JUDGMENT Alka Sarin, J. (Oral) The present appeal as well as Cross Objections have been filed challenging the award dated 24.11.2021 whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, SAS Nagar (Mohali) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') awarded an amount of Rs. 17,50,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization to the claimant-respondent Nos.1 to 4 on account of death of Somai (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased'). 2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that on the intervening night of 22/23.02.2019, after completing his work as Cook in Silver Oak Palace, Sirhind Road, Patiala, Somai (deceased) and his co-workers were going to their respective houses by foot. The deceased and the co-workers were walking on the left side on katcha portion of the road and their contractor, namely, Dhamsa Prasad, was standing in front of the Silver Oak Palace on his motorcycle. At about 12.00 a.m., a Bolero Jeep bearing registration No.PB-11-BT-6226 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Offending Vehicle') came at a very fast speed and was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and initially struck against the motorcycle of Dhamsa Prasad and thereafter ran over Somai (deceased) and his co-workers. Due to the accident the deceased and his co-workers and the contractor suffered multiple and serious injuries. They were taken to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala from where the deceased was referred to PGI Chandigarh where he succumbed to his injuries. FIR No.32 of 2019 under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at Police Station Anaj Mandi, Patiala against the driver of the offending vehicle, namely, Kesar Singh. The claim petition was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased wherein it was stated that the deceased was 44 years of age and was working as a Cook and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. Claimants are the widow and children of the deceased. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle filed their written statement and raised a preliminary objection that the claim petition was not maintainable and also denied the factum of the accident. The appellant-Insurance Company also filed its reply wherein the factum of the accident was denied. It was further denied that the driver was holding a valid driving licence. 3. The appellant-Insurance Company also filed its reply wherein the factum of the accident was denied. It was further denied that the driver was holding a valid driving licence. 3. On the basis of pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed : 1. Whether Somai had died on account of injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicular accident, which took place during the intervening night of 22.2.2019 and 23.2.2019 in front of Silver Oak Palace, Sirhind Road, Patiala, due to rash and negligent driving of Bolero Jeep bearing registration No. PB-11-BT-6226, by respondent No.1? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR 4. Whether this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the present claim petition? OPR 5. Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, if so, its effect? OPR-2 6. Relief. 4. The Tribunal awarded the following compensation after assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 10,000/- pm : Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded 1 Monthly income Rs. 10,000/- 2 Annual income [10,000 x 12] =Rs. 1,20,000/- 3 Deduction 1/5th [1,20,000-24,000] =Rs. 96,000/- 4 Future prospects @ 25% [96,000+24,000] = Rs. 1,20,000/- 5 Multiplier of 14 [1,20,000x14] = Rs. 16,80,000/- 6 Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- 7 Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- 8 Loss of consortium to claimant-wife Rs. 40,000/- Total Compensation Rs. 17,50,000/- Interest 7% per annum 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would contend that the Tribunal has erred in law in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 10,000/- per month since there was no evidence to the effect that the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. It is further the contention that the monthly income of an unskilled labourer at the relevant point of time was Rs. 8077.71 ps. 6. Per contra learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 7/Cross- Objectors has contended that the deceased was working as a Cook and the contractor had stepped into the witness-box as PW2 and had stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. 8077.71 ps. 6. Per contra learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 7/Cross- Objectors has contended that the deceased was working as a Cook and the contractor had stepped into the witness-box as PW2 and had stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. It has further been contended that no amount has been awarded under the head loss of parental consortium to claimant Nos.2 to 7 as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. [ (2018) 18 SCC 130 ] and N. Jayasree & Ors. v. Cholamandalam M.S General Insurance Company Ltd. [2021(4) RCR (Civil) 642]. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. In the present case the contractor had appeared as PW2 and had deposed that the deceased was working with him as a Cook and that while returning home after completing their work at Silver Oak Palace, Sirhind Road, Patiala the deceased met with an accident in which the deceased, his co-workers and the contractor were all injured. Though the contractor had stated that the deceased was working as a Cook, however, there is no evidence which has come on the record regarding the income of the deceased. Keeping in view the evidence of the contractor, the deceased is treated as a skilled worker since he was working in the capacity of a Cook and applying the minimum wages relevant at that point of time for a skilled worker, the income of the deceased is assessed as Rs. 9,754/- per month. The deduction of 1/5th towards loss of dependency; addition of 25% towards future prospects; and multiplier of 14 have rightly been applied by the Tribunal. However, no amount has been awarded under the head of loss of parental consortium to claimant Nos.2 to 7. The claimant-respondent Nos.2 to 7 would thus be entitled to compensation of Rs. 48,000/- each towards loss of parental consortium as per the settled law in the cases of Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra) and N. Jayasree (supra). 9. In view of the above, the amount of compensation to which the claimant-appellants are held entitled to is re-calculated as under applying 20% increase on the amounts under the conventional heads and the head loss of consortium : Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded 1 Monthly income Rs. 9. In view of the above, the amount of compensation to which the claimant-appellants are held entitled to is re-calculated as under applying 20% increase on the amounts under the conventional heads and the head loss of consortium : Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded 1 Monthly income Rs. 9,754/- 2 Annual income [9,754 x 12] =Rs. 1,17,048/- 3 1/5th Deduction [1,17,048-23,410] =Rs. 93,638/- 4 Future prospects @ 25% [93,638+23,410] = Rs. 1,17,048/- 5 Multiplier of 14 [1,17,048x14] = Rs. 16,38,672/- 6 Funeral expenses Rs. 18,000/- 7 Loss of Estate Rs. 18,000/- 8 Loss of Consortium: (i) Spousal Rs. 48,000/- (ii) Parental Rs. 2,88,000/- (48,000x6) Total Rs. 3,36,000/- Total Compensation Rs. 20,10,672/- (rounded off to Rs. 20,10,700/-) Interest 7% per annum 10. The amount in excess of and over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the entire amount. The enhanced amount shall be apportioned between the claimant-respondent Nos.1 to 7 as directed by the Tribunal. 11. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal (FAO-1846- 2022) filed by the Insurance Company as well as the cross objections (XOBJC-34-2022) filed by the claimants-respondent Nos.1 to 7 are partly allowed. The award passed by the Tribunal is modified accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.