JUDGMENT : 1. Considering the issue involved, let First Appeal be listed today itself for final hearing. 2. The challenge is given by the Insurance Company to the judgment dated 12.02.2020 in MACP No.1713 of 2011 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur. 3. Mr. Maulik Shelat, learned advocate for the Insurance Company submitted that just and reasonable amount should be given, and the compensation granted under various heads should be in consonance with the Apex Court judgment. 3.1 Advocate Mr. Shelat referring to the schedule with details of different heads submitted that in accordance to the judgment of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors., reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 , once consortium loss has been granted then no amount should be given under the head of loss of love and affection. Mr. Shelat further, stated that calculation of loss to estate, consortium loss and funeral expense should be in accordance to the judgment of Pranay Sethi and Ors. (supra) and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., reported in (2018) SCC 130 [ 2018 ACJ 2782 ], while excess amount has been paid by the Tribunal. The calculation should be in accordance to the Pranay Sethi and Ors. (supra), where the enhancement of 10% would be only after every three years. The judgment of the Pranay Sethi and Ors. (supra) had been delivered on 31.10.2017, while the impugned judgment is of 12.02.2020, which, thus, does not complete three years. 4. Advocate Mr. Krunal R.Saksena for the claimants submitted that the assessment has been made by the Tribunal are supported by the reasons, and submitted that judgment does require any interference of this Court. 5. As per the facts of the case, the accident took place on 02.05.2011 at about 9.30 p.m. The deceased and one Vijuji Laluji Thakor were going towards Savarkundla in loading Rickshaw No.GJ-2Z-1346, for the purpose of purchasing farming equipment. The deceased was driving the loading rickshaw, and when they reached near under pass of village Zinzar, near Dhandhuka, the driver of Tata Vehicle No.GJ-1AU- 4404, came in rash and negligent manner, violating the traffic rules and tried to overtake the loading rickshaw. As a result, Tata vehicle dashed with the rickshaw. The deceased sustained serious fatal injuries and succumbed during the course of treatment. 6. As a result, Tata vehicle dashed with the rickshaw. The deceased sustained serious fatal injuries and succumbed during the course of treatment. 6. The age of the deceased has been considered as 45 years and 25% prospective rise has been assessed on the monthly income of Rs.3,500/-. Accordingly, the calculation is made deducting 1/3rd amount considering the dependency, and dependency loss of Rs.4,90,000/- has been granted. 7. The Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of Pranay Sethi and Ors. (supra), and considered the basic amount of 15,000/- for funeral expense and loss to estate and even added 10% on the said amount observing that it has to be enhanced at the said rate for every three years. 7.1 As referred hereinabove, to the date of judgment of Pranay Sethi and Ors. (supra), the date of the impugned judgment does not complete a period of three years, hence, the addition of 10% to the amount, would, on the face of record becomes erroneous. Further, the loss of consortium has been granted as Rs.40,000/- for both the claimants, thus, adding the amount, which has been noted under the head of loss to estate, consortium loss and funeral expense, the total amount would come to Rs.1,10,000/-, while the Tribunal has granted Rs.1,19,000, and, thus, Rs.9,000/- is excess amount under the said head. 8. The consortium loss becomes payable in accordance to the judgment of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. (supra), and both the children have received the amount of consortium loss. 9. As noted in the judgment of Pranay Sethi and Ors. (supra), the Apex Court has differentiated the concept of amount under the head of consortium loss and that of the love and affection for the children on death of the parents. 10. In United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur Alias Satwinder Kaur And Ors., reported in (2021) 11 SCC 780 , the Apex Court, in view of judgment of Pranay Sethi and Ors. (supra) and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. (supra), has dealt with this issue and has found that loss of love and affection is comprehended in loss of consortium. It has been expressed in following terms in paragraph-34: “34. At this stage, we consider it necessary to provide uniformity with respect to the grant of consortium, and loss of love and affection. It has been expressed in following terms in paragraph-34: “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 High Courts have been awarding compensation for both loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi and Ors. (supra), has recognized only three conventional heads under which compensation can be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. In Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. (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.” 11. In view of the observation and the explanation to the concept of loss of consortium, there is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection under a separate head. The claimants are appropriately compensated as amount of Rs.80,000/- in accordance to the judgment of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. (supra), hence, further amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection is not a justifiable amount. Hence, considering this aspect, this Court is of an opinion that amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.9,000/- is excess payment to the claimants in the total compensation of Rs.7,09,000/- granted by the Tribunal. 12. In view of the above, the Insurance Company would be liable to pay only Rs.6,00,000/-. The Tribunal has considered the sole negligence of driver of Tata Vehicle No.GJ- 1AU-4404, which was insured with the present appellant. 13. It is submitted that the amount has already been deposited. Let the amount of Rs.1,09,000/- with proportionate cost and accrued interest be refunded back to the Insurance Company, and rest of the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- be paid to the claimants with accrued interest in equal proportion. 14. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 12.02.2020 in MACP No.1713 of 2011 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur stands modified to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. 15. All the pending Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly. 14.1 Record & Proceedings be sent back to the concerned tribunal forthwith, if received.