JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is by the claimants against the award dated 30.01.2021 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pratappur, District Surajpur, C.G. in Motor Accident Claim Case No.20/2019, awarding total compensation of Rs.5,16,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till its realization, fastening liability on the Insurance Company, driver and owner jointly and severally. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their description before the Tribunal. 2. As per averments made in the claim petition, on 16.11.2018 at about 4:30 pm, deceased-Vikas Gupta, aged about 18 years, earning Rs.9,000/- per month by working as Khalasi/ Helper in Balaji Poultry Farm, after loading chickens/ Hen in vehicle 407 bearing registration No.CG15-DA-9816 (hereinafter referred as 'offending vehicle) was going from Orissa to Wadrafnagar in offending vehicle along with non-applicant No.1 Nohar Singh, driver of offending vehicle. However, on the way, non-applicant No.1/driver of the offending vehicle by driving the same in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the offending vehicle at the pole, as a result of which, deceased fell down from the offending vehicle and sustained grievous injuries over his body and died on the spot. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was owned by non-applicant no.2 and insured with non-applicant no.3. 3. On claim petition being filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act to the tune of Rs.14,90,500/-, the Tribunal considering the evidence led by both the parties passed an award as mentioned above. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that though he has raised various grounds in the memo of appeal, however, he is not pressing all those grounds and is assailing the award on the following grounds:- (i) that income of the deceased has wrongly been considered by the Tribunal as Rs.4,500/- per month, whereas it should be Rs.9,000/- per month, looking to the job of the deceased. (ii) that no amount towards future prospects has been granted to the claimants. (iii) that no amount has been granted by the Tribunal to the claimants under loss of consortium, which deserves to be enhanced suitably. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/ Insurance Company supported the impugned award and submits that the Tribunal considering all the relevant aspects of the matter has rightly awarded compensation, which needs no interference by this Court. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/ Insurance Company supported the impugned award and submits that the Tribunal considering all the relevant aspects of the matter has rightly awarded compensation, which needs no interference by this Court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. As regards the income of the deceased, the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.9,000/- per month by working as Khalasi/ Helper in Balaji Poultry Farm and for proving the said fact, claimants have filed Salary Certificate of deceased (Ex.P-17), wherein it is mentioned that deceased was working as Khalasi/ Helper in Balaji Poultry Farm and was getting Rs.9,000/-per month and other subsistence allowance from the said farm, but the learned Tribunal did not consider the above fact and assessed the monthly income of deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month, which in the considered opinion of this Court is not reasonable. I, therefore, propose to recompute the income of the deceased by taking into account the fact that the accident occurred on 16.11.2018, at that time, deceased was a young boy, aged about 18 years, his income can safely be taken as Rs.6,000/- per month on notional basis. 8. Further, the Tribunal was not justified in ignoring the grant of future prospects to the claimants as on the date of accident i.e. 16.11.2018, deceased was aged about 18 years, unmarried and on account of the injuries suffered in the accident, he died. In such a situation, the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation to the claimants in the head of future prospects in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd Versus Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , which in the present case comes to 40% of his annual income. 9. So far as head consortium is concerned, the Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 (supra), while dealing with the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), has observed in paras 21, 21.1, 21.2, 21.3, 22 and 23 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. 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, 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 greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, championship 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 recognised 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. 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.” 10. In view of dictum rendered in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra), this Court is of the opinion that appellant No.1, who is mother of deceased, is entitled to be awarded Rs.40,000/- towards filial consortium and appellant No.2, who is the minor sibling of deceased, is also entitled to be awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. 11. In view of above, the claimants are held entitled for compensation in the following manner: S. No. Head Awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) Awarded by this Court (Rs.) 1. Income of the deceased Rs.4,500/- per month Rs.4,500/- x 12 = 54,000/- (per annum) Rs.6,000/- per month Rs.6,000/- x 12 = Rs.72,000/- (per annum) 2. Future Prospect 40% Not granted Rs.28,800/- Rs.72,000/- + Rs.28,800/- = Rs.1,00,800/- 3. 1/2 deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased (as assessed by the tribunal) Rs.27,000/- (1/2 of Rs.54,000/-) Rs.50,400/- (1/2 of Rs.1,00,800/-) 4. Annual loss of dependency Rs.54,000/- – Rs.27,000/- = Rs.27,000/- Rs.27,000/- Rs.1,00,800/- – Rs.50,400/- = Rs.50,400/- 5. Multiplier of 18 for assessing total loss of dependency Rs.27,000/- x 18 = Rs.4,86,000/- Rs.50,400/- x 18 = Rs.09,07,200/- 6 Towards conventional heads Rs.15,000/- (towards loss of estate) Rs.15,000/- (for funeral expenses) Rs.15,000/- {towards loss of estate (as awarded by the Tribunal)} Rs.15,000/- {for funeral expenses (as awarded by the Tribunal)} Rs.40,000/- to appellant No.1, mother of deceased (towards filial consortium) Rs.40,000/- to appellant No.2, minor sibling of deceased (towards loss of consortium) Rs.5,16,000/- Rs.10,17,200/- 12. Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.5,16,000/- after deducting the same from the above amount i.e. Rs.10,17,200/-, the claimants are held entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.5,01,200/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till realization. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with modification in the impugned award to the above extent.