JUDGMENT : MALASRI NANDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. M. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner as well as Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3/Insurance Company. 2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 30/06/2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (FTC) No 3 Kamrup (M) in MAC case no 1959/2013. 3. The appellant as a claimant filed the claim petition before the learned Additional District Judge (FTC) No 3 Kamrup (M) Guwahati, claiming compensation for the death of her son Dhanjit Boro due to motor vehicle accident which occurred on 13/09/2013. 4. The facts of the case in brief is that on 13/09/2013 the son of the appellant/claimant Dhanjit Boro was proceeding to Barmanipur, Morigaon by riding a motor cycle bearing no AS-02-K/7478 along with his elder brother (pillion rider) in moderate speed. When they reached Charangkuchi, Jagiroad, suddenly another vehicle bearing no AS-02-AC/0304 (207 TATA DI) coming from the same direction in a rash and negligent manner knocked down the motor cycle in which the son of the appellant was travelling. As a result of which both of them sustained grievous injuries. Immediately they were taken to the hospital at Jagiroad for treatment but subsequently they were shifted to Down Town Hospital, Guwahati wherein son of the appellant/ claimant Dhanjit Boro succumbed to his injuries. 5. The deceased was 24 years of age at the time of the accident. He was a government employee, working as a police constable and his monthly salary was Rs. 16,441/-. The Learned Trial Court after hearing the parties vide Judgment and order dated 13/06/2016 awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 12,75,672/- only. 6. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Judgment and order dated 13/06/2016 in MAC case no 1959/2013, this present appeal has been preferred. 7. It was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Trial Court erred in considering the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 14,624/- whereas there was sufficient evidence on record that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 16,441/-. In that view of the matter, the award is liable to be modified and enhanced. 8. It was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Trial Court erred in considering the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 14,624/- whereas there was sufficient evidence on record that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 16,441/-. In that view of the matter, the award is liable to be modified and enhanced. 8. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Trial Court erred in considering the age of the mother of the deceased while adopting the multiplier and thereby adopted the multiplier 13 while calculating the loss of dependency. In fact, the age of the deceased ought to have been considered while applying the multiplier and hence, as the deceased was 24 years of age at the time of the accident, the multiplier 18 ought to have been applied instead of 13. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the learned Trial Judge has failed to take into consideration the future prospect of the deceased while calculating the amount of compensation. Considering the age of the deceased as 24 years, 50 % ought to have been added to the income of the deceased towards future prospect while calculating the amount of compensation. 10. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent/ insurance company has agreed with the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant by stating that he has no objection if the prayers of the appellant are allowed. 11. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel of both sides and also perused the record of MAC case no 1959/2013 and the documents available in the record. 12. It appears that the factum of accident has not been disputed in this appeal. The appellant has preferred this appeal to enhance the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Trial Court. 13. It is an admitted fact that the deceased was a government employee serving in Assam Police since 22/02/2011 vide exhibit 6. Exhibit 7 is the identity card of the deceased which shows that he was working as constable under the unit 16th AP (IR) Battalion at Barmanipur, Morigaon. 14. Regarding income of the deceased, salary certificate of the deceased is available in the record of MAC case no 1959/2013 from which it reveals that the gross salary of the deceased was Rs. 14. Regarding income of the deceased, salary certificate of the deceased is available in the record of MAC case no 1959/2013 from which it reveals that the gross salary of the deceased was Rs. 16,447/- for the month of August 2013 and deduction of Rs. 208/- was shown as professional tax. Hence the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 16, 239/- which is taken into consideration in this case. 15. As per claim petition, the deceased was 25 years of age when the accident took place. Vide exhibit 6 and exhibit 7 the date of birth of the deceased was 30/10/1988. The occurrence took place on 13/09/2013. It transpires that the age of the deceased was around 25 years at the time of the accident. 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd v. Pranay Sethi and others, SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014 has held that while determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30 % if the age of the deceased was between 40 - 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50-60 years, the addition should be 15 %. 17. In the present case, the age of the deceased was around 25 years when the accident took place. Hence 50% be added to the established income of the deceased i.e. Rs. 16,239- + 50 % = Rs. 16,239 + Rs. 8,120/- = Rs. 24,359/-. 18. As per the case of Sarla Verma v. DTC, AIR 2009 (6) SC 121 the multiplier would be 18. 19. In the case in hand, it appears that the deceased Dhanjit Bodo was a bachelor. As such the standard deduction towards personal and living expenses is applicable as stated in the case of Sarala Verma (supra). Considering the aforesaid mandate in the instant case, 50 % of the income of the deceased is required to be deducted with a presumption that had the deceased been alive, he could have spent 50 % for his personal and his living expenses. 20. Considering the aforesaid mandate in the instant case, 50 % of the income of the deceased is required to be deducted with a presumption that had the deceased been alive, he could have spent 50 % for his personal and his living expenses. 20. In the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) ACJ 2782 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Motor Vehicle 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. In the said case, Hon’ble Supreme Court awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium to the father and sister of the deceased. 21. In the case in hand, the appellant/ claimant Lakheswari Boro is the mother of the deceased Dhanjit Boro as such she is entitled to get the filial consortium for the death of her son. 22. As per SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014 (National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has fixed compensation in case of death reasonable figures on conventional heads namely loss of estate and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. 23. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the computation of compensation is awarded as follows: a. Annual income of the deceased Rs. 24,359 x 12 Rs. 2,92,308/- b. After deducting 50 % of the income of the deceased, the amount comes to Rs. 1,46,154/- c. After multiplied with multiplier, the amount comes to Rs. 1,46,154/- x 18 Rs. 26,30,772/- d. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- e. Filial Consortium Rs. 40,000/- f. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- g. Medical Expenses Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 27,10,772/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Ten Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Two Only) 24. In the result, appeal is allowed with aforesaid modification awarding Rs. 27,10,772/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Ten Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Two Only) with interest thereon @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the case till full and final realization. The ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd is directed to discharge the liability of the award within a period of 30 days (Thirty days) from the date of the receipt of the order. The ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd is directed to discharge the liability of the award within a period of 30 days (Thirty days) from the date of the receipt of the order. The amount already paid be deducted accordingly. 25. The ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd is directed to make payment of the excess amount of compensation to the savings account of the appellant/claimant Lakheswari Boro through NEFT. She is directed to furnish her bank details of any nationalized bank to the insurance company for necessary payment. 26. Send down the LCR along with the copy of this judgment.