JUDGMENT Rajbir Sehrawat, J. (Oral) - This shall dispose of three appeals; FAO No.6707 of 2015 filed by the insurance company-Tata AIG, insurer of offending vehicle No.RJ-02-UA-2993; FAO No.7528 of 2015 filed by the Insurance company-New India Assurance Company insurer of offending vehicle No.RJ-32-UA-4038 challenging the award of compensation; and FAO No.98 of 2016 filed by the claimants for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal. All the aforesaid appeals are arising from the same award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mewat (in short, the Tribunal), involving the same incident of accident. 2. For the purpose of the present appeal, the parties are referred to as they were described in the original claim petition filed before the Tribunal. 3. For reference, the facts are being taken as pleaded in FAO No.6707 of 2015. 4. The brief facts of this case are that Parveen Kumar, Arun, Anil Kumar and Gaurav were serving in the Air Force in Bangalore. They were on holidays. Therefore, they had come to their native place. They started to go to Nimot for attending the marriage of Inderjit, in Alto car bearing No.HR-27-D-7304, being driven by Anil Kumar at a slow and moderate speed and with due caution and care. Gaurav was sitting on front seat of the Alto car while Parveen Kumar and Arun were sitting on the back seat of the car. At about 9.10 p.m. when they reached Bareli Kalan ahead of Parkhotampur then one of the offending vehicle bearing No.RJ-32-UA-4038; being driven by respondent No.3 in rash and negligent manner; came from the opposite direction and hit the Alto car from the side. Following the said vehicle another vehicle, i.e, Scorpio bearing registration No. RJ-02-UA-2993; being driven by respondent No.l in a rash and negligent manner; came from the front side and hit the Alto car. Due to this impact of accident caused by the vehicles, Anil Kumar and Gaurav sustained serious and grievous injuries and died on the spot. Parveen Kumar and Arun received injuries on their person. They were shifted to hospital. In that regard FIR No.36 dated 02.05.2014 was also got registered at Police Station Jatusana. 5. On account of death of Anil Kumar the claim petition was filed by the widow, mother and father of the deceased. Parveen Kumar and Arun received injuries on their person. They were shifted to hospital. In that regard FIR No.36 dated 02.05.2014 was also got registered at Police Station Jatusana. 5. On account of death of Anil Kumar the claim petition was filed by the widow, mother and father of the deceased. In the said petition the claimants asserted that the deceased was of the age of 22 years and he was employed in the Indian Air Force and was drawing as salary of Rs. 33,375/-. Accordingly, a compensation to the tune of rupees one crore was claimed by the claimants. Respondent No.l filed written statement taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability; locus standi', cause of action and other routine objections. Respondent No.2, the Insurance Company of Scorpio filed a separate written statement taking routine preliminary objections beside asserting that the respondent No.l was not holding effective and valid driving licence at the time of accident. On merits, the age, occupation and income of the deceased, was also denied. Respondent No.3 did not appear despite service and ultimately he was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 30.09.2014. Respondent No.4-Insurance Company of Bolero has filed its separate written statement taking routine preliminary objections. In their written statement also the age, occupation and income of the deceased were disputed by the insurance company. 6. To prove their assertions the claimants examined the injured eyewitness Parveen Kumar as PW-1. Rajbir Singh himself appeared in the witness box as PW-2 and examined SGT, P.S. Yadav as PW-3. On the other hand, the counsel for respondent No.l tendered into evidence the documents Exhibits RW-1 to RW-3. No other document was led in evidence. 7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after assessing the evidence on record, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased to be Rs. 33,375/-. Beside that age of the deceased was taken at 22 years. Accordingly, the multiplier of 18 has been applied. A deduction of l/3rd was applied keeping in view number of dependants. Accordingly, the loss of dependency was assessed by the Tribunal. Beside granting compensation on account of loss of income; the claimants were also compensated for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- on account of loss of love and affection, loss of consortium and everything else. Beside this an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was granted on account of funeral expenses. Accordingly, the loss of dependency was assessed by the Tribunal. Beside granting compensation on account of loss of income; the claimants were also compensated for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- on account of loss of love and affection, loss of consortium and everything else. Beside this an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was granted on account of funeral expenses. It is challenging the said award that the insurance company of the Scorpio has filed appeal. Even the insurance company of the Bolero has also filed separate appeal. Beside this the claimants also have come in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded to them. 8. Arguing the case the counsel for the claimants has submitted that the claimants are not disputing the assessment of the income, deduction on account of dependency, grant of future prospects and application of the multiplier. However, the Tribunal has gone wrong in law in awarding only Rs. 50,000/- on account of love and affection and consortium. As per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd, Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 all the claimants are entitled to consortium @ Rs. 40,000/- which is to be increased after three years by 10%. Hence, they are entitled to an amount of Rs. 44,000/- each on account of loss of consortium. Beside this the appellants are also entitled to be compensated on account of loss of estate to the extent of Rs. 16500/- in terms of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Not only that they are also entitled to loss of estate to the extent of Rs. 16500/-. 9. On the other hand, the counsel for the Insurance Company of Scorpio vehicle has submitted that it is not in dispute that the vehicle insured by the appellant-insurance Company has struck against the vehicle of the deceased only after the accident had taken place. Therefore, the Scorpio vehicle insured by the Insurance Company, cannot be held to be liable to pay any amount. 10. The counsel for the Insurance Company of the Bolero vehicle has submitted that in the first instance the FIR in this case was registered only against the driver of the other offending vehicle, i.e., Scorpio. Therefore, the Insurance Company of the Bolero Vehicle cannot be held liable. 11. 10. The counsel for the Insurance Company of the Bolero vehicle has submitted that in the first instance the FIR in this case was registered only against the driver of the other offending vehicle, i.e., Scorpio. Therefore, the Insurance Company of the Bolero Vehicle cannot be held liable. 11. Having heard the counsel for the parties, this court does not find any substance in the argument raised by counsel for the respective Insurance Companies. It has come on record that the vehicle Bolero struck against the Alto car of the deceased first; and from the front side. It is also not in dispute that the second offending vehicle, i.e., Scorpio vehicle again struck against the Bolero although the same had already met with accident with the Alto car of the deceased Anil Kumar. In this situation, neither the driver of Bolero can assert that he is not responsible for the accident because he caused the accident first, nor the driver of the Scorpio can assert absence of negligence on his part because he was also required to have due care and caution not to strike against the vehicle which had already met with accident on the road. It was quit expected that he would see the accident having already happened on the road. If despite that he could not stop his vehicle, it is obvious that he was driving his vehicle at extremely high speed. Therefore, the driver of the offending Bolero, as well as, driver of the offending Scorpio, both have rightly been held liable by the Tribunal, and accordingly even the liability has rightly been thrusted upon them to the extent of 50% each. 12. So far as the assertions of counsel for the claimants are concerned, this court finds that the law on the aspect already stands settled by the Supreme Court. To bring the compensation awarded to the claimants in tune with the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Pamay Sethi (supra), all the claimants are held entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 44,000/- each on account of consortium. Beside this, the claimants are also held entitled to the compensation on account of loss of estate to the extent of Rs. 16,150/-. However, the funeral expenses granted to the claimants have to be reduced to bring the same in tune with the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court. 44,000/- each on account of consortium. Beside this, the claimants are also held entitled to the compensation on account of loss of estate to the extent of Rs. 16,150/-. However, the funeral expenses granted to the claimants have to be reduced to bring the same in tune with the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the awarded amount on account of funeral expenses is ordered to be reduced to Rs. 15,000/-. 13. In view of the above, the appeals filed by the respondents-Insurance Companies are partially allowed to the extent of modification of the award of funeral expenses and appeal filed by the claimants is allowed to the extent of enhancement of compensation on the above mentioned heads. The interest and the apportionment shall remain the same as was awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as under : S.No. Heads of Compensation Compensation Rs. 1. Income (p/a) excluding income tax 331107 2. Future Prospects @50% 165553 3. Dependency 1/3 331107 4. Multiplier 18 5959926 5. Consortium @ 44,000/- 132000 6. Loss of Estate 16150 7. Funeral Expenses 15000 8. Total Compensation 6123076 9. Interest @7.5%