ORDER : 1. The Appellants/claimants have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the impugned award dated 02.03.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, District – Balod, (C.G.) in Claim Case No.107/2014, whereby the Tribunal has granted award of compensation of Rs.7,83,000/-at interest of 6% per annum from the date of submission of the claim petition before the Tribunal. 2. As per the claim petition, on 21.05.2014, Rohit Kumar Tandon (deceased) was going to his village on his motorcycle. On the way, respondent No.1, who is the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration number CG 04 H 5290, driving in rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle due to that Rohit Kumar (deceased) sustained grievous injury and later on during course of his treatment, died in the hospital. Claimants/appellants have moved an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sought compensation of Rs.35,64,000/-. 3. Respondent No.1 (driver) and Respondent No.2 (owner of vehicle) opposed the claim petition. In the reply, they have pleaded that the alleged incident occurred due to negligence of the deceased himself. They further pleaded that the offending vehicle was insured with Respondent No.3/Insurance Company, therefore, any liability arises for compensation it should be fastened on the insurance company. 4. Respondent No.3/Insurance company in its reply pleaded that vehicle was plying against the terms and condition of the insurance policy. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. 5. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the Tribunal awarded Rs.7,83,000/- in favour of the claimants. 6. With regard to the quantum of compensation, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants/claimants submits that the Tribunal has not granted any award on the head of future prospects and granted Rs.5,000/-to appellant No.1 for spousal consortium, Rs.5,000/-towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/-on the head of love and affection which should be suitably enhanced. 7. On the contrary, Learned Counsel for the Respondents opposed the arguments advanced by the Counsel for the Appellants/claimants. 8. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal including the evidence adduced by the parties minutely. 9. From the perusal of the evidence adduced by the claimants, there is no dispute on the point that, at the time of accident, the deceased was working under Nagar Panchayat, Gurur as a daily wages employee and used to earn Rs.5,000/-per month. 9. From the perusal of the evidence adduced by the claimants, there is no dispute on the point that, at the time of accident, the deceased was working under Nagar Panchayat, Gurur as a daily wages employee and used to earn Rs.5,000/-per month. The deceased was aged about 35 years and therefore, as observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2017) 16 SCC 680 (National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, an addition of 40% of established income should be added. Monthly income of the deceased was Rs.5,000/-and 40% of 5,000/-is 2,000/-, total 7,000/-(5,000+2,000) therefore, annual income of the deceased becomes 84,000/-(7,000 x 12). Deduction towards personal and living expenses i.e. 1/5 deduction from the total annual income is Rs.16,800/-. Thus, the remaining amount after deduction of 1/5 of total annual income becomes Rs.67,200/-(Rs.84,000-16,800). 10. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, considering the pleadings of the parties, age of the deceased at the time of accident was about 35 years. As the deceased was aged about 35 years, looking to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2009) 6 SCC 121 (Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation), Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 16 which requires no interference. 11. With regard to other conventional heads, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/-for loss of consortium, Rs.5,000/-for funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- in the head of love and affection. 12. In the light of judgment laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780 , the claimant/appellant No.1 is entitled to get Rs.40,000/-as spousal consortium, claimants/appellant No.2,3,4,5 and 6 are entitled to get Rs.40,000/-each as parental consortium i.e. Rs.40,000 x 5 = Rs.2,00,000/-. Claimants/appellant No.7 & 8 i.e. parents of the deceased who were dependent upon him are also entitled to get filial consortium as Rs.40,000/-each i.e. Rs.40,000 x 2 = Rs.80,000/-. Apart from that claimants are entitled to get Rs.15,000/-as loss of estate, Rs.15,000/-as funeral expenses. Ordered accordingly. 13. On the basis of above discussion, I shall now recalculate the amount of compensation as under : S.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1. Annual Income Rs.5,000 x12 60,000/- 2. Income after addition of established income Rs.60,000x40%= Rs.24,000; Rs.60,000+24,000= 84,000/- 3. Income after 1/5th deduction towards personal and living expenses Rs.84,000x1/5= Rs.16,800; Rs.84,000-16,800= 67,200/- 4. Ordered accordingly. 13. On the basis of above discussion, I shall now recalculate the amount of compensation as under : S.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1. Annual Income Rs.5,000 x12 60,000/- 2. Income after addition of established income Rs.60,000x40%= Rs.24,000; Rs.60,000+24,000= 84,000/- 3. Income after 1/5th deduction towards personal and living expenses Rs.84,000x1/5= Rs.16,800; Rs.84,000-16,800= 67,200/- 4. Multiplier applicable 16 5. Loss of income Rs.67,200x16= 10,75,200/- 6. Addition of funeral expenses 15,000/- 7. Addition of loss of estate 15,000/- 8. Addition of spouse consortium 40,000/- 9. Addition of parental consortium Rs.40,000x5= 2,00,000/- 10. Addition of filial consortium Rs.40,000x2= 80,000/- Total Compensation = (10,75,200+15,000+15,000+40,000+2,00,000+80,0000) 14,25,200/- 14. Hence, now, the Appellants/claimants are entitled to get total compensation of Rs.14,25,200/-instead of Rs.7,83,000/-along with interest of 6% per annum from the date of submission of the claim petition before the Tribunal till realisation. Ordered accordingly. 15. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above. Rest of the impugned award shall remain intact.