JUDGMENT : 1. By way of this Appeal, the Appellant-The Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. (GSRTC) has challenged the judgment and award dated 13.09.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Valsad in M.A.C.P. No.143 of 2010. The Cross Objection is filed by the claimants. 2. The facts giving rise to the present Appeal can be put succinctly as under :- On 28.02.2009, at about 14.30 hours the deceased Nitinkumar Natwarlal Bhandari aged 25 years, at the time of accident was going from Ambawadi to Umargam. When he reached Mohangam, Khanmora Road, the driver (respondent No.1) of a State Transport Bus bearing Registration No.GJ-18-V-6589 came on the wrong side, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the deceased, haphazardly dragged the deceased because of which the deceased died. A First Information Report was registered at Bhilad Police Station as I-C.R. No.19 of 2009. A charge- sheet was also filed against the respondent No.1. 3. Learned Advocate for the appellant-GSRTC Ms. Kiran D. Pandey submitted that learned Tribunal in assessment of rashness and negligence of the State Transport Bus Driver is not supported by documentary evidence. It is further stated that the victim was driving his motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner, he was on the wrong side and collided with the bus, which shows that the deceased was solely liable for the accident. It is also submitted that the learned Tribunal was required to appreciate the evidence on record to conclude regarding the negligence aspect and submitted that the findings of the learned Tribunal of the rash and negligent driving of the Bus Driver is erroneous. It is also submitted that the claimants had not joined the Insurance Company of the motor cycle which was involved in the accident. The learned Tribunal has not appreciated the complaint and the panchnama on record in its right perspective. The observations made by the learned Tribunal are absolutely vague without due regard to the evidence on record of the bus driver. 3.1. Learned Advocate Ms. Kiran D. Pandey submitted that the learned Tribunal has not followed the dictums of the superior Court and also submitted that the total compensation awarded would be just and reasonable and would not be considered as insufficient. 4. Learned Advocate for the claimants Mr. 3.1. Learned Advocate Ms. Kiran D. Pandey submitted that the learned Tribunal has not followed the dictums of the superior Court and also submitted that the total compensation awarded would be just and reasonable and would not be considered as insufficient. 4. Learned Advocate for the claimants Mr. Tirth Nayak submitted that the evidence was produced on record by way of statement of the brother of the deceased Ankit Natwarlal Bhandari, who had produced his examination-in-chief at Exhibit 22, has stated that the Bus Driver had come on the wrong side and was driving the bus, endangering human life and dashed the deceased leading to his death. In support of the evidence, he had produced the complaint at Exhibit 15 and the Panchnama at Exhibit 16. 5. The complaint was given by Mahendra Mohanbhai Bhandari, who had immediately gone at the place of accident on receiving information. As per the complainant, the motor cycle of the deceased was lying in front of the right wheel ran over the head of the deceased. He had stated that the deceased was his paternal cousin. It is submitted that the complainant is the person who had immediately seen the place of accident and has given his version as seen by him. The facts get corroborated by the panchnama. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence of the claimants as well as referring to the contents of the First Information Report with the Panchnama and that of the evidence of the Bus Driver at Exhibit 27, and the evidence of eye witness has concluded the sole negligence of the bus driver. 6. The arguments raised by learned Advocate for Insurance company was in context to the burden on the claimants to prove that it was because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus bearing Registration No.GJ-18-V-6589 death occurred. The learned Tribunal had referred to the evidence of the claimant – the complaint of Mahendra Mohanbhai Bhandari, the panchnama as well as the evidence of the bus driver who in his examination in chief has stated before the learned Tribunal, that the deceased was coming on the right side and on the turning got slipped and therefore, the bus driver stated he had not dashed with the motorcycle. The learned Tribunal has not believed the bus driver, observing that it is contrary to the complaint as well as the physical condition of the motor cycle and the dead body of the deceased which was at the place of accident. Thus, it is contended that it could not be believed that the deceased had not dashed with the bus, and that he died as his motorcycle slipped. In the cross examination at Exhibit 27, the bus driver had admitted that he has not filed any complaint and had admitted that the charge-sheet has been filed against him and he was convicted. 7. It is true that criminal proceedings cannot be made part of the record of the claims trial, but the fact cannot be refuted that the charge-sheet has been filed against the bus driver. The contention of the bus driver that the deceased had not dashed with the bus and that death was because he had slipped from his own vehicle, obviously cannot be believed since the tyre of the bus had run over the head of the deceased. The contrary evidence in the oral deposition does not find corroboration with the other evidence on record. This Court has no reason not to believe the learned Tribunal as because of the sole negligence of the bus driver, the accident had occurred and the fatal injury had led to death of Nitishkumar Natwarlal Bhandari. Hence, the ground raised by the appellant-G.S.R.T.C. against the observations of the learned Tribunal in that regard is meritless. 8. Learned Advocate for the claimants Mr. Tirth Nayak stated that the deceased was working as a Supervisor in Vikram Plastic Size (P) Limited. The H.R. Manager was examined at Exhibit 28 who had produced the Affidavits at Exhibits 22 to 24. It is further submitted that though the evidence of the monthly income of the deceased was proved, the learned Tribunal has failed to consider the same and had relied upon the notional income considering it to be for the year 2009. 9. The witness H.R. Manager – Dineshbhai Laljibhai Rathod had stated that the deceased was a supervisor in the company and they deducted the provident fund amount. The deceased was receiving 18% Bonus and Rs.700/- every month, as petrol allowance. 9. The witness H.R. Manager – Dineshbhai Laljibhai Rathod had stated that the deceased was a supervisor in the company and they deducted the provident fund amount. The deceased was receiving 18% Bonus and Rs.700/- every month, as petrol allowance. Exhibit 22 was produced to show the salary of the deceased and for the year between 01.05.2006 to 28.09.2009, the salary was stated to be Rs.4,400/- per month. The witness had also deposed before the learned Tribunal that the prospective rise in income would have been Rs.13,400/- as on 01.09.2014. The witness had stated of increment for the year 2009-2010. The accident had occurred on 28.02.2009. 10. The Certificate shows that on 28.02.2009, the income of the deceased was Rs.4,400/-. The learned Tribunal did not accept the deposition of the witness, and observed that the said evidence ought to have been proved by way of Salary revision, Salary slip and Bank statement or Pass Book. However, it is to be noted that the fact remains that the deceased was Supervisor in Vikram Plastic Size (P) Limited. There could not be any denial to that aspect. 11. In absence of documentary evidence, and considering the status of job of the deceased, keeping in view the minimum wages standard, the monthly wages payable by the State, this Court is the opinion that Rs.4,000/- should be considered as monthly income of the deceased. The age of the deceased was considered as 25 years by the learned Tribunal. In view of the age and considering his employment, 50% prospective rise in income is required to be assessed. Hence, adding Rs.2,000/- in income would be Rs.6,000/- per month. 12. Considering the number of the dependents, 1/3 of the income would be required to be deducted for personal expenses which would be Rs.2,000/-. Hence the monthly dependency would be Rs.4,000/-. Annually applying the multiplier of 18, the dependency loss would come to Rs.8,64,000/- (Rs.4,000/- x 12 months x 18 multiplier). 13. The learned Tribunal has granted consortium loss of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith loss to estate. The learned Tribunal has also granted an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection. This is an erroneous assessment. 14. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. 13. The learned Tribunal has granted consortium loss of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith loss to estate. The learned Tribunal has also granted an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection. This is an erroneous assessment. 14. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 , the consortium amount is to be granted. Relevant paragraphs of this decision are reproduced hereunder :- “8.7 A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) 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. 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, co- operation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation.” 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 Rajesh and Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 54 BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (5th ed. 1979) 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, companionship and their role in the family unit. 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. 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. 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.” 15. The learned Tribunal has granted Rs.25,000/- under the head of Funeral Expenses. This is not in accordance with the ratio as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in 2017 16 SCC 680 . 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Limited v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Others reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 410 has considered the decisions in the cases of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra). The expression consortium loss would include the loss of love and affection. As observed in the decision in the case of Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Others (supra), there is no justification for bifurcating the amount as under love and affection where already the concept of consortium loss would include the same. It was observed in the above decision as under :- “In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram & Ors., 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. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse. 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. 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 permit parents to be awarded compensation under 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. 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. In Magma General (supra), 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. The Tribunals and 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.” 17. The claimants are the parents, widow and brother. This Court in view of the decision in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) would grant Rs.40,000/- each as consortium loss to the parents and the widow. Thus, under the head of consortium loss, for three of the claimants, the amount would come to Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x 3 claimants). 18. In view of the decision in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), Rs.15,000/- each is granted under the head of Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses. 19. Thus, the computation can be made as under :- Details Amount (Rs.) Dependency Loss 8,64,000/- Consortium Loss 1,20,000/- Funeral Expenses 15,000/- Loss to Estate 15,000/- TOTAL 10,14,000/- 20. 18. In view of the decision in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), Rs.15,000/- each is granted under the head of Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses. 19. Thus, the computation can be made as under :- Details Amount (Rs.) Dependency Loss 8,64,000/- Consortium Loss 1,20,000/- Funeral Expenses 15,000/- Loss to Estate 15,000/- TOTAL 10,14,000/- 20. The learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.8,73,000/- with rate of interest @ 8% per annum, which the appellant is liable to deposit, with the enhanced amount as Rs.1,41,000/- (Rs.10,14,000/- minus Rs.8,73,000/-). In the result, the present appellant is directed to deposit the amount within a period of TEN (10) WEEKS from the date of receipt of writ of the order of this Court. It is further directed that the claimants would be entitled to receive the enhanced compensation with rate of interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the application till its realization and the disbursement of the amount be made as per the judgment and award of the learned Tribunal. 21. After deposit of the above / enhanced amount, it is directed that the TOTAL compensation amount be paid to the appellants – claimants, in the ratio as laid down by the learned Tribunal, by Account Payee Cheque / NEFT / RTGS, after carrying the necessary procedures for verification of their identities. 22. In view of the above, the Cross Objection is partly allowed whereas the Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and award dated 13.09.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Valsad in M.A.C.P. No.143 of 2010 stands modified to the above extent. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Court / Tribunal forthwith.