ORDER : Amar Nath (Kesharwani), J. This is an appeal filed by the appellant/Insurance Company under section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act being aggrieved with the award dated 6-2-2020 passed by II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Naugaon, District Chhatarpur in MACC No. 100044/2013, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.28,64,998/- (Twenty eight lakhs sixty four thousand nine hundred ninety eighty) with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of petition till payment to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3/claimants by way of compensation on account of death of Ramswaroop Soni in a motor accident which allegedly took place on 24-3-2013. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on the date of incident i.e. 24-3-2013 at about 4:30 P.M. respondent No. 4, who was driving pickup vehicle bearing registration No. UP-95-B-0348 rashly and negligently, dashed the vehicle of deceased Ramswaroop Soni, due to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to death. The matter was reported to Police Station Naugaon, District Chhatarpur (M.P.) by Ajay @ Ajju Soni (son of deceased), where FIR No. 90/2013 (Ex.A-2) was registered against unknown person. After investigation final report was filed against the driver (respondent No. 4) of offending vehicle bearing registration No. UP-95-B-0348. Respondents No. 1 to 3/claimants filed a claim petition alleging that the deceased was posted as L.D.T. (Assistant Teacher) at Primary School, Kulwara Sankul Girls Higher Secondary School and was earning Rs.28,000/- (Twenty eight thousand) per month. The deceased was to be promoted in future on the post of U.D.T. By way of filing claim petition, claimants prayed to award compensation to the tune of Rs. 57,50,000/- (fifty seven lakhs fifty thousand) under various heads on account of death of Ramswaroop Soni, who was father of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and wife of deceased Smt. Bhagwati Soni (Expired during the trial). 3. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 filed written statement stating that respondent No. 4 was not negligent in driving the offending vehicle. It was alleged that the deceased himself was negligent in driving the vehicle and before the alleged incident, deceased himself fell down on the road due to uneven road at the place of incident. 3. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 filed written statement stating that respondent No. 4 was not negligent in driving the offending vehicle. It was alleged that the deceased himself was negligent in driving the vehicle and before the alleged incident, deceased himself fell down on the road due to uneven road at the place of incident. However, it was alleged that at the time of incident respondent No. 4 had a valid driving license to drive the alleged vehicle and the offending vehicle was insured with appellant/insurance company, therefore, if any amount of compensation is awarded, then it is appellant/insurance company who is liable to pay the compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition against them. 4. Appellant/insurance company in its written statement denied the averments mentioned in the claim petition and pleaded that the accident occurred with some other unknown vehicle and thereafter in collusion with owner and driver of the offending vehicle, claimants filed false claim case involving the alleged vehicle. It was alleged that the claimants are not dependent on the deceased, therefore, they are not entitled for any compensation from appellant-insurance company and prays for dismissal of the claim petition against the insurance company. 5. Learned Tribunal after framing of issues and appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the rival parties of the case, awarded a sum of Rs.28,64,998/- (twenty eight lakhs sixty four thousand nine hundred ninety eight) along with interest @ 7% per annum to the claimants under different heads. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, appellant/Insurance Company filed the present Appeal on the ground of false implication of offending vehicle as well as on the ground that the amount awarded is on higher side, which needs to be reduced. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on 24-3-2013 respondent No. 1 Ajay @ Ajju lodged report at Police Station informing that unknown vehicle dashed his father, thereafter in collusion with respondent Nos. 4 and 5, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3/claimants have falsely involved the alleged vehicle bearing registration No. UP-95-B-0348 and the same was seized almost after one month of the said accident i.e. on 25-4-2013, thus it is a case of false implication of offending vehicle. As per crime detail form (spot map-Ex.A-3) the deceased himself was at the wrong side of the road, therefore, he himself was negligent. It is also submitted that respondent Nos. As per crime detail form (spot map-Ex.A-3) the deceased himself was at the wrong side of the road, therefore, he himself was negligent. It is also submitted that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are not the dependent on the deceased because they all are major and Vijay Soni (respondent No. 2) got compassionate appointment in place of deceased from the department of the deceased. Hence, no loss of income is caused to the claimants due to alleged incident. It is prayed that the appeal filed by the appellant be allowed and impugned award passed by learned tribunal be set aside. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, deduction towards personal expenses ought to have been 1/2 (half) and submitted that the amount awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal under all the heads is on higher side, which needs to be reduced. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3/claimants contends that the FIR was lodged on the date of incident against the driver of pickup jeep and offending vehicle was traced during the investigation, hence denied the false implication of the alleged vehicle and submitted that the learned tribunal passed the impugned award after due appreciation of evidence that came on record, which requires no interference. In support of his arguments learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 242-243 of 2020 National Insurance Company Limited vs. Birender and others, (2020) 11 SCC 356 decided on 13-1-2020. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal filed by the appellant / Insurance Company. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, gone through the record of the learned claims Tribunal and perused the citation upon which reliance is placed by learned counsel for the appellant. 9. Certified copy of the FIR (Ex.A-2) reveals that FIR was lodged on the date of incident within half an hour. In the said FIR Ex.A-2 it is specifically mentioned that vehicle of the deceased was dashed by the Pick-up Jeep and driver (deceased) of TVS Moped was lying dead on the spot and vehicle (Moped) was also lying on the spot in a damage condition. 10. In the said FIR Ex.A-2 it is specifically mentioned that vehicle of the deceased was dashed by the Pick-up Jeep and driver (deceased) of TVS Moped was lying dead on the spot and vehicle (Moped) was also lying on the spot in a damage condition. 10. After investigation of the crime the final report has been filed against the driver (non-applicant No. 1/respondent No. 4) of offending vehicle bearing registration No. UP-95-B-0348 under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. 11. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have filed their written statement jointly. As per the written statement respondent Nos. 4 and 5 (driver and owner of the offending vehicle) have admitted the facts of presence of offending vehicle on the spot on the date and at the time of incident. They only denied the fact that driver of the offending vehicle was rashly and negligently driving the offending vehicle and dashed the vehicle which was being driven by deceased at the time of incident. Respondent No. 4 (driver of offending vehicle) has appeared before the learned tribunal as non-applicant witness No.1 (NAW-1) to support his pleading. NAW-1 has admitted in Para-5 of his cross-examination that he was facing criminal trial because of alleged incident and in that case he got bail from Police Station Nawgaon as well as from Nawgaon Court. NAW-1 also admitted in his cross-examination in the same para that he neither made any complaint regarding false implication in the case to the senior officers of the Police nor he complained to the Court regarding false implication in the case. He has also admitted that at the time of incident he was driving the offending vehicle bearing registration No. UP-95-B-0348. NAW-1 has also stated in Para-7 of his cross-examination that deceased fell down in his presence and he has denied the suggestion made by the counsel for the appellant/insurance company that the accident did not occurred in his presence and also denied the suggestion that in collusion with the claimants he falsely stated in the Court that deceased fell down before him. He has also denied in para-8 that he and owner of vehicle were in collusion with claimants to provide the compensation to the claimants, falsely implicated the offending vehicle. 12. He has also denied in para-8 that he and owner of vehicle were in collusion with claimants to provide the compensation to the claimants, falsely implicated the offending vehicle. 12. Appellant/Insurance company has examined Bhawani Shankar legal office of the company as NAW-2 to support his pleadings and exhibited documents Ex.NA-1 to Ex.NA-25 (documents relating to criminal case and documents relating to the offending vehicle). NAW-2 has admitted in para-5 of his cross-examination that he was not present on the spot at the time of incident. He has also admitted in para-9 of his cross-examination that he personally has not gone to the place of incident and he has not seen the place of incident and stated that he is giving the statement on the basis of documents only. No other witness was examined on behalf of appellant insurance company to prove his pleadings that offending vehicle was falsely implicated in the case by the claimants in collusion with owner and driver of the offending to get compensation. 13. Certified copy of documents of Criminal case (initiated against driver of offending vehicle – respondent No. 4) i.e. Ex.NA-10 to Ex.NA-21 have been filed on behalf of insurance company. Offending vehicle, insurance policy and fitness of offending vehicle and driving license of driver (respondent No. 4) were seized as per Ex.NA-18 and owner of the offending vehicle (Respondent No. 5) got the alleged vehicle released by the trial Court as per Ex.NA-21 and driver of the offending vehicle (Respondent No. 4) has got his driving license released from the Court as per Ex.A-10. Respondent No. 4 was arrested in criminal case as per arrest Memo Ex.A-7 and final report under section 304-A of the IPC has been filed against respondent No. 4. As per statement of NAW-1 he and owner of offending vehicle have not made any complaint regarding false implication of the offending vehicle in the case and false implication of respondent No. 4 in criminal case to the senior police officer and to the Court. 14. As per statement of NAW-1 he and owner of offending vehicle have not made any complaint regarding false implication of the offending vehicle in the case and false implication of respondent No. 4 in criminal case to the senior police officer and to the Court. 14. As discussed above in para 9 of this order FIR (Ex.A-2) was lodged within half an hour and in the said FIR (Ex.A-2) it is specifically mentioned that the vehicle of the deceased was dashed by Pickup Jeep and driver (deceased) of the TVS Moped was lying dead on the spot and vehicle (moped) was also lying on the spot in a damaged condition. As per certified copy of spot map Ex.A-3, dead body was lying on the road and not on the side lane, hence pleadings of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 that because of uneven side of road and due to negligence on the part of the deceased, he himself got imbalanced and fell down, cannot be sustained. 15. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunita and others vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and others, (2020) 13 SCC 486 in para 22 has held as under :— “22. It is thus well settled that in motor accident claim cases, once the foundational fact, namely, the actual occurrence of the accident, has been established, then the Tribunal’s role would be to calculate the quantum of just compensation if the accident had taken place by reason of negligence of the driver of a motor vehicle and, while doing so, the Tribunal would not be strictly bound by the pleadings of the parties. Notably, while deciding cases arising out of motor vehicle accidents, the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases.” (Emphasis supplied) 16. Hence, looking at the pleadings of respondent Nos. 4 and 5, oral and documentary evidence placed on record, facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Saroj and others vs. Hetlal and others, (2011) 1 SCC 388 , Janabai wd/o Dinkarrao Ghorpade and others vs. ICICI Lambord Insurance Co. 4 and 5, oral and documentary evidence placed on record, facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Saroj and others vs. Hetlal and others, (2011) 1 SCC 388 , Janabai wd/o Dinkarrao Ghorpade and others vs. ICICI Lambord Insurance Co. Ltd., (2022) 10 SCC 512 and Sunita and others (supra) the possibility of false implication of vehicle bearing registration No. UP-95-B-0348 ruled out. 17. So far as arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that since claimants are major sons and respondent No. 2 got compassionate appointment, hence, they are not the dependants on the deceased, hence, the claimants are not entitled to get any compensation is concerned, the same is not acceptable in the light of judgment pronounced by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Birender and others, (2020) 11 SCC 356 . 18. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Virender (supra) Honble Apex Court in Para 15 has held as under :— “15. It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major, married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the legal representative concerned was fully dependent on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only. The evidence on record in the present case would suggest that the claimants were working as agricultural labourers on contract basis and were earning meagre income between Rs.1,00,000 and Rs.1,50,000 per annum. In that sense, they were largely dependent on the earning of their mother and in fact, were staying with her, who met with an accident at the young age of 48 years.” (Emphasis supplied) 19. So far the arguments of counsel for the appellant regarding deduction towards personal expenses is concerned, learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased as personal expenses. In the present case there are three dependents on the deceased, who are his sons. So far the arguments of counsel for the appellant regarding deduction towards personal expenses is concerned, learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased as personal expenses. In the present case there are three dependents on the deceased, who are his sons. As per principle laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 in case if there are 2-3 dependents, then deduction should be 1/3rd, hence learned tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd of the income of deceased towards personal expenses. 20. So far as multiplier is concerned, learned tribunal has applied the multiplier of 11 as per the age of deceased. Keeping in view the service book of deceased (Ex.P-13) the date of birth of deceased was 10-4-1958, hence on the date of incident i.e. 24-3-2013 deceased was aged about 55 years, hence as per principle laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) multiplier of 11 appears to be correct. 21. Learned tribunal has awarded Rs. 40,000/- (Forty thousand) towards consortium for each claimants which also appears to be just and proper in the light of judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in para 14 of the case of Janabai (Supra). Para 14 is reproduced as below :— “14. The appellant has claimed compensation on account of love and affection as well on account of spousal consortium for wife and for the parental consortium for the children in the calculation given to this Court but in view of the three-Judge Bench judgment reported as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780 : (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 306, the compensation under the head on account of loss of love and affection is not permissible but compensation on account of spousal consortium for wife and for the parental consortium for children is admissible. This Court held as under : (SCC pp. 797-98, paras 30-35) “30. In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 : (2019) 3 SCC (Civ) 146: (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 153 this Court interpreted “consortium” to be a compendious term, which encompasses spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as 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. 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. 31. 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 family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love and affection, and their role in the family unit. 32. 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 permit parents to be awarded compensation under the loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is the compensation for loss of love and affection, care and companionship of the deceased child. 33. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of 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 the children who lose the care and protection of their parents in motor vehicle accidents. The amount to be awarded for loss consortium will be as per the amount fixed in Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205. 34. At this stage, we consider it necessary to provide uniformity with respect to the grant of consortium, and loss of love and affection. Several Tribunals and the High Courts have been awarding compensation for both loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. 34. At this stage, we consider it necessary to provide uniformity with respect to the grant of consortium, and loss of love and affection. Several Tribunals and the High Courts have been awarding compensation for both loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205], has recognised only three conventional heads under which compensation can be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. In Magma General [Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 : (2019) 3 SCC (Civ) 146: (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 153], this Court gave a comprehensive interpretation to consortium to include spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial consortium. Loss of love and affection is comprehended in loss of consortium. 35. The Tribunals and the High Courts are directed to award compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate conventional head. There is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head.” (Emphasis supplied) 22. Learned tribunal has considered the monthly salary of deceased as Rs. 26,828/- (Twenty Six Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty Eight) on the basis of last payslip (Ex.A-11) and assessed annual income Rs. 3,21,936/- (Three lakhs twenty one thousand nine hundred thirty six). Learned tribunal has not taken into consideration of the income tax which ought to be paid by the deceased. In case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680 , Hon’ble Apex Court has held in para 59.4 that actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 23. Deceased expired on 24-3-2013 which relates to the financial year of 2012-13. In financial year 2012-13, no tax liability with regard to income upto Rs. 2 lakhs and income more than Rs. 2,00,001/- was liable to pay tax @ 10%. Then tax liability will be Rs. 12,194/- (Twelve thousand one hundred ninety four). Then actual yearly salary will be Rs. 3,09,742/- (Three Lakhs nine thousand seven hundred forty two). After deduction of 1/3 in head of personal expenses of deceased, dependency will be Rs. 2,06,495/- (Two lakhs six thousand four hundred ninety five). 24. Then tax liability will be Rs. 12,194/- (Twelve thousand one hundred ninety four). Then actual yearly salary will be Rs. 3,09,742/- (Three Lakhs nine thousand seven hundred forty two). After deduction of 1/3 in head of personal expenses of deceased, dependency will be Rs. 2,06,495/- (Two lakhs six thousand four hundred ninety five). 24. In light of the aforesaid discussion, keeping in view the income and age and the future prospects in terms of judgment pronounced by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the compensation is assessed as follows : Loss of yearly dependency Rs.2,06,495/- + future prospects @ 15% (Rs.2,06,495/- + Rs.30,975/- = Rs.2,37,470/-) x 11 Rs.26,12,170/- Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Loss of filial consortium (40000/- x 3) payable to each of the respondent No. 1, 2 and 3. Rs.1,20,000/- Total Compensation Twenty Seven Lakhs Sixty Two Thousand One Hundred Seventy) Rs.27,62,170/- 25. Thus, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case and as discussed above, this Court is of the opinion that compensation awarded by the learned tribunal is on higher side, which is modified as mentioned above. Other terms of award will be intact. 26. In above terms, appeal filed by appellant stands disposed of. No order as to the costs.