JUDGMENT : (V. Srinivas, J.) 1. These appeals are directed against the judgment of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.O.P.No.894 of 2001 dated 03.09.2003. 2. These appeals arise out of same accident and are being decided by this common judgment since the material facts are common. 3. M.A.C.M.A.No.806 of 2009 is preferred by the insurer of the Ashok Leyland Water Tanker bearing No.ABV 405 belonging to the 4th respondent herein. 4. C.M.A.(SR).No.15236 of 2004 is preferred with delay of 60 days (I.A.No.1 of 2004) by the claimants i.e., wife and daughter of the deceased, for enhancement of compensation. 5. The averments made in the claim petition before the Tribunal are as follows: i). The claimants are wife and daughter of the deceased by name G.Venkateswara Rao and respondent Nos.4 and 5 therein are the parents of the deceased. ii). According to the claimants, on 17.10.2000 at about 08.00 a.m., when the deceased was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No.AP 31 R 4690, the driver of one Ashok Leyland Water Tanker bearing No.ABV 405 driven in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the motor cycle. As a result of which, the deceased died on the spot. He was shifted to K.G.H.Hopsital, Visakhapatnam, where he was declared as dead. A case was registered in Crime No.374 of 2000 under Section 304-A I.P.C. against the driver of the water tanker. iii). By the time of accident, the deceased was working as a Transmission Executive in All India Radio Station, Visakhapatnam and earning Rs.11,400/- p.m. He is the sole bread winner of the family. Due to sudden demise of the deceased, the petitioners became helpless and there is no other source of livelihood and the 1st petitioner became gloomy. The deceased was well educated and there is bright prospects in his future and there are several chances of his promotion to reach highest position. As the parents of the deceased, who are residing at Machilipatnam, are not cooperating, they are impleaded as respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in the claim petition. Hence, the wife and daughter of the deceased filed said O.P. under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.21,00,000/- initially. Thereafter, I.A.No.580 of 2002 was filed for enhancement of compensation to Rs.30,00,000/- and the same was allowed vide order dated 20.09.2002. 6. 4 and 5 in the claim petition. Hence, the wife and daughter of the deceased filed said O.P. under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.21,00,000/- initially. Thereafter, I.A.No.580 of 2002 was filed for enhancement of compensation to Rs.30,00,000/- and the same was allowed vide order dated 20.09.2002. 6. The driver, who is the 1st respondent therein with adoption memo of the owner/2nd respondent therein filed counter denying all the material allegations. Further stating that the accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of water tanker. The deceased negligently entered on the road, which was in upper in gradient from the cross lane and tried to overtake the vehicle without giving any caution. It was further contended that the vehicle was insured with the insurer, the insurance policy was subsisting at the time of accident and that the 3rd respondent has to indemnify the liability of the owner and that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is too exorbitant and thereby, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 7. The insurance company, who is the 3rd respondent therein filed counter denying all the material averments, stating that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the water tanker. It also denied the age and earnings of the deceased. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is too exorbitant. The claimants have to prove that the driver of the water tanker was having valid and subsisting driving license by the date of accident and that the rate of interest claimed is also too high and thereby, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 8. The parents of the deceased, who are respondents 4 and 5 therein filed counter admitting the relationship between them and the claimants. They denied that they did not cooperate in filing the claim petition along with the claimants and they are having immovable properties. It is further stated that the deceased used to look after their welfare and they are depending on him as they are not capable to earn for their livelihood due to old age and hence, they are also entitled for compensation along with the claimants. 9. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issues: 1. It is further stated that the deceased used to look after their welfare and they are depending on him as they are not capable to earn for their livelihood due to old age and hence, they are also entitled for compensation along with the claimants. 9. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issues: 1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.ABV 405, Ashok Leyland Water Tanker Lorry driven by the first respondent-driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the enhanced compensation or not ? 4. To what relief ? 10. In the course of trial, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.3 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, owner of lorry was examined as RW.1, the employee of insurer was examined as RW.2 and parents of the deceased were examined as RWs.3 and 4 and Exs.B.1 to B3 were marked. On X-Series, Exs.X.1 and X.2 were marked. 11. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of water tanker, partly allowed the said M.O.P. holding that claimants and respondent Nos.4 and 5/parents of the deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.13,94,000/- with proportionate costs and interest thereon at 9% p.a from the date of petition i.e. 28.02.2001 till the date of deposit by deducting one year interest on account of the delay in making the enhanced claim and the respondent Nos.1 to 3 were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation within one month from the date of the judgment. 12. Being not satisfied with the award, these appeals are preferred by the claimants and insurer. 13. Heard Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned Standing Counsel for the insurer of water tanker, Sri G.Ram Gopal, learned counsel for the claimants and Sri Ch.Venkata Narayana, learned counsel appearing for the parents of the deceased. 14. Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned Standing Counsel for the insurer submits that the Tribunal erred in applying the correct multiplier while awarding the compensation. 15. 13. Heard Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned Standing Counsel for the insurer of water tanker, Sri G.Ram Gopal, learned counsel for the claimants and Sri Ch.Venkata Narayana, learned counsel appearing for the parents of the deceased. 14. Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned Standing Counsel for the insurer submits that the Tribunal erred in applying the correct multiplier while awarding the compensation. 15. On the other hand, Sri G.Ram Gopal, learned counsel for the claimants and Sri Ch.Venkata Narayana, learned counsel appearing for the parents of the deceased submits that the Tribunal has not applied the correct multiplier in calculating the compensation. He further submits that the Tribunal has not considered the age of the deceased correctly. They also submit that deduction of one year interest on the compensation amount in lieu of pendency of I.A.No.580 of 2002 is not correct. 16. After hearing both sides, the following points that arise for determination are: 1. Whether there was any mistake of law while arriving at the conclusion to award compensation by the Tribunal? 2. Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation? and 3. To what relief ? 17. POINT Nos.1 and 2: A perusal of the record shows that the Tribunal framed issue No.1 as ‘whether the petitioner sustained injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No. ABV 405, Ashok Leyland Water Tanker Lorry driven by the first respondent-driver’ instead of ‘whether the deceased Venkateswara Rao died in the accident due to rash and negligent driving of Ashok Leyland Water Tanker bearing No.ABV 405 driven by its driver. But in issue No.1, it was held that the accident occurred due to the fault and negligent driving of the vehicle by crime vehicle driver and that the deceased Venkateswara Rao died in the said accident due to the fault and negligent driving of the tanker by its driver. Hence, there is no dispute with regard to the manner of accident and that the deceased died on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending tanker in which the deceased died. 18. On verifying the record placed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal considered the date of birth of the deceased as 01.12.1958 on the date of accident basing on the S.S.C. certificate, which was mentioned in Ex.X1-true copy of service register of the deceased. At that time, the deceased was running 42nd year. 18. On verifying the record placed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal considered the date of birth of the deceased as 01.12.1958 on the date of accident basing on the S.S.C. certificate, which was mentioned in Ex.X1-true copy of service register of the deceased. At that time, the deceased was running 42nd year. Hence, the Tribunal applied the relevant multiplier ‘15’. Ex.X1 Copy of Service Register also clearly goes to show that the date of birth of deceased by name G.Venkateswara Rao is 01.12.1958 and even in the S.S.C. certificate, which was available in the service register of the deceased and the date of birth was mentioned as 01.12.1958. Thus, it is undisputed that the accident occurred on 17.10.2000, thereby it is clear that 42nd year was running when the deceased Venkateswara Rao died in the accident as well it is established and proved fact that the age of the deceased Venkateswara Rao was 42 by the time of his death. Thus, the contention of the claimants that the age of the deceased by the date of accident is ‘39’ does not hold water. 19. As per the decision in Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 , the multiplier applicable between the age of 41 to 45 is ‘14’. Thus, the relevant multiplier can be applied is only ‘14’ but not ‘15’ as contended by the claimants. 20. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the claimants is that not only the claimants, but also the parents of the deceased, who are arrayed as respondents 4 and 5 in the M.O.P are also dependents on the deceased. As per the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (6) ALT 60 (SC), at para-39, the Hon’ble Apex Court by following Sarla Verma, Reshma Kumari, Rajesh and Munna Lal Jain, held as follows: “39. Before we proceed to analyse the principle for addition of future prospects, we think it seemly to clear the maze which is vividly reflectible from Sarla Verma, Reshma Kumari, Rajesh and Munna Lal Jain. Three aspects need to be clarified. The first one pertains to deduction towards personal and living expenses. In paragraphs 30, 31 and 32, Sarla Verma lays down:- “30. Three aspects need to be clarified. The first one pertains to deduction towards personal and living expenses. In paragraphs 30, 31 and 32, Sarla Verma lays down:- “30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this (2003) 3 SLR (R) 601 Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six. 21. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (stated supra) at Paragraph No.57 it is observed that “……..taking into consideration the cumulative factors, namely passage of time, the change in society, escalation of price, the change in price index, the human attitude to follow particular pattern of life extra an addition of 40% of established income of deceased towards future prospects and where the deceased was below 40 years an addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years would be reasonable.” In the present case the deceased is aged 42 years and he is permanent employee in Central Government, since his age is 42, 25% of addition to be awarded to his annual income. 22. In the present case, there are four dependents i.e. the claimants 1 and 2, who are wife and daughter of the deceased and the parents of the deceased, who are arrayed as respondents 4 and 5 in the M.O.P. Hence, 1/4th has to be deducted from the income arrived at towards personal expenses of the deceased. 23. Basing on Ex.X2-Salary Certificate, The Tribunal also accepted the version of the claimants that he was working as a Transmission Executive in All India Radio Station, Visakhapatnam. 23. Basing on Ex.X2-Salary Certificate, The Tribunal also accepted the version of the claimants that he was working as a Transmission Executive in All India Radio Station, Visakhapatnam. Salary of the appellant at that point of time was considered as Rs.11,400/- p.m. and he got 21 years of service by the time of accident, which facts were confirmed through PW.2 by name P.Nageswara Rao, who was working as Audience Research Officer in All India Radio and he brought Ex.X1-true copy of the service register of the deceased and produced Ex.X2-salary certificate of the deceased. Both the documents clearly show that the salary of the deceased was Rs.11,358/- p.m. rounded to Rs.11,400/-p.m. 24. In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhra Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 , different kinds of consortium have been explained in para-21 and relevant observations in consequence thereto are hereunder: “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, solance 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, cooperation, 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. The 7 2009 ACJ 1298 8 (2018) 18 SCC 130 MVR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1934 of 2011 6 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. The 7 2009 ACJ 1298 8 (2018) 18 SCC 130 MVR,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1934 of 2011 6 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. 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.” 25. Therefore, in view of the above observations, filial consortium shall be appropriate for the present purpose and following Pranay Sethi’s case, Rs.40,000/- has to be awarded. Though it is not specifically claimed by the claimants, it is not a bar to consider having regard to scope and ambit of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which requires ‘just compensation’ to be awarded. It includes compensation based on pecuniary damages, which the claimants have to prove producing appropriate evidence and non-pecuniary damages, which includes a claim based on consortium. It includes compensation based on pecuniary damages, which the claimants have to prove producing appropriate evidence and non-pecuniary damages, which includes a claim based on consortium. Towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, needless to state that following Pranay Sethi’s case, appropriate amounts have to be awarded. 26. Thus, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium to the wife of the deceased, Rs.40,000/- towards parental consortium to the daughter of the deceased and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses have to be awarded in this case. 27. In Pranay Sethi’s case, it is categorically observed that the decision in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, 2013(9) SCC 54 , is not a binding precedent to award compensation on the head of love and affection. 28. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court deems it appropriate to grant future prospects as per Pranay Sethi’s case. 29. The Tribunal has fixed interest at 9% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of payment by deducting one year interest time of appeal in making an enhanced claim. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in Tamil Nadu State Transport v. S.Rajapriya, 2005 Law Suit SC 742, taking note of the prevailing rate of interest in bank deposits, the same is fixed at 7.5% per annum. Even in other judgments of the Supreme Court, the same principle is followed. Therefore, in the present case also, the rate of interest is fixed at 7.5% p.a., which is just and reasonable. 30. Therefore, the compensation awarded under different heads is as under: S.No. Heads Amount 1 Loss of Income (Rs.11,400/- x 12) Rs.1,36,800/ p.a. 2 25% of above(1) to be added as future prospects Rs.1,71,000/- (Rs.1,36,800/- + Rs.34,200/- 3 1/4th to be deducted towards personal expenses of deceased. (Rs.1,71,000x1/4=42,750/-) Rs.1,28,250/-. (Rs.1,71,000/- (-) 42,750/-) 4 Compensation arrived at on application of multiplier 14. (Rs.1,28,250/- x 14) Rs.17,95,500/- 5 Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 6 Spousal consortium for wife Rs.40,000/- 7 Parental consortium for daughter Rs.40,000/- 8 Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Total compensation awarded(Rows 4 to 8) Rs.19,05,500/- 31. Therefore, in view of the forgoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants interference by enhancing the compensation from Rs.13,94,000/- to Rs.19,05,500/-. Thus, these points are answered in favour of claimants. 32. Therefore, in view of the forgoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants interference by enhancing the compensation from Rs.13,94,000/- to Rs.19,05,500/-. Thus, these points are answered in favour of claimants. 32. POINT No.3: In view of the findings on point Nos.1 and 2, the order passed by the Tribunal warrants interference regarding quantum of compensation and the rate of interest only and with regard to the remaining aspects there is no need to disturb the well articulated order passed by the Tribunal. As such, the appeal filed by the insurer is liable to be dismissed and the appeal filed by the claimants is liable to be allowed partly. 33. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.806 of 2009 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 34. In view of the facts and circumstances, I.A.No.1 of 2004 is allowed and the delay of 60 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The C.M.A.(SR).No.15236 of 2004 is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.13,94,000/- to Rs.19,05,500/- with interest at 7.5% per annum with proportionate costs from the date of petition till the date of realization against respondent Nos.1 to 3(driver, insured and insurer of the vehicle). They shall deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment. The appellants/claimants shall pay the requisite Court-fee in respect of the enhanced amount awarded over and above the compensation claimed. Rest of the directions given by the Tribunal with regard to the apportionment of the compensation between the claimants/parents, their entitlement in withdrawing the amount, The appellants-claimants are directed to deposit the Court fee on the enhanced amount in the Tribunal and thereupon subject to depositing the amounts under the award, they shall be entitled to withdraw as per the terms imposed by the Tribunal in its award. 35. The impugned order of the Tribunal stands modified to the aforesaid extent and in the terms and directions as above. 36. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. 37. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.