JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is by the claimants against the award dated 24.06.2019 passed by 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manendragarh, District Korea, C.G. in Motor Accident Claim Case No.09/2018, awarding total compensation of Rs.4,48,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of application till its realization, fastening liability on the Insurance Company. 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 01.11.2017 at about 7:00 pm, deceased- Virendra Kumar @ Raja along with his friend was coming on motorcycle bearing registration No.CG16-D-7754 from village Katotiya to Manendragarh, however, on the way, when he reached near Imli Golai, he was dashed by Bolero vehicle bearing registration No.CG16-CH-6579 (hereinafter called as 'offending vehicle') being driven by its driver/non-applicant No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, deceased- Virendra Kumar @ Raja sustained grievous injuries over his body and died on the spot. At the time of accident, it is not in dispute that the offending vehicle was owned by non-applicant No.2 and insured with non-applicant No.3./Insurance Company. 3. On account of sudden demise of deceased- Virendra Kumar, a claim petition was filed by his parents seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.66,00,000/-on various heads, interalia, stating that at the time of accident, deceased was 21 years old and was studying Mining Engineering at Shridhar University Pilani, Rajasthan. The Tribunal considering the evidence led by both the parties passed an award as mentioned in opening paragraph of his judgment. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the income of the deceased has wrongly been assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.2,500/- per month i.e. Rs.30,000/- per annum, whereas it should be Rs.10,000/- per month as at the time of accident, deceased was aged about 21 years and was doing Diploma Course in Mining Engineering at Shridhar University Pilani, Rajasthan and in future, he could have certainly contributed substantially to his family by working hard. He further submits that the amount awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants under conventional heads is also on lower side, which deserves to be enhanced suitably. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Meena Pawaia and others vs Ashraf Ali and others, 2021 SCC Online SC 1083. 5. He further submits that the amount awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants under conventional heads is also on lower side, which deserves to be enhanced suitably. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Meena Pawaia and others vs Ashraf Ali and others, 2021 SCC Online SC 1083. 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. He also submits that the Insurance Company has not filed any appeal against the impugned award. 6. Learned counsel for the owner and driver/respondents No.1 & 2 supports the impugned award. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. As regards the income of the deceased, a perusal of the pleadings coupled with the evidence brought on record, it is clear that at the time of accident, deceased was a young and energetic student and was aged about 22 years as determined by the Tribunal. It is also brought on record that deceased was doing diploma course in Mining Engineering at Shridhar University Pilani, Rajasthan. Deceased could have earned by working hard in future and contributed to his family, had he not met with an accident. However, the Tribunal did not consider the above aspects of the matter and on its own, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- per annum, which in the considered opinion of this Court, is not just and proper and needs to be reassessed suitably. 9. In the matter of Meena Pawaia (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in para 10 and held as under:- “10. At the outset, it is required to be noted that deceased at the time of accident was aged 21-22 years and that he was a 3rd year student in civil engineering. Therefore, it can be said that looking to his educational qualification he was having a bright future. Learned Tribunal assessed the income of deceased at Rs.15,000/per month for the purpose of awarding compensation under the head of future economic loss. However, by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has reduced the compensation and determined the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month. Learned Tribunal assessed the income of deceased at Rs.15,000/per month for the purpose of awarding compensation under the head of future economic loss. However, by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has reduced the compensation and determined the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month. Awarding the future economic loss to the claimants considering the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/-is not sustainable at all. Even the labourers/skilled labourers were getting Rs.5,000/per month under the Minimum Wages Act in the year 2012. As the deceased was studying in the 3rd/4th semester of civil engineering, he cannot be considered worse than the labourers/skilled labourers. Even the counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India has fairly conceded that assessing the income of deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month for the purpose of awarding the compensation under the head of future economic loss can be said to be at lower side and as such is not justifiable. While awarding the future economical loss, when the deceased died at the young age 21-22 years and was not earning at the time of death/accident, as per catena of decisions of this court, the income for the purpose of determining the future economic loss is always done on the basis of guesswork considering many circumstances namely the educational qualification and background of the family, etc. Therefore looking to the educational qualification and the family background and as observed herein above, the deceased was having a bright future studying in the 3rd year of civil engineering, we are of the opinion that the income of the deceased at least ought to have been considered at least Rs.10,000/per month, more particularly considering the fact that the labourers/skilled labourers were getting Rs.5,000/per month even under the Minimum Wages Act in the year 2012.” 10. In the light of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the above referred matter and considering the fact that at the time of accident, deceased was a 22 years young student, doing diploma course in Mining Engineering at Shridhar University Pilani, Rajasthan and further considering the fact that deceased could have contributed to his family by working hard in future, had he not met with a vehicular accident, I, therefore, propose to recompute the compensation by taking into account the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- i.e. Rs.1,20,000/- per annum on notional basis. 11. 11. So far as consortium part is concerned, the Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 , while dealing with the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 68, 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. 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. 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.” 12. In view of dictum rendered in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra), the amount of Rs.70,000/- awarded under conventional heads to appellants is also on lower side. I, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation by taking into account the number of dependents i.e. 2. As the claimants/appellants, who are the parents of the deceased, are entitled to be awarded Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium. Thus, a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- is assessed under such head. 13. 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.30,000/- (per annum) Rs.10,000/- per month Rs.10,000/- x 12 = Rs.1,20,000/- (per annum) 2. Future Prospect 40% (as assessed by the tribunal) Rs.12,000/- Rs.30,000/- +Rs.12,000 = Rs.42,000/ Rs.48,000/- Rs.1,20,000/- + Rs.48,000/- = Rs.1,68,000/- 3 1/2 deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased (as assessed by the tribunal) Rs.21,000/- (1/2 of Rs.42,000/-) Rs.84,000/- (1/2 of Rs.1,68,000/-) 4. Annual loss of dependency Rs.42,000/- – Rs.21,000/- = Rs.21,000/- Rs.1,68,000/- – Rs.84,000/- = Rs.84,000/- 5. Multiplier of 18 for assessing total loss of dependency (as assessed by the tribunal) Rs.21,000/- x 18 = Rs.3,78,000/- Rs.84,000/- x 18 = Rs.15,12,000/- 6. Towards conventional heads Rs.70,000/- towards conventional heads Rs.15,000/- {towards loss of estate}Rs.15,000/- {for funeral expenses}Rs.40,000/- each to appellants towards loss of consortium Total Compensation Rs.04,48,000/- Rs.16,22,000/- 14. Multiplier of 18 for assessing total loss of dependency (as assessed by the tribunal) Rs.21,000/- x 18 = Rs.3,78,000/- Rs.84,000/- x 18 = Rs.15,12,000/- 6. Towards conventional heads Rs.70,000/- towards conventional heads Rs.15,000/- {towards loss of estate}Rs.15,000/- {for funeral expenses}Rs.40,000/- each to appellants towards loss of consortium Total Compensation Rs.04,48,000/- Rs.16,22,000/- 14. Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.04,48,000/- after deducting the same from the above amount i.e. Rs.16,22,000/-, the claimants are held entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.11,74,000/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 15. It is pertinent to mention here that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. The Tribunals must bear in mind the object of the Act in awarding just and fair compensation to the victim in motor accident cases and it is also the bounden duty of the Courts/Tribunals to see that the victim or injured of the motor accident cases is properly and reasonably compensated and in assessing, what has been described as a just compensation under the Act, all factors including possibilities have to be kept in mind. In the present case, learned MACT has, however, not properly assessed the income of the deceased whereas it ought to have been assessed the income of the deceased by taking into consideration the above aspects and also fallen into error in awarding meager amount under the head of loss of consortium as held in Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra). 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with modification in the impugned award to the above extent.