JUDGMENT : 1. Both these appeals are directed against award dated 25.08.2009, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’), in claim petition titled ‘Smt. Suman Devi and others vs. Sh. Ashok Kumar’ in file No. 554/Claim and ‘Raj Kumari and others vs. Ashok Kumar and others’, in file No. 161/Claim directing the respondent No. 3-Insurance Company to pay a compensation of Rs. 6,88,440/- and 3,87,740/-. The appellants seek enhancement of the award in both these appeals. 2. Learned counsel for both the parties submits that since the appeals are only on quantum of compensation, the same may be heard finally, as record is not required for its consideration. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final consideration. CIMA No.522/2009 3. These appeals have arisen out of the same vehicular accident resulting in death of Madan Pal and Sagar Singh Manhas, as such, the claim petition filed by the appellants (hereinafter referred to as ‘claimants’) were considered and decided by a common award. The claimants in both the petitions seek enhancement of the compensation in these appeals. 4. The claimants filed the claim petitions before the Tribunal, averring that on 8.11.1997, Constable Madan Pal along with Sagar Singh Manhas died in a road accident while they were travelling from Srinagar to Jammu in a Bus, bearing registration No. JKS-9617. The vehicle when it reached near Zia about 3 kilometers short of Jawahar Tunnel, skidded off the road and it rolled down into a Nallah. This accident resulted in multiple injuries to Sagar Singh Manhas and Madan Pal, who later succumbed to their injuries and died. It was stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 (driver), who was driving the said vehicle which was insured with the respondent-Insurance Company. The claimants in both the petitions claimed a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- each. 5. The claim petitions were resisted only by the respondent-Insurance Company on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving license. During the pendency of the claim petition, father of the deceased-Madan Pal, in claim petition No. 554/Claim died and was later deleted from the array of petitioners before the Tribunal. 6. The claim petitions were resisted only by the respondent-Insurance Company on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving license. During the pendency of the claim petition, father of the deceased-Madan Pal, in claim petition No. 554/Claim died and was later deleted from the array of petitioners before the Tribunal. 6. The Tribunal on the pleading of the parties framed the following issues for determination in both the claim petitions; “(i) Whether an accident occurred on 18-11-1997 at Jawahar Tunnel Jammu-Srinagar NHW 1A by rash and negligently driving of offending Bus No.JKS-9617 in the hands of erring driver in which deceased Sagar Singh Manhas and Madan Pal received fatal injuries? (ii) If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative whether petitioners of both the petitions are entitled to the compensation; if so to what amount and from whom? OPP (iii) Whether driver of offending bus at the time accident was not holding valid and effective driving license and terms and conditions of insurance policy have been violated? OPR-3 (iv) Whether claim petition is not properly verified if so how? OPR-3 (v) Whether claim petition is time barred, if so how? OPR-3 (vi) Relief. O.P. Parties” 7. The claimants besides themselves produced the evidence of witnesses Suram Singh and Prem Narian, whereas the respondent-Insurance Company, despite opportunity did not produce any evidence in rebuttal. 8. In CIMA No. 522/2009, titled ‘Smt. Suman Devi and others vs. Ashok Kumar and others’, the Tribunal after considering all the evidence found that on the death of Madan Pal, the claimants were entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 6,88,440/- with an interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till its liquidation. In terms of the award, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each was directed to be paid to petitioner Nos. 2 and 4, son and mother of the deceased-Madan Pal and remaining amount to petitioner No. 1 being widow of the deceased. 9. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Tribunal has erred in calculating the compensation of the claimants in facts and law while deciding the claim petition. It is urged that the deceased was admittedly serving as a Constable in Border Security Force (BSF). The deceased was holding a permanent service and was getting all the increments from time to time. It is urged that the deceased was admittedly serving as a Constable in Border Security Force (BSF). The deceased was holding a permanent service and was getting all the increments from time to time. He was thus entitled to increase of income on the ground of ‘future prospects’. The future increase in income has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal while awarding the compensation. The deceased, at the time of his death was of 25 years of age, as such, the appropriate multiplier, as per Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicle Act is 18 but the Tribunal has erroneously adopted multiplier of 15 only which resulted in denial of just compensation to the claimants. The claimant No. 1 is widow, claimant No. 2 is minor son and claimant No. 3 is mother of the deceased and it is very difficult for them to make both ends meet with small amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. It is further submitted that the Tribunal was required to deduct 1/4th and not 1/3rd as personal expenses of deceased as deceased had left behind number of dependents. 10. Mr. Amrit Sarin, learned counsel has opposed the same on the ground that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and submits that there is no reason for enhancing the compensation. 11. The deceased-Madan Pal was having a stable job as Constable in BSF and was drawing a fixed salary of Rs. 3,658/-, therefore, 50% addition of the established income was required to be added, as the deceased was below 40 years of age, at the time of his death. 12. As per the law laid down in “National Insurance Company limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others”, 2017 (16) SCC 680 , 50% of the income needs to be added for ‘future prospects’ towards the income of the deceased, which would be Rs. 3,658+1829 = Rs. 5,487/-. The deceased was survived by wife, son, mother and father but during the pendency of the claim petition, his father died, as such, was deleted from array of petitioners. Therefore, as per law laid down in ‘Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another’, 2009 (6) SCC 121 , the deduction towards ‘personal and living expenses’of the deceased would be 1/3rd, as the number of dependent family members were three. Therefore, as per law laid down in ‘Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another’, 2009 (6) SCC 121 , the deduction towards ‘personal and living expenses’of the deceased would be 1/3rd, as the number of dependent family members were three. The Tribunal while accepting the age of the deceased between 25 to 27 has wrongly applied the multiplier of 17, which has been further slashed down by keeping in view the uncertainties of the life which is not in accordance with law more particularly in the light of the judgment of Sarla Verma (supra), wherein it is held that from the age between 20 to 25 the multiplier of 18 would be appropriate and the same multiplier is applicable in this case. Thus, the annual dependency would be 43,896x18= 7,90,128/-. The Tribunal had also wrongly awarded only Rs. 15,000/- as ‘loss of consortium’. The spouse was entitled to Rs. 40,000/- as consortium. The children and the mother of the deceased are also entitled to ‘loss of consortium’@ Rs.40,000/- and ‘loss of filial and parental consortium’ in view of the law laid down in ‘Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others’, decided on 18.09.2018, and same would be sum of Rs. 1,20,000/-. The Tribunal also failed to award compensation on the conventional head of ‘loss of estate’, accordingly, the same is awarded as Rs.15,000/-. By applying the multiplier of 18, the compensation would be as under: – Income of the deceased Rs.3658/- After adding 50% for future prospects Rs.3658+1829 = Rs.5487/- Less 1/3rd for personal expenses Rs.1829 Monthly dependency Rs.5487-1829 = Rs.3658/- Annual dependency Rs.3658x12 = Rs.43896/- Multiplier applicable 18 The loss of dependency Rs.7,90,128/- Loss of consortium Rs.1,20,000/- Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Total compensation Tribunal Rs.9,40,128/- with 7.5% interest as awarded by the The claimants are thus held entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 9,40,128/- along with interest minus the amount already received by them. The interest awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and needs no interference. 13. In CIMA No. 504/2009, the appeal arises out of the award passed in claim petition No. 161/Claim titled ‘Raj Kumari and others vs. Ashok Kumar and others’. The facts regarding the death of Sagar Singh Manhas in the vehicular accident are narrated above as the deceased in this case was also travelling in the same ill fated Bus. 13. In CIMA No. 504/2009, the appeal arises out of the award passed in claim petition No. 161/Claim titled ‘Raj Kumari and others vs. Ashok Kumar and others’. The facts regarding the death of Sagar Singh Manhas in the vehicular accident are narrated above as the deceased in this case was also travelling in the same ill fated Bus. 14. The claim petition was filed by wife and two daughters. The Tribunal after considering the pleadings of the parties decided the claim of the petitioners and awarded compensation as under; The deceased was 47 years of age at the time of his death and, accordingly, the Tribunal awarded compensation to the complaints as under; – “1. For loss of dependency =          Rs.33,55,740/- 2. For funeral expenses =          Rs.15,000/- 3. For loss of estate =          Rs.15,000/- Total =          Rs.38,5740/- Out of the total amount of compensation, Rs.1,00,000/- each was directed to be paid to petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 the daughters of the deceased and rest of the amount to be given to the widow, of the deceased, that is, petitioner No.1. 15. The appellants-claimants in the present appeal are aggrieved of the award on the following grounds that the deceased was serving as a Sepoy in Defence Security Corps and in stable Government service, therefore, the Tribunal had to take into consideration the future prospects while awarding compensation which has not been taken into consideration. The deceased was of 47 years of age at the time of death and the appropriate multiplier as per Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act is 13 but the Tribunal has erred by applying the multiplier of 11 but reduced the same on the ground of uncertainties of life. The Tribunal also has not awarded compensation on the conventional head on the ground of ‘loss of estate’. This has resulted in denial of receiving just and proper compensation to the claimants i.e. widow and daughters of the deceased. 16. It is urged that the deceased was serving as a Sepoy in the Defence Security Corps and was drawing salary of Rs. This has resulted in denial of receiving just and proper compensation to the claimants i.e. widow and daughters of the deceased. 16. It is urged that the deceased was serving as a Sepoy in the Defence Security Corps and was drawing salary of Rs. 4,042/-, which would have been increased but the Tribunal has failed to take to consider ‘future prospects’of the deceased as per law laid down in “National Insurance Company limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others”, 2017(16) SCC 680 , as the deceased was 47 years of age, as such, 30% is required to be added towards ‘future prospects’of the deceased. The deduction towards ‘personal and living expenses’would be 1/3rd, as there were three dependents on the deceased, as suich, 1/3rd is to be deducted towards ‘personal expenses’of the deceased. The Tribunal has also wrongly applied the multiplier of 11 while computing the compensation, as the age of the deceased was 47 years, therefore, the appropriate multiplier as per schedule is 13, the Tribunal has thus wrongly slashed the same to 11. The Tribunal also failed to award compensation as regards ‘loss of estate’and also awarded only Rs. 15.000/- as ‘loss of consortium’which, in fact, would be Rs. 40,000/-. The daughters of the deceased are also entitled to ‘parental consortium’as per the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Magma General Insurance (supra). 17. Accordingly, the claimants are held entitled for compensation as under: – Income of the deceased Rs.4042/- After adding 30% increase for future prospects Rs.4042+1212 = Rs.5254/- Less 1/3rd for personal expenses Rs.1,751/- 9 Monthly dependency Rs.5254-1751 = Rs.3,503/- Annual dependency Rs.3503x12 = Rs.42,036/- Multiplier applicable 13 The loss of dependency Rs.5,46,468/- Loss of consortium (to wife and 2 children) Rs.1,20,000/- Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Total compensation Rs.6,96,468/- with 7.5% interest as awarded by the Tribunal Thus, the claimants in this appeal are entitled to an amount of Rs.6,96,468/- along with interest as per the award, less the amount already received by them. 18. The rate of interest as awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. 19. In the facts and circumstances of the case, these appeals are partly allowed and the impugned awards are modified as indicated hereinabove.