JUDGMENT T. Amarnath Goud, J. - This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Section 168 of the Act, by the appellant, Insurance Company, challenging the judgment and award dated 17.06.2019 passed by the Ld. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, No. 2, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur, Tripura, on case No. T.S.(MAC) 18 of 2017. 2. For the sake of brevity the parties are referred to as in the cause title of T.S.(MAC) 18 of 2017. The claim petition discloses the fact that on 16.06.2016 at about 8.30 a.m deceased Brajendra Jamatia was going to his house from Rani panchayat Chowmohani on foot keeping left side of the road and at that time, a Commander Jeep vehicle bearing No. TR-01-2323 came from right side to left side and dashed the deceased resulting to grievous injuries on his various parts of body and soon after the accident the deceased was taken to Kakraban PHC and considering the gravity of injuries he was referred to AGMC & GBP Hospital, Agartala where he died due to multiple grievous injuries. In the claim petition it was specifically pleaded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid Commander Jeep. It was again pleaded that the deceased Brajendra Jamatia was 60 years old and used to earn Rs. 10,000/- per month and thus; the claimants claimed Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation under various heads. 3. On receipt of summons, all the Opposite Parties appeared and filed their written statements. The OP Nos. 1 and 2 the owner and driver of the aforesaid vehicle in their written statement denied all the averments of the claim petition and pleaded that the OP No. 1 was the owner of vehicle bearing No. TR-01- 2323(Commander Jeep) and it was duly insured with OP No. 3 with policy bearing No. 3374/00318653/000/01 with validity from 15.05.2016 to 14.05.2017 and the vehicle was also driven by OP No. 2 having valid driving license bearing DL No. TR-03200900005211. It was also pleaded that there was no fault on the part of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the accident also did not occur because of their fault and so they denied their liability. 4. It was also pleaded that there was no fault on the part of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the accident also did not occur because of their fault and so they denied their liability. 4. OP No. 3, the alleged insurer, in its written statement denied also denied all the averments made in claim petition and disputed the age, profession, income, avocation, health condition, date, place and time of accident, injuries, expenditure. It was also pleaded that the claim petition did not disclose the manner in which the accident took place. 5. Thus; the OP No. 3 also denied the liability and also prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. On the basis of pleadings following issues were framed:- 1. Whether Brajendra Jamatia, S/o. Late Nanda Dulal Jamatia succumbed to injuries sustained in a road traffic accident on 16.06.2016 at about 8.30 a.m near Rani panchayat Office under Kakraban PS due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of vehicle bearing No. TR-01-2323(Commander Jeep)? 2. Are the claimants entitled to be compensated under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. If so, to what extent and who shall be liable to pay such compensation? 7. To prove the claim claimant-petitioner No. 1, the son of the deceased, adduced his evidence by filing evidence in chief. In support of his claim he produced the certified copies of FIR, ejahar(Exhibit-1), seizure lists(Exhibits-2 and 3), charge sheet (Exhibit-4), Postmortem Report (Exhibits 5). 8. Claimant-Petitioners also adduced the evidence of one eye witness namely, Bikram Murasing. 9. OPs did not adduce any evidence. However, the OP No. 1 produced the original certificate of registration, certificate of insurance, permit, pollution control certificate in respect of vehicle bearing No. TR-01-2323(Commander Jeep). Though photocopy of certificate of fitness was produced but the original certificate of fitness was not produced and so Motor Vehicle Inspector in compliance with summons appeared and was cross-examined as CW. 1 and on his examination the vehicle history report in respect of vehicle bearing No. TR-01-2323(Commander Jeep) was marked as Exhibit-C/1. 10. OP No. 2 also produced the original driving license bearing DL No. TR-0320090005211 and after comparison all the aforesaid documents were returned. 11. 1 and on his examination the vehicle history report in respect of vehicle bearing No. TR-01-2323(Commander Jeep) was marked as Exhibit-C/1. 10. OP No. 2 also produced the original driving license bearing DL No. TR-0320090005211 and after comparison all the aforesaid documents were returned. 11. While dealing with the issue No. 1, the tribunal held that Even though in the claim petition it was stated that the aforesaid Commander Jeep was coming from right to left side but such averments cannot be said to effect this claim because admittedly the claimant-petitioners were not the eye witnesses and so naturally some variation in the information were bound to be occurred. This Tribunal cannot ignore the evidence of the eye witness, i.e., PW. 2 who in his evidence clearly stated that the aforesaid vehicle came from back side of the deceased and dashed him and as a result he sustained injuries and was taken to hospital. Even the FIR corroborates the evidence of PW. 2. 12. Thus; there is no doubt in holding that the deceased Brajendra Jamatia met an accident because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of vehicle bearing No. TR-01-2323(Commander Jeep) and as a result he sustained injuries and he also died of such injuries. Thus; issue No. (1) is decided in affirmative in favour of the claimant-petitioners. 13. Now to determine the compensation for loss of estate first need to ascertain the age and income of the deceased. In the claim-petition the age of the deceased was mentioned as 65 years but no document was produced to show the exact age of the deceased at the time of death. Insurer disputed the age of the deceased as 65 years on the date of death and suggested the age of the deceased as 80 years. In the post-mortem report the age of the deceased was mentioned as 75 years. The claimant-petitioners had opportunity to prove the age of the deceased when the deceased was their father but they failed to do so. So in absence of any other documentary proof the age of the deceased is taken as 75 years on the date of death, as mentioned in the Postmortem report. 14. Though the claimant-petitioners in their claim petition claimed that the deceased used to earn Rs. 10,000/- per month but they failed to mention the source of such income. So in absence of any other documentary proof the age of the deceased is taken as 75 years on the date of death, as mentioned in the Postmortem report. 14. Though the claimant-petitioners in their claim petition claimed that the deceased used to earn Rs. 10,000/- per month but they failed to mention the source of such income. Again it was mentioned that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 6,000.00 per month. PW. 1, the son of the deceased, in his evidence stated that his father used to earn Rs. 10,000/- per month from cultivation. Thus there is much contradiction in the version of the claim-petition as well as with the evidence of P.W. 1 regarding monthly income of the deceased. In absence of any cogent proof regarding monthly income of the deceased, the income of the deceased can be taken as that of unskilled worker and so the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs. 6,000/- per month considering the prevailing minimum wages and also considering the age of the deceased. 15. As the deceased was 75 years of age so naturally substantial amount was required for his personal expenses and so the quantum of savings for determining the loss to estate can be taken as 1/3rd of the income of the deceased i.e. Rs. 2,000.00. 16. For loss of estate Rs. 2,000.00 per month or Rs. 2,000 x 12 = Rs. 24,000.00 per annum, which when multiplied by multiplier 5, stands to Rs. 1,20,000.00. 17. As per the decision in the case National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, AIR 2017 SC 5157 the claimants are also entitled to Rs. 15,000.00 for funeral expenses. The claimants are also entitled to Rs. 50,000.00 each for loss of care and attention totaling to Rs. 3,00,000.00. 15. In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, decided on 18-09-2018 it was held that as under:- '8.7 A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) 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. 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. 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.' 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.' 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. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world over have recognized that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child. The Motor Vehicles 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 loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium. Parental Consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of Filial Consortium. Parental Consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of Filial Consortium. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under 'Loss of Consortium' as laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra).' 18. Following the principles of awarding compensation under Loss of Consortium as laid down in Pranay Sethi, the Court awarded a compensation of Rs. 80,000 as compensation towards loss of filial consortium. 19. Thus Rs. 2,40,000.00(Rs. 40,000.00 each) is awarded to the claimant-petitioners, being the sons and daughters of the deceased, towards loss of 'parental consortium'. 20. Thus in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held by the tribunal that the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 1,20,000.00(for loss of estate) + Rs. 15,000.00(for funeral expenses)+Rs. 3,00,000.00(for loss of care and attention)+ Rs. 2,40,000.00(for loss of 'parental consortium') totaling to Rs. 6,75,000.00(Rupees Six Lakh Seventy Five thousand) only as compensation. 21. To determine the liability, the tribunal observed that the vehicle bearing No. TR-01-2323(Commander Jeep) is a public passenger carrying vehicle and was duly insured with Chola M/S. General Insurance having policy bearing No. 3374/00318653/000/01 with validity from 15.05.2016 to 14.05.2017. From the compared copy of permit it appears that the aforesaid vehicle was having valid permit from 26.12.2013 up-to 26.12.2018. From the evidence of MVI it appears that the aforesaid commander jeep vehicle had valid fitness and permit on the date of accident, i.e., on 16.06.2016 and his evidence gets corroborated by Exhibit-C/1, the vehicle history report. From the compared copy of driving license it appears that the driver Kamal Karmakar, i.e., the OP No. 2 was authorized to drive LMV/NT, LMV/CAB types of vehicle and his driving license was issued on 17.08.2009 with validity up-to 19.08.2020 for Transport and 16.08.2029 for Non Transport vehicles. 22. Thus; it is held that the aforesaid Commander Jeep was having requisites fitness, permit on the date of accident and was also being driven by OP No. 2 with valid driving license, so the liability to pay compensation for the death of the deceased Brajendra Jamatia, is shifted upon the insurer i.e. OP No. 3. 22. Thus; it is held that the aforesaid Commander Jeep was having requisites fitness, permit on the date of accident and was also being driven by OP No. 2 with valid driving license, so the liability to pay compensation for the death of the deceased Brajendra Jamatia, is shifted upon the insurer i.e. OP No. 3. Thus, the Issue No. (2) was thus also decided partly in favour of the claimant-petitioners. 23. Finally, the tribunal by the order dated 17.06.2019 has observed in the following manner: 'The instant application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 filed by the claimant-petitioners is hereby partly allowed and a sum of Rs. 6,75,000.00(Rupees Six Lakh Seventy Five thousand) only along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim-petition, i.e., from 12.04.2017 till the date of payment, is awarded in favour of claimant - petitioners in equal shares, as compensation for the death of their father late Brajendra Jamatia, in a Road Traffic Accident, as aforesaid, and this amount of compensation shall be paid by OP No. 3, the insurer of vehicle bearing No. TR-01-2323(Commander Jeep), within a period of one month. In the event of deposit of Awarded amount with interest, 70% from the shares of each of the claimants shall be kept in a fixed deposit schemes in a Nationalized Bank for five years and the remaining 30% amount of the respective shares shall be released in favour of the claim-petitioners in their bank accounts for enabling them to meet necessary expenses. No loan or withdrawal shall be permitted in the fixed deposit account nor joint name shall be allowed nor any cheque book, ATM card can be issued against fixed deposit account. However the interest to be credited in the fixed deposit may be released in favour of the claim-petitioners as per Bank's norms.' 24. Aggrieved by the said order dated 17.06.2019, the appellant insurance company has preferred this instant appeal before this court. 25. Heard. 26. Mr. R. Saha, counsel for the insurance-company has mainly argued on two points (1) loss of estate granted by court below Rs. 1,20,000/- which according to him is excessive. He further submitted before this court that as per Pranay Sethi (supra) compensation towards loss of estate has been fixed at Rs. 15,000/- only. 25. Heard. 26. Mr. R. Saha, counsel for the insurance-company has mainly argued on two points (1) loss of estate granted by court below Rs. 1,20,000/- which according to him is excessive. He further submitted before this court that as per Pranay Sethi (supra) compensation towards loss of estate has been fixed at Rs. 15,000/- only. The counsel for the insurance company further argued that the court below has fixed Rs. 3,00,000/- towards the head of loss of care and attention. As per Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), there is no compensation under the head of loss of care and attention. The compensation awarded by the tribunal under the head of loss of care and attention is unjust and he prayed to expunge these two amounts from the compensation. 27. After perusing the entire records, this court has no hesitation to accept the contention made by the counsel for the appellant insurance on the ground of loss of estate at Rs. 15,000/- as decided in Pranay Sethi's case. Accordingly, the compensation awarded to the tune of Rs. 1,20,000/- under the head of loss of estate is hereby reduced to Rs. 15,000/-. In so far as the amount awarded under the head of care and attention, the amount of Rs. 3,00,000 is awarded, meaning each claimants is entitled to get Rs. 50,000/-. 28. On the contrary, Mr. A. Sengupta, counsel for the claimant- respondents relying on a recent judgment of the apex court in M.H. Uma Maheshwari & Ors v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr reported in (2020) 6 SCC 400 has submitted that the apex court in M.H. Uma Maheshwari (supra) considering Pranay Sethi and other judgments towards the head 'care and attention' has awarded the compensation. This court finds that though there is no specific head as 'care and attention' in Pranay Sethi (supra) and in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra). 29. After considering the documentary evidences so placed before this court and also in the light of the apex court's latest judgment in M.H. Uma Maheshwari (supra), this court feels that the tribunal awarding Rs. 3,00,000/- under the head of care and attention @ Rs. 50,000/- each is just and proper and needs no interference. 30. In view of the same, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent as indicate above. Accordingly the sum of compensation award Rs. 3,00,000/- under the head of care and attention @ Rs. 50,000/- each is just and proper and needs no interference. 30. In view of the same, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent as indicate above. Accordingly the sum of compensation award Rs. 6,75,000/- (Six Lakh Seventy Five thousand) is reduced to Rs. 5,70,000/- (Five lakh Seventy thousand).