,000 in favour of the claimants. 10. With regard to other conventional heads, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, 2013 ACJ 1403 (SC), the Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000 for funeral expenses, Rs.2,00,000 (Rs.1,00,000 each to father and mother) for loss of love and mental agony and Rs.1,00,000 (Rs.50,000 each) for loss of love and affection to brother and sister. Over-ruling the judgment of Rajbir Singh case (supra), the Supreme Court held in Pranay Sethi case (supra) as under: “52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 . It has granted Rs.25,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs.1,00,000 towards 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 v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 refers to Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 421 , 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 notice. 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 thing it seemly to fix reasonable sums. 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 thing 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.” 11. Further, in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 , it is held by the Supreme Court as under: “21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss of consortium. In legal parlance, “consortium” is a compendious term which encompasses “spousal consortium”, “parental consortium”, and “filial consortium”. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse: Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 21.1 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, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation”. Black’s Law Dictionary (5th Edn., 1979). 21.2 Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training”. 21.3 Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. Black’s Law Dictionary (5th Edn., 1979). 21.2 Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training”. 21.3 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 light of the above observations made by the Supreme Court, the claimants are entitled to get Rs.15,000 in the head of funeral expenses and Rs.15,000 in the head of loss of estate. Further, the claimants/Respondents 1 and 2/father and mother of the deceased are entitled to get Rs.80,000 (Rs.40,000 x 2) as filial consortium. As Respondent 3 Naresh Sahu is minor son of Respondents 1 and 2 and Respondent 4 is minor unmarried daughter of Respondents 1 and 2 and they were not dependent on the deceased, but are dependent on their parents/Respondents 1 and 2, therefore, in my considered view, they are not entitled to get any consortium. 13. As discussed above, the claimants are entitled to get compensation as under: Sl. No. Heads Amount(Rs.) 1 Loss of Dependency 7,02,000 2 Filial Consortium for Respondents 1 and 2/father and mother 80,000 3 Funeral Expenses 15,000 4 Loss of Estate 15,000 Total 8,12,000 14. Now, the claimants/Respondents 1 to 4 are entitled to get total compensation of Rs.8,12,000 in place of Rs.10,27,000. The Tribunal has awarded penal interest, which is not permissible as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Keshav Bahadur, AIR 2004 SC 1581 . Therefore, the claimants are entitled to get only simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Tribunal till final realisation of the compensation. Rest of the impugned award shall remain intact. 15. Ltd. v. Keshav Bahadur, AIR 2004 SC 1581 . Therefore, the claimants are entitled to get only simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Tribunal till final realisation of the compensation. Rest of the impugned award shall remain intact. 15. With regard to maintainability of the claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, from the evidence adduced by the parties, particularly, from the statement of the driver of the offending vehicle, it is established that at the time of accident, the deceased was working as a conductor/cleaner in the said offending vehicle. Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as under: “167. Option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases.—Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) where the death of, or bodily injury to, any person gives rise to a claim for compensation under this Act and also under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, the person entitled to compensation may without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter X claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both.” 16. From perusal of the above provision, it is clear that the above provision of law gives a right to a claimant to make a claim before one of the two forums, but not before both. Meaning thereby, a claimant has to make a choice either to claim compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act or to claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. If once the option is exercised and an award has been passed then it is not open to the claimant to avail the remedy under the other forum. This issue has already been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Manorama Devi case (supra). Thus, I do not find any merit in the argument advanced by Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/insurance company in this regard. Resultantly, it is held that the claim petition preferred by the claimants before the Tribunal is maintainable. 17. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above.