JUDGMENT : The appellants detailed and described hereinabove have filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MV Act’) against the award, dated 29th April, 2017, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MACT’). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the lis are hereinafter referred to as referred by the learned MACT. 3. Claimants No. 1 to 3 are the sons and claimant No. 4 is the widow of Sh. Bahadur Singh, who had died due to the injuries sustained in the road side accident on 7th April, 2014, involving bus No. HP-71-2243. 4. The claim petition was filed against the respondents being the driver, owner and insurer of the ill fated bus. 5. As per the stand of the claimants, deceased Bahadur Singh, alongwith his son Gulab Singh, boarded the bus bearing registration No. HP-71-2243 from Millah to Timbi on 7th April, 2014. The bus in question, at the relevant time, was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and when the said bus reached near Chamnol (Basog), Tehsil Shillai, the driver could not control the bus, resultantly, the bus had fallen into a deep gorge. In the said accident, Bahadur Singh sustained injuries. He was firstly taken to Civil Hospital Paonta Sahib from where, he was referred to PGI Chandigarh, where he remained admit from 8th April, 2014 to 12th April, 2014. Unfortunately, on 12th April, 2014, Bahadur Singh had expired. 6. According to the claimants, the deceased was employed as a carpenter by one Shri Surat Singh, s/o Sh. Chanan Singh from where he was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month and he was also earning Rs. 10,000/- from agricultural pursuits. Thus, his income has been stated to be Rs. 25,000/- at the time of his death. 7. On the basis of the above facts, the claimants have sought the compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs alongwith interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of accident till the realization of the whole amount from the respondents. 8. The said claim petition was contested by the respondents. 9. 25,000/- at the time of his death. 7. On the basis of the above facts, the claimants have sought the compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs alongwith interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of accident till the realization of the whole amount from the respondents. 8. The said claim petition was contested by the respondents. 9. Respondents No. 1 and 2 admitted the factum of accident but denied that there was any negligence on the part of the driver-respondent No. 2, by putting forward the plea of mechanical fault in the vehicle in question, at the time of accident. 10. The insurer has taken the preliminary objections regarding the facts that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid driving licence; the vehicle was being plied in violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. The petition is also stated to be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 11. On all these submissions, the respondents have prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition. 12. The learned MACT framed the issues in this case on 6th June, 2015. Thereafter, the parties to the lis were directed to adduce the evidence. 13. After the closure of the evidence, the learned MACT has passed the impugned award by awarding the compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,26,000/- as loss of dependency, which has been confined only to claimant No. 4; Rs. 10,000/- as funeral expenses, Rs. 30,000/- as loss of love and affection and Rs. 10,000/- to respondent No. 4 for loss of consortium. Apart from this, a sum of Rs. 6,650/- has also been awarded to the claimants on account of the amount spent by them on the treatment of deceased Bahadur Singh at PGI, Chandigarh. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 1,82,650/- has been awarded to the claimants by the learned MACT. 14. Feeling aggrieved from the said award, the claimants have approached this Court under Section 173 of the MV Act. The bone of contention of the claimants is that the learned MACT has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased, at the time of his death, as Rs. 3,000/- per month. 14. Feeling aggrieved from the said award, the claimants have approached this Court under Section 173 of the MV Act. The bone of contention of the claimants is that the learned MACT has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased, at the time of his death, as Rs. 3,000/- per month. According to the claimants, this amount is a cruel joke for the claimants, as in the year 2014, even an unskilled worker, as per the notification issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Department of Labour and Employment, dated 28th May, 2014, was getting Rs. 5,100/- per month, whereas, the learned MACT has assessed the income of the deceased, less than the minimum wages, for which, an unskilled labourer was entitled. 15. Apart from this, the claimants have assailed the award on the ground that the other statutory benefits have not been given to the claimants. 16. On all these submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants/appellants has prayed that the appeal may kindly be accepted and the compensation amount may kindly be enhanced, as prayed for in the claim petition. 17. The prayer, so made by the learned counsel for the claimants/appellants, has been opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the insurer as well as by the private respondents on the ground that the learned MACT has rightly taken into consideration the amount of earnings of deceased Bahadur Singh at the time of his death. According to them, there is nothing on the file to show that the deceased was a skilled carpenter and was working with the person, whose name has been mentioned in the claim petition. 18. According to the learned counsel appearing for the insurer, in the absence of any documentary evidence, the right approach has been adopted by the learned MACT in this case. 19. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 20. The MV Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, where the liability of the tort feaser is to be fixed on the principle of preponderance of probability. 21. In this case, the award passed by the learned MACT has not been assailed either by the private respondents or by the insurer. As such, the controversy is confined to the fact as to whether the learned MACT has rightly assessed the monthly earnings of the deceased as Rs. 21. In this case, the award passed by the learned MACT has not been assailed either by the private respondents or by the insurer. As such, the controversy is confined to the fact as to whether the learned MACT has rightly assessed the monthly earnings of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month and thus, awarded the “just compensation”. 22. Claimant No. 1, Gulab Singh, while appearing in the witness box as PW-1, has stated on oath that his father was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month from the agricultural pursuits and Rs. 500/- per day by working as a carpenter. Whatsoever deposed by this witness, in his examination-in-chief, has not been controverted by the respondents in the cross-examination. Interestingly, even suggestion has not been put by respondent No. 3, in this case, that the deceased was not earning the amount so deposed by PW-1 in his examination-in-chief. 23. Their lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in Chandra alias Chanda alias Chandraram and another versus Mukesh Kumar Yadav and others, (2022) 1 SCC 198, have held that in absence of the documentary evidence on record, some amount of guesswork is required to be done to assess the income of the person (deceased). Para 9 of the said judgment is reproduced as under : “9. It is the specific case of the claimants that the deceased was possessing heavy vehicle driving licence and was earning Rs. 15,000 per month. Possessing such licence and driving of heavy vehicle on the date of accident is proved from the evidence on record. Though the wife of the deceased has categorically deposed as AW 1 that her husband Shivpal was earning Rs. 15,000 per month, same was not considered only on the ground that salary certificate was not filed. The Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased by adopting minimum wage notified for the skilled labour in the year 2016. In absence of salary certificate the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased. In absence of documentary evidence on record some amount of guesswork is required to be done. But at the same time the guesswork for assessing the income of the deceased should not be totally detached from reality. In absence of documentary evidence on record some amount of guesswork is required to be done. But at the same time the guesswork for assessing the income of the deceased should not be totally detached from reality. Merely because the claimants were unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of Shivpal, same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while computing the income. There is no reason to discard the oral evidence of the wife of the deceased who has deposed that late Shivpal was earning around Rs. 15,000 per month.” 24. Judging the facts and circumstances of the present case in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandra alias Chanda alias Chandraram’s case (supra), this Court is of the view that the contribution of the deceased, has not been properly considered by the learned MACT, as the amount of contribution, so assessed by the learned MACT is much below the wages of an unskilled labourer, as per the notification, dated 28th May, 2014, issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Department of Labour and Employment. 25. At the cost of repetition, the factual position, deposed by the claimants, in their pleadings, has evasively been denied by the respondents, in their replies. An evasive denial, amounts to admission, as admittedly, the respondents are under no disability. 26. Learned MACT, in this case, while considering the contribution of deceased Bahadur Singh as Rs. 3,000/- per month, has discarded the oral evidence adduced by the claimants. Apart from this, the learned MACT has also deducted one half of the income of the deceased, on account of his personal expenses on the ground that claimants No. 1 to 3 are major and no more dependent upon heir father Shri Bahadur Singh. 27. The factual position has to be decided on the basis of the pleadings as well as the evidence adduced by the parties before the learned MACT. The claimants categorically pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month from agriculture and Rs. 15,000/- per month as carpenter. The above facts have been pleaded in para 7 of the claim petition. Respondents No. 1 and 2, in their reply, have denied these facts by pleading that the claimants have put forward the exaggerated amount of the income of the deceased. 28. 10,000/- per month from agriculture and Rs. 15,000/- per month as carpenter. The above facts have been pleaded in para 7 of the claim petition. Respondents No. 1 and 2, in their reply, have denied these facts by pleading that the claimants have put forward the exaggerated amount of the income of the deceased. 28. The similar stand has been taken by respondent No. 3. 29. Admittedly, in this case, the claimants have not submitted any documentary proof to prove the income of deceased Bahadur Singh, at the time of his death. However, the oral evidence is on the file in the shape of statements of claimant No. 1-Gulab Singh as PW-1 and Surat Singh as PW-22. 30. As per the Pariwar Register Ex. PW-1/B, claimants No. 3 and 4 were residing with Shri Bahadur Singh. 31. Since the onus was upon the claimants to prove the income of the deceased at the time of death of Shri Bahadur Singh, as such, claimant No. 1 Gulab Singh, while appearing in the witness box as PW-1, has deposed that his father was doing the agricultural pursuits and was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. Apart from this, he has deposed that his father was earning Rs. 500/- per day by working as carpenter. 32. To substantiate the said stand, he has deposed that his father was working with one Surat Singh, s/o Sh. Chanan Singh. Neither respondent No. 1 nor respondent No. 3 has bothered to put a specific suggestion to this witness that his father was not earning the amount, as deposed by him in his examination-in-chief. The learned counsel appearing for the insurer has simply put a suggestion that due to the old age, his father was not doing any work of carpenter and agriculture, such suggestion has been denied by claimant No. 1. 33. The claimants have also examined said Surat Singh, s/o Sh. Chanan Singh, with whom the deceased was allegedly working as carpenter, as PW-22. No doubt, this witness has stated that the deceased was working with him as carpenter and he had paid him Rs. 500/- per day, but, from this witness, the claimants could not probabilize their stand that the deceased was carpenter by profession and was earning Rs. 500/- per day from the said work. 34. No doubt, this witness has stated that the deceased was working with him as carpenter and he had paid him Rs. 500/- per day, but, from this witness, the claimants could not probabilize their stand that the deceased was carpenter by profession and was earning Rs. 500/- per day from the said work. 34. If the statement of PW-22 Surat Singh is taken as it is, then it can only be held that deceased Bahadur Singh had occasionally worked as carpenter. 35. From the oral evidence of PW-1 Gulab Singh, which remained uncontroverted, in this case, this Court is of the considered view that the approach of the learned MACT to assess the income of deceased Bahadur Singh as Rs. 3,000/- per month is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the income of deceased Bahadur Singh, at the time of his death, is assessed as Rs. 10,000/-. 36. The learned MACT has deducted one half of the income/contribution of the deceased on account of his personal expenses. This Court is not in agreement with the said approach as in the tradition bound conservative society, it cannot be expected from a person, aged about 64 years, to spend 50% of his earnings as his personal expenses. Claimant No. 3 alongwith his family as well as claimant No. 4 were residing with Sh. Bahadur Singh during his life time, as depicted from the Pariwar Register Ex. PW-1/B. 37. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 ACJ 1298 , which was further approved by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 ACJ 2700 , this Court is of the view that the learned MACT has wrongly deducted half of the income of the deceased on account of his personal expenses and the deduction should be one third of the income of the deceased. 38. Deducting one third amount on account of personal expenses, had the deceased been alive, the contribution of deceased Bahadur Singh towards his family comes to Rs. 6,700/- per month. 39. The learned MACT has applied the multiplier of 7, in this case, which does not require any interference by this Court. 40. The learned MACT has awarded the amount of Rs. 6,700/- per month. 39. The learned MACT has applied the multiplier of 7, in this case, which does not require any interference by this Court. 40. The learned MACT has awarded the amount of Rs. 1,26,000/- on account of loss of dependency, in this case, which is liable to be enhanced to Rs. 6,700/- x 12 x 7 = Rs. 5,62,800/-. 41. Apart from this, the claimants are also held entitled for loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. 42. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) has mandated to enhance the amount to be paid under the conventional heads @ 10% after every three years. 43. The amount of compensation for loss of consortium, in this case, has been given to claimant No. 4 only. Such approach of the learned MACT is also not sustainable in the eyes of law. 44. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited versus Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 , has enhanced the scope of awarding compensation under the head ‘loss of consortium’. Paras 21 to 24 of the said judgment are reproduced as under: “21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi 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: 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, co-operation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation”. 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. 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. 22. 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. 23. 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. 24. 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). In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs. 40,000 each for loss of Filial Consortium.” 45. In view of the above fact, the claimants are held entitled for a sum of Rs. 16,500/- under the head ‘loss of estate’ and Rs. 16,500/- under the head ‘funeral expenses’. Apart from the above, the claimants are also held entitled for a sum of Rs. 44,000/- each under the head ‘parental consortium’ (claimants No. 1 to 3) and ‘spouse consortium’ (claimant No. 4). 46. 16,500/- under the head ‘loss of estate’ and Rs. 16,500/- under the head ‘funeral expenses’. Apart from the above, the claimants are also held entitled for a sum of Rs. 44,000/- each under the head ‘parental consortium’ (claimants No. 1 to 3) and ‘spouse consortium’ (claimant No. 4). 46. No interference is required to be made to the amount awarded by the learned MACT on account of the treatment of deceased Bahadur Singh before his death in PGI, Chandigarh. 47. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,62,800/- + Rs. 16,500/- + Rs. 16,500/- + Rs. 1,76,000/- + Rs. 6,650/- = Rs. 7,78,450/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum, as awarded by the learned MACT, from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the whole amount from the insurer as the liability has been fastened upon the insurer by the learned MACT, which has not been assailed by the insurer. 48. The amount of compensation is apportioned as under: (i) Claimants No. 1 to 3 = 10% each. (ii) Claimant No. 4 = 70%. 49. The appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. 50. Record be sent back.