JUDGMENT : 1. The appeal challenging the judgment dated 11.2.2010 passed by MACT (Aux), City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in MACP is filed by the insurance company while the Cross Objection has been filed by the claimants challenging the said judgment. 2. Facts of the case suggest that on 11.1.2005, deceased Jitendera riding his scooter no.GJ-1 EA- 4029 was proceeding from Narol to Kheda, while passing the National Highway near Narol old District Court, one truck bearing registration no. GJ-18 TT-9062 came in an excessive speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the scooterist, as a result, the deceased died on the spot. The criminal complaint was filed before Vatva Police Station bearing CR no.I-37/06. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Mazmudar submitted that the negligence of the deceased has not been considered by the Tribunal and the income is assessed on higher side, while deduction of personal expenses is also not in accordance to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. 4. Countering the arguments, referring to the cross objections preferred for enhancement of compensation, Advocate Mr.Bhatia for the claimants submitted that the deceased was Administrative Manager in Rudraksh Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. and the certificate regarding the income was placed on record which was supported by deposition and thus, submitted that the income has been proved while stated that the prospective rise in income has not been granted by the Tribunal. It was further stated that as per the decision in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the consortium loss, amount for funeral expenses and loss to estate are also required to be considered. 5. In the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 , it has been observed as under:- “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. 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. (Rajesh and Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 54 ) 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.” BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (5th ed. 1979) 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, 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. 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.” 6. 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.” 6. As per facts of the case, deceased was riding his scooter, and he was on National Highway where the accident had taken place, and it was urged that because of rash and negligent driving and over speed of the truck driver, the scooter got smashed and the deceased died on the spot. The complaint Exh.43, Panchanma Exh.44 and the inquest Panchnama Exh.45 with the postmortem report at Exh.47 were put in evidence during the trial. Wife of the deceased examined herself at Exh.31 and eye- witness Ramanbhai Madhubhai Kalavadiya was also examined at Exh.35. The Tribunal considered the evidence on record along with the deposition of eye-witness and had come to the conclusion that no witness or driver has been examined by the opponent, and even the owner has not filed any reply and thus, the contention in the form of complaint, Panchnama and deposition of the eye- witness has remained undefended and thus, the Tribunal has considered to draw adverse inference against the opponent and was not inclined to assess any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The FIR and Panchnama give a probative value to the accident, while the eye- witness Ramanbhai was the person who was running a tea lorry near the place of accident who had said to have seen the accident. As per the facts, the truck got skidded off the road and the scooterist was run over by rear wheel of the truck. Considering this aspect of the evidence which has been proved by the eye-witness, having considering the fact that the truck driver has tried his level best to avert the accident to save the deceased who could have been alert on National Highway, 15% contributory negligence has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal. 7. To prove the income, affidavit of one Sandip Ashok Jain was examined. From the side of the claimants, salary certificate Exh.36, salary voucher Exh.38, salary expense ledger account Exh.39 were produced and the yearly salary was observed to the extent of Rs.4,32,000/- with the audit report. 7. To prove the income, affidavit of one Sandip Ashok Jain was examined. From the side of the claimants, salary certificate Exh.36, salary voucher Exh.38, salary expense ledger account Exh.39 were produced and the yearly salary was observed to the extent of Rs.4,32,000/- with the audit report. The same was also supported with the payment voucher Exhs.38 and 39 and hence, the income of Rs.10,000/- considered by the Tribunal is in accordance to the evidence produced on record, the vouchers of the receipt of salary amount corroborates the evidence on record and hence, accordingly, Rs.10,000/- is considered as income. 8. In the certificate, it was stated that the deceased was aged about 41 years at the time of the accident and hence, in accordance to the judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , 25% prospective rise is to be considered which on being included the amount of Rs.12,500/- is the monthly salary (Rs.10,000/- + Rs.2,500/-). One-fourth is to be deducted considering the dependents. Hence, reducing Rs.3,125/-, monthly dependency would be Rs.9,375/- annually applying multiplier of 14, the loss of dependency would come to Rs.15,75,000/- (Rs.9,375/- X 12 X 14). 9. The mother has died during trial, considering the loss to the father, widow and 3 sons who were still studying, consortium loss for 5 would be Rs.2 lacs in accordance to the judgment in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra). 10. As per the decision in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants would be entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss to estate. Hence, the computation is as under:- Rs.15,75,000/- loss of dependency Rs. 2,00,000/- consortium loss Rs. 15,000/- loss to estate Rs. 15,000/- funeral expenses Rs.18,05,000/- Total compensation 11. 15% contributory negligence is Rs.2,70,750/- has to be deducted, and the amount receivable is Rs.15,34,250/-. 12. As the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.11,90,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum, the claimants would be entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.3,44,250/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. The enhanced amount is directed to be deposited within eight weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this Court. 13. The enhanced amount is directed to be deposited within eight weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this Court. 13. On deposit of the amount, let the said amount be paid to the claimants on verification of the identity in proportion as declared by the Tribunal, further the amount which falls in the share of the deceased mother is to be paid to the widow, claimant no.3 on verification of the identity. 14. The appeal as well as the cross objections are disposed of. The impugned judgment and award be modified accordingly. Registry is directed to send the record and proceedings back to the Tribunal, if received.