JUDGMENT : ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J. Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant/Reliance Insurance Company. 2. The appellant Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. who was impleded as the Opposite Party No. 1 in MAC Case No. 1349/2011 has preferred the present appeal assailing the judgment and award dated 5.5.2015 passed in MAC Case No. 1349/2011 awarding a compensation of Rs. 18,71,000/- in favour of the appellant on account of death of her deceased unmarried son in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 16.7.2011. 3. The respondent No. 1claimant filed the aforesaid motor accident claim case claiming compensation for death of her son in motor vehicular accident on 16.7.2011 at Sector 3 at about 1 : 20 A. M under Noonmati Police Station in the district of Kamrup(M), Assam. The claimant mother filed the aforesaid claim petition inter alia alleging that while the son of the claimant was proceeding from Mathgharia towards his home situated at Ananda Nagar by riding his motor cycle bearing registration No. AS-01-AU-5724, a Truck bearing Registration No. MP-20/HB-1584 knocked him down from his backside. As a result of the said accident, son of the claimant respondent No. 1 sustained severe injury on his person and finally succumbed to his injuries. The said offending vehicle was owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with the appellant Corporation. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the Insurance company has challenged the same only on the ground that the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal committed serious error of law by applying multiplier corresponding to the age of the deceased by selecting 17 as multiplier instead of applying the multiplier corresponding to the age of the mother. It is the case of the appellant Insurance company that such decision is a deviation from settled position of law and such deviation has been made without giving any ground to justify the deviation and accordingly it is the case of the appellant Insurance Company that the deviation has resulted in over compensation to the claimant respondent No. 1. It is contended that the age of the mother is 48 years. Accordingly multiplier ought to have been 13 whereas the learned Tribunal has erroneously applied 17 as multiplier considering the age of the deceased being 28 years. 5. The appellant Insurance company has not disputed the income of the decease and his age. It is contended that the age of the mother is 48 years. Accordingly multiplier ought to have been 13 whereas the learned Tribunal has erroneously applied 17 as multiplier considering the age of the deceased being 28 years. 5. The appellant Insurance company has not disputed the income of the decease and his age. They have not also disputed the validity of the insurance or the validity of the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle. They have also not disputed the occurrence as alleged by the claimant in the present appeal. Therefore in view of the aforesaid position of the appellant, this court needs to determine whether the learned Tribunal below has committed an error by applying multiplier of 17 corresponding to the age of the deceased. 6. By now it is well settled that the age of the deceased must be the basis for determining the multiplier even in case of the bachelor. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 determined and fixed the applicable multiplier corresponding to the age of the deceased. It was further held that multiplier should correspond to the age of the deceased. Such view was reaffirmed by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and affirmed that the age of the deceased required to be the basis for determining the multiplier. Subsequent to this the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mandala Yadagari Goud in (2019) 5 SCC 554 further held that even in the case of a bachelor the principle enunciated in the case of Sarala Verma and affirmed in Pranay Sethi is applicable. 7. Therefore, in the aforesaid backdrop this court could not but held that learned tribunal below has not committed any error in applying the multiplier as 17 taking note of the age of the deceased which was 28 years at the time of his death. Accordingly in the considered opinion of this court, the present appeal deserved to be dismissed and accordingly same is done. 8. This court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the accident took place on 16.7.2011, award was passed on 5.5.2015 and thereafter the present appeal is pending since 2015. Accordingly in the considered opinion of this court, the present appeal deserved to be dismissed and accordingly same is done. 8. This court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the accident took place on 16.7.2011, award was passed on 5.5.2015 and thereafter the present appeal is pending since 2015. In the meantime, constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 dealt with different facet and issues involved in Motor Accident Claims Tribunal case and standardise the entire procedure. In Sarala Verma (s) the Hon'ble Courts also determined different facets including the principles to be applied for the assessment of compensation including the multiplier etc. Therefore now the next question arises for determination of this Court is whether the formulations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid dictum, which was pronounced during the pendency of this appeal, shall be made applicable in the present case. 9. A coordinate Bench of this Court in MACApp./202/2012 in its Judgment dated. 04.02.2022, while dealing with an issue whether the claimants are entitled to an enhanced compensation in absence of a cross appeal or a cross objection, after elaborately discussing different judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and taking note of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure held that while Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers an appellate court to pass appropriate order to do justice but subject to certain limitation as judicially formulated whereas Section 168 of MV Act imposes a statutory obligation upon the tribunal as well as the appellate court sans way any appeal or cross objection filed to award a compensation which is just and reasonable. Accordingly, it was held that the appellate court is bound to maintain the balance while exercising power under Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure within the limitation imposed and also keeping in mind the statutory duty imposed upon it by Section 168 of MV Act, 1988. After holding such, the learned Bench held in that case that though there was no cross objection however, the benefit of Pranay Sethi (Supra), Magma General Insurance Co. After holding such, the learned Bench held in that case that though there was no cross objection however, the benefit of Pranay Sethi (Supra), Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra) and Sarla Verma (Supra) can be made applicable keeping in mind the statutory duty imposed upon the appellate court under Section 168 of the MV Act, 1988 to award the just and reasonable compensation. 10. This Court is in total agreement with the aforesaid view of the Coordinate Bench. Accordingly, held that though there is no cross objection or appeal has been preferred by the present appellant, the appellant shall be entitled for the benefit given under the dicta of Pranay Sethi (Supra), Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd.. (Supra) and Sarla Verma (Supra). 11. In the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the Apex Court has awarded compensation only for specific conventional heads and held that the amount to be paid for funeral expense and loss of estate will be Rs. 15,000/- each. It has also held that Rs. 40,000/- should be paid for loss of consortium. No other compensation amount has been reflected in respect of other conventional heads in Pranay Sethi (Supra). 12. The Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram, Civil Appeal No. 9581 of 2018 has held that the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) has dealt with the various heads under which compensation can be awarded in a death case, which includes loss of consortium. In the above case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram (supra), the Apex Court has further held the word “consortium” encompasses the following : - (1) Spousal consortium (2) Parental consortium and (3) Filial consortium. (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.” (2) Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of parent, for loss of “parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training.” (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. 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. 13. However, at the same regarding the payment of interest on future prospect, this Court is in total agreement with the decision of the Coordinate Bench made in MAC App./378/2017 (The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smti Champabati Ray). 14. In view of the above reason, the compensation payable would be as follows:— SL No. Head Amount 1. A. Annual Income Rs. 12,000×12=Rs. 1,44,000/- B. Future Prospect @ 50% of income. Rs. 72,000/- C. Less 50% Rs. 108,000/- D. Add Multiplier 17×1,08,000/-= Rs. 18,36,000/- Total compensation Rs. 18,36,000/- 2. Loss of Estate Rs. 16500/- 3 A. Parental consortium Rs. 44,000/- B. Funeral expenses Rs. 16500/- Total = Rs. 19,13,000/- 15. While not interfering with the award of interest @ 6%, awarded by the learned Tribunal, it is made clear that the interest awarded must not be calculated on the amount of compensation awarded against future prospects in view of the decision of Coordinate Bench in MACApp./378/2017 (The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smti Champabati Ray). 16. Consequently, the impugned Judgment dated 05.05.2015 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, No. 2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in MAC Case No. 1349/2011 is hereby modified to the extent indicated above. Appeal is accordingly disposed off. 17. Send back the LCR.