JUDGMENT : This appeal is preferred by the Appellants/claimants, challenging the award dated 07.02.2011 passed in M.V.O.P.No.153/2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Addl.District Judge (Fast Track Court), Madanapalle, wherein the Tribunal while partly allowing the petition, awarded compensation of Rs.2,94,000/-with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit to the petitioners/claimants, for the death of Syed Bavaji, in a motor vehicle accident. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties in the lower Court. 3. As seen from the record, originally the petitioners filed an application U/s.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-on account of the death of Syed Bavaji, who is son of the petitioners in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 19.04.2008. 4. The facts show that the petitioners are the parents of deceased Syed Bavaji. On 19.04.2008 at about 06.30 a.m., the deceased Syed Bavaji, who was driver of Tempo bearing No.AP 03X 2522 was returning to Srikalahasthi after unloading the cows at Satyavedu and when the vehicle reached near Tangellapalem on the extreme left side of the road, one lorry bearing No.AP7T 1510 was coming opposite, and the driver drove the said lorry in a rash and negligent manner, without following the traffic rules and regulations, dashed against the tempo, as a result of which, the deceased Syed Bavaji and two others sustained fatal injuries and one K.A.Gurubalan also died on the spot. Bavaji and other injured were shifted to Government Hospital through ambulance and on the way to hospital, Syed Bavaji died due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Syed Bavaji was only the son to the petitioners and they were very affectionate towards him and death of their beloved son caused them frustration and depression. The deceased used to earn Rs.4,000/-per month and also used to get Rs.100/-per day as batta. The petitioners spent huge amount for funeral and incidental expenses. The Station House Officer, B.N.Kandrika P.S. registered Cr.No.39/2008 for the offence punishable U/s.304-A of Indian Penal Code against the driver of the lorry. The driver of the said lorry has valid and effective driving license to drive the crime lorry. The 1st respondent insured the said lorry with the 2nd respondent and the insurance policy was in force at the time of accident. 5. The driver of the said lorry has valid and effective driving license to drive the crime lorry. The 1st respondent insured the said lorry with the 2nd respondent and the insurance policy was in force at the time of accident. 5. Before, the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed counter denying the material averments of the petition, and contended that the amount of compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive and arbitrary. The liability of 2nd respondent is subject to existence of policy terms and conditions. The accident was occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of Tempo bearing No.AP 03X 2522 in a rash and negligent manner without observing the road traffic rules and that it is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. 6. The 4th respondent/ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company, Tirupathi, filed written statement resisting, while traversing the material averments with regard to proof of age, avocation, monthly earnings of the deceased, manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, and liability to pay compensation, contended that the 1st respondent has not followed the rules and regulations as laid down in section 3 of M.V.Act, 1988 and no owner or person incharge of motor vehicle shall cause permit any person who does not satisfy the provisions of sections 3 and 4 of M.V.Act to drive the vehicle, that the Police Officer, who investigated the offence failed to follow the rule laid down in section 158(6) of M.V.Act 1988, that a Police Officer shall forward a copy of any information regarding the accident to the claims Tribunal having jurisdiction and to the concerned insurer, that the person who drove the vehicle of the 3rd respondent was not having any valid driving license at the time of accident and that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP 7T 1510 only. The respondents No.1 and 3 remained ex-parte. 7. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP 7T 1510 involved resulting the death of Bavaji? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, by whom and to what amount? 3. To what relief? 8. 7. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP 7T 1510 involved resulting the death of Bavaji? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, by whom and to what amount? 3. To what relief? 8. To substantiate their claim, the petitioners examined P.W-1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of the respondents, no witnesses were examined, however Ex.B-1 copy of policy was marked by consent on behalf of the 2nd respondent. 9. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.W-1, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-6, held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver, and further, taking into consideration the evidence of P.W-1, corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-6, awarded a compensation of Rs.2,94,000/-with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit against the respondents 1 and 2 only and petition against the respondents No.3 and 4 is dismissed. 10. This is an appeal filed by the claimants, contending that the Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.80/-per day only, instead of Rs.100/-per day at least at the time of accident, which was occurred in the year 2008, though the deceased was working as tempo driver, and further, the Tribunal grossly erred in applying multiplier 15 only instead of 18, though the age of the deceased was 22 years at the time of accident, and thereby the Tribunal failed to award just compensation entitled by the claimants. 11. In the light of above contentions in the appeal, the points that would arise for consideration in the appeal are as under: 1. Whether the Tribunal failed to award just compensation to the claimants? 2. To what relief? 12. 11. In the light of above contentions in the appeal, the points that would arise for consideration in the appeal are as under: 1. Whether the Tribunal failed to award just compensation to the claimants? 2. To what relief? 12. POINT No.1: The case of the claimants, who are parents of the deceased Syed Bavaji, who is aged 22 years at the time of accident and the deceased was working as driver of a tempo motor vehicle and earning Rs.4,000/-per month, apart from Rs.100/-per day as batta as driver, and on 19.04.2008 at 06.30 a.m. he was returning to Srikalahasthi after unloading cows at Satyaveedu and while so, he reached a place near Thangellapalem village, and at that time, the crime vehicle i.e., lorry bearing No.AP 70 1550 is coming in opposite direction, and the driver of the lorry drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the tempo, and as a result, the deceased and two others travelling in the tempo suffered fatal injuries, and one Mr.K.A.Gurubalan died on the spot and the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, and on the way to hospital, he died due to the injuries sustained in the accident, and the claimants are depending upon the deceased, and therefore, they are entitled to compensation towards loss of dependency and other heads. 13. The insurer of the lorry i.e., 2nd respondent opposed the claim on the ground that the claim is excessive, and that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. 14. The Tribunal upon consideration of the evidence, and other material available in the case, held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. The 1st respondent, who is the owner of the lorry, and 2nd respondent, who is insurer of the lorry, did not challenge the said finding of the Tribunal. 15. The claimants contended that the deceased was earning Rs.4,000/-per month towards salary and also getting Rs.100/-per day as batta. The Tribunal considered the evidence and fixed Rs.80/-per day as established income of the deceased. The contention of the claimants is that the amount fixed by the Tribunal is very low, since the deceased was working as driver of the tempo, and it should be at least Rs.100/-per day, which is a bare minimum amount, in the year 2008. 16. The Tribunal considered the evidence and fixed Rs.80/-per day as established income of the deceased. The contention of the claimants is that the amount fixed by the Tribunal is very low, since the deceased was working as driver of the tempo, and it should be at least Rs.100/-per day, which is a bare minimum amount, in the year 2008. 16. The evidence and material on record would establish that the deceased was working as driver of the tempo taxi at the time of accident occurred on 19.04.2008. In those circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the income of the deceased can be fixed at Rs.100/-per day instead of Rs.80/-per day basing on the established income of various professions and works in the year 2008, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Devi and others Vs. Mohammad Tabbar and another, 2008 ACJ 1488 . Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased would be at Rs.100 x 30 = Rs.3,000/-per month. 17. The Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased as 22 years, but applied multiplier ‘15’, considering the age of the parents, ignoring the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and another, 2009 ACJ 1298 . The multiplier applicable in this case is ‘18’, in view of the fact that the age of the deceased was 22 years at the time of accident. Further, the Tribunal deducted 1/3 only towards personal expenses of the deceased, instead of ½, inspite of principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased would be at Rs.3,000 – 1,500 = Rs.1,500/-, and the annual income of the deceased would be Rs.1,500 x 12 = Rs.18,000/-. 18. The claimants are also entitled to loss of future prospects in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited and Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , on the established income of the deceased. Therefore, the total amount of compensation entitled by the appellants is 1) loss of dependency comes to Rs.18,000 x 18 = Rs.3,24,000/-, and 2) amount entitled towards loss of future prospects @ 40%, since the deceased is below 40 years on Rs.3,24,000/-would be Rs.3,24,000 x 40/100 = Rs.1,29,600/-. Therefore, the total amount of compensation entitled by the appellants is 1) loss of dependency comes to Rs.18,000 x 18 = Rs.3,24,000/-, and 2) amount entitled towards loss of future prospects @ 40%, since the deceased is below 40 years on Rs.3,24,000/-would be Rs.3,24,000 x 40/100 = Rs.1,29,600/-. The claimants are also entitled to Rs.15,000/-towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/-towards loss of estate. Therefore, the total amount of compensation entitled by the appellants would come to Rs.3,24,000 + 1,29,600 + 30,000 = Rs.4,83,600/-. 19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, 2018 ACJ 2782 held in para 8.7 as follows: “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. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relation with the deceased spouse. 3 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. 4 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 3 Rajesh and Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 54 4 BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (5 the d. 1979) 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. 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 Childs 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 5. However, there was no clarity with 5 Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram @ Jagmal Singh & Ors. v. Sohi Ram & Ors 2017 (4) RLW 3368 (Raj); Uttarakhand High Court in Smt. Rita Rana & Anr. v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. 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). 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.” 20. In the case on hand, the claimants are parents of the deceased, and the deceased is their unmarried son. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/-each towards consortium as per the above judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,83,600 + 40,000 + 40,000 = Rs.5,63,600/-(Rupees Five Lakhs, Sixty Three Thousand and Six Hundred only). 21. The claimant is entitled to interest on the above said amount reasonable as per section 174 of M.V.Act. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,83,600 + 40,000 + 40,000 = Rs.5,63,600/-(Rupees Five Lakhs, Sixty Three Thousand and Six Hundred only). 21. The claimant is entitled to interest on the above said amount reasonable as per section 174 of M.V.Act. This Court is of the opinion that interest can be awarded @ 7.5% p.a. on the compensation amount, from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mannat Johal, 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC). 22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mona Baghel and others Vs. Sajjan Singh Yadaav and others, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 734, held that in the matter of compensation, the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded despite the claimants having sought for a lesser amount and the claim petition being valued at a lesser value. The law is well settled that in the matter of compensation, the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded despite the claimants having sought for a lesser amount and the claim petition being valued at a lesser value. Therefore, though the claimants sought for a lesser amount, and the claim petition being valued at lesser value for Rs.4,00,000/-, the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded is Rs.5,63,600/-. In that view of the matter, the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified. 23. The claimants are entitled to interest on Rs.5,63,600/-reasonable as per section 174 of M.V.Act. This Court is of the opinion that interest can be awarded @ 7.5% p.a. on the compensation amount, from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mannat Johal, 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC) . Accordingly, this point is answered. 24. POINT No.2 : To what relief? In the light of the finding on point No.1, the order passed by the Tribunal has to be modified. 25. In the result, the appeal is allowed, modifying the award dated 07.02.2011 passed in M.V.O.P.No.153/2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Addl. District Judge (Fast Track Court), Madanapalle. 24. POINT No.2 : To what relief? In the light of the finding on point No.1, the order passed by the Tribunal has to be modified. 25. In the result, the appeal is allowed, modifying the award dated 07.02.2011 passed in M.V.O.P.No.153/2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Addl. District Judge (Fast Track Court), Madanapalle. It is held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.5,63,600/-(Rupees Five Lakhs, Sixty Three Thousand and Six Hundred only) with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, instead of Rs.2,94,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs and Ninety Four Thousand only). The respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount of Rs.5,63,600/-(Rupees Five Lakhs, Sixty Three Thousand and Six Hundred only), along with the accrued interest thereon, within one month from the date of judgment. 26. In the event of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company already deposited some amount, the said amount has to be excluded, and the balance amount shall be deposited within one month from the date of judgment. On such deposit, the 1st appellant/1st claimant being father of the deceased is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.2,81,800/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Eighty One Thousand and Eight Hundred only) along with accrued interest thereon and, the 2nd appellant / 2nd claimant being mother of the deceased is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.2,81,800/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Eighty One Thousand and Eight Hundred only) along with accrued interest thereon. The appellants/claimants are directed to pay the required court fee before the Tribunal, as per Rule 475(2) of A.P.M.V. Rules 1989, within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of judgment. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.