JUDGMENT : SUSHIL KUKREJA, J. 1. Since both these petitions are offshoots of impugned award dated 06.06.2013, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Solan, District Solan, H.P. in MAC Petition No. 31-S/2 of 2011, they are taken up together for adjudication. FAO No. 21 of 2014 2. The instant appeal is maintained by the appellant/United India Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Insurer”) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for short “the Act”), against the award, dated 06.06.2013, passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal-I, Solan, District Solan, H.P. in MAC Petition No. 31-S/2 of 2011, whereby the petition filed by the petitioners/claimants, who are respondents No. 1 and 2 herein (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioners”) seeking compensation, was allowed and the appellant was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- to the petitioners, with a prayer to quash and set-aside the impugned award by dismissing the claim petition of the petitioners with costs throughout. FAO No. 37 of 2014 3. On the other hand, the instant petition (FOA No. 37 of 2014) has been preferred by the petitioners under Section 173 of the Act against the award dated 06.06.2013, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Solan, H.P. in MAC Petition No. 31-S/2 of 2011, whereby the claim petition filed by them was partly allowed by awarding compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- in their favour alongwith interest @ 7% per annum, with a prayer to allow their appeals throughout with costs, by modifying the award and consequently awarding a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- as claimed by them in their claim petition. 4. Succinctly, the facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the petitioners, being the parents of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act against the respondents, i.e. Ms. Meridian Medicare Ltd. Shamti, Shri Devender Kumar and United Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the respondents”) whereby compensation for the death of their son on account of a motor vehicle accident, which took place on 21.06.2011, on National Highway-22, at place Din Raat Dhaba near Kumarhatti, was sought. 5. As per the petitioners/claimants, on 21.06.2011 the deceased was travelling with his maternal grand uncle (Nana) and father on scooter No. HP-14-6940. Nana of the deceased was driving the aforesaid vehicle and father of the deceased was sitting as pillion rider. 5. As per the petitioners/claimants, on 21.06.2011 the deceased was travelling with his maternal grand uncle (Nana) and father on scooter No. HP-14-6940. Nana of the deceased was driving the aforesaid vehicle and father of the deceased was sitting as pillion rider. The deceased was sitting in between the driver and pillion rider and around 06:40 p.m. when the vehicle reached at a place known as Din Raat Dhaba on National Highway-22, near Kumarhatti, Innova Car, bearing registration No. HP-14A-5170 came from Kumarhatti side, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and in a high speed by Devender Kumar, respondent No. 2, before the learned Tribunal below (respondent No. 4 in FAO No. 21 of 2014) struck against the scooter No. HP-14-6940. Due to the accident, the scooterist, pillion rider and the child traveling on the aforesaid scooter sustained grievous injuries and the child ultimately died. The petitioners/claimants, being parents of the deceased child, by filing the claim petition, sought compensation of rupees ten lacs from the respondents for the death of their son. As per the petitioners, M/s Meridian Medicare Ltd. was the owner of the offending vehicle No. HP-14A-5170, and United India Insurance Company Ltd. was the insurer of the offending vehicle, thus they are liable to pay the compensation. 6. Respondents No. 1 and 2 (owner and driver of the offending vehicle) filed separate replies to the claim petition, wherein they raised preliminary objections, viz. maintainability of the petition, the petitioners have suppressed the material facts, they have no locus-standi and cause of action to file the claim petition. They denied that the petitioner was a Supervisor in House Keeping Agency in Ultimate Utility, Phase-VI, Industrial Area, Mohali. The replying respondents also denied the income of the petitioner to be Rs. 6,500/- per month. They admitted the occurrence of the accident, but averred that it occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the scooter driver. It was further averred that due to the high speed of the scooter, it collided with the Innova car, bearing registration No. HP-14A-5170, which was being driven by Shri Devender Kumar. As per the replying respondents, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the scooter driver. It was further averred that due to the high speed of the scooter, it collided with the Innova car, bearing registration No. HP-14A-5170, which was being driven by Shri Devender Kumar. As per the replying respondents, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the scooter driver. It was also averred that the driver of the innova car took all steps to avoid the accident by applying emergency brake, but the scooter driver was so rash and negligent in driving the scooter at high speed and struck it against the innova car, thus the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation. Lastly, it was averred that in case the learned Tribunal comes to the conclusion that just and reasonable compensation is to be paid to the petitioner, then the insurer may be held liable to the pay the same, as the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurer (United Insurance Company Ltd.). 7. The insurer (United Insurance Company Ltd.) filed separate reply to the claim petition, wherein it was averred that driver of offending vehicle No. HP-14-A-5170, was not having valid and effective driving licence, that the vehicle was being driven in violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and standard policy conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. It was further averred that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the scooter driver, as he struck his vehicle against the Innova Car No. HP-14A-5170 and he was also not having valid and effective driving licence. It was also averred that Innova Car No. HP14A-5170 was being plied without any valid registration certificate and fitness certificate, thus there was breach of standard policy conditions and also of the provisions of the Act, therefore, the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. As per the replying respondent, the claim is not only exaggerated but also excessive without any legal basis and if interest is liable to be paid, then it should be @ 6% per annum and reasonable compensation is only to be paid to the petitioners. 8. On 27.06.2012 on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal below has framed the following issues: “1. 8. On 27.06.2012 on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal below has framed the following issues: “1. Whether the accident was result of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle in question by respondent No. 2 and the deceased died in that accident? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR 4. Whether the petitioners have no locus-standi to file the present petition as alleged? OPR 5. Whether the offending vehicle in question did not have any valid registration certificate, fitness certificate and route permit at the time of accident? If so, its effect? OPR3 6. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle in question was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? If so, its effect? OPR3 7. Whether the accident was the result of contributory negligence as alleged? If so, its effect? OPR3 8. Relief.” After deciding issues No. 1 and 2 in favour of the petitioners, issues No. 3 to 7 against the respondents, the claim petition was allowed and the petitioners were held entitled for compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- from the insurer, which was ordered to be equally shared by the petitioners and was to be paid by insurer with costs of the petition and with pending and future interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of actual payment. 9. Feeling dissatisfied, the appellant/Insurer preferred appeal (FAO No. 21 of 2014) under Section 173 of the Act against the impugned award with a prayer to set aside the same by dismissing the claim petition, filed by the petitioners/claimants, with costs throughout and the appellants/petitioners-claimants also filed appeal (FAO No. 37 of 2014) against the impugned award, with a prayer to allow the appeal throughout with costs, by modifying the impugned award and consequently awarding a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation amount. 10. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel/Counsel for the respective parties and carefully examined the entire record. 11. 10,00,000/- as compensation amount. 10. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel/Counsel for the respective parties and carefully examined the entire record. 11. The perusal of the record reveals that on 21.06.2011 the deceased was travelling with his maternal grandfather and father on scooter No. HP-14-6940 and at about 06:40 p.m. when the scooter reached at a place known as Din Raat Dhaba, near Kumarhatti, one Innova car, having registration No. HP-14A-5170, came from the opposite direction and struck against the scooter, as a result of which the child, namely Master Saurav Kumar, died in the accident. 12. To prove the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No. 2 i.e. the driver of the offending vehicle, the petitioner No. 2, who is the father of the deceased, appeared in the witness-box as PW-4 and has tendered his affidavit by way of evidence, Ex.PW-4/A, wherein he deposed that on 21.06.2011 he was travelling on scooter No. HP-14-6940 as a pillion rider, which was being driven by Ramesh Kumar and his deceased son was sitting in between him and Ramesh Kumar. He further deposed that at about 06:40 p.m. when the scooter reached at a place known as Din Raat Dhaba, on the National Highway, Innova Car No. HP14A-5170, which was being driven by respondent No. 2, came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and struck against the scooter, as a result of which the accident took place. He was cross-examined at length, however, nothing favourable could be elicited from his lengthy cross-examination to impeach his credibility. 13. On the other hand, the driver of the offending vehicle appeared in the witness-box as RW-1 and tendered in evidence his affidavit, Ex. RW-1/A, wherein he deposed that on 21.06.2011 he was driving the vehicle, i.e. HP-14A-5170, and was going from Solan to Chandigarh. He further stated that around 06:40 p.m. when he reached near Kumarhatti, a scooter, on which three persons were traveling, came in a high speed from the wrong direction. On seeing the scooter, he stopped his vehicle by applying brake, but the scooter was being driven so rashly and negligently that it struck against his vehicle. He also stated that in the accident the driver of the scooter, pillion rider and a boy sustained injuries and due to the grievous injuries, the boy died. On seeing the scooter, he stopped his vehicle by applying brake, but the scooter was being driven so rashly and negligently that it struck against his vehicle. He also stated that in the accident the driver of the scooter, pillion rider and a boy sustained injuries and due to the grievous injuries, the boy died. In cross-examination he admitted that he was driving the offending vehicle on the date of the accident. He further admitted that his car got struck against the scooter on the relevant date near Din Raat Dhaba and the police had prepared a case of rash and negligent driving against him. He also admitted that regarding the accident in question, a criminal case was pending against him in a Court at Kasauli. 14. The perusal of the statement of the driver of the offending vehicle shows that he was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at the time of the accident and had struck his vehicle against the scooter, thereby causing the death of the deceased. Even, in the FIR, it has been mentioned that accident took place due to his rash and negligent driving and a criminal case has also been registered against him for rash and negligent driving. Thus, in view of the entire evidence on record, it has been duly proved that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, i.e. Innova Car No. HP-14A-5170, as a result of which, Master Saurab Kumar aged about 8 years died in the accident in question. 15. The perusal of the record reveals that the learned Tribunal below had awarded compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- to the petitioners, being the parents of the deceased for the death of their child. The petitioners, i.e. claimants have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement in the compensation, whereas, the Insurance Company had filed the present appeal on the ground that the learned Tribunal below had awarded the compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- which is on a higher side. 16. Now, the question which arises for consideration is as to what compensation should be awarded to the petitioners/claimants for the death of their child, who was 8 years old at the time of the accident in question. 17. 6,00,000/- which is on a higher side. 16. Now, the question which arises for consideration is as to what compensation should be awarded to the petitioners/claimants for the death of their child, who was 8 years old at the time of the accident in question. 17. In Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the Apex Court laid down the principles governing determination of quantum of compensation in the case of death in a motor accident. The Apex Court held that, the compensation awarded does not become ‘just compensation’ merely because the Tribunal considers it to be just. Just compensation is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit. To have uniformity and consistency, Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by following the well settled steps, namely, ascertaining the multiplicand (annual contribution to the family), the multiplier and calculation of loss of dependency by multiplying the multiplicand by such multiplier. 18. In National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with the concept of ‘just compensation’ and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standard because such determination can never be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect. The aim is to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical precision on the basis of materials brought on record in an individual case. The conception of ‘just compensation’ has to be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non-violation of the principle of equitability. In a case of death, the legal heirs of the claimants cannot expect a windfall. Simultaneously, the compensation granted cannot be an apology for compensation. It cannot be a pittance. Though the discretion vested in the Tribunal is quite wide, yet it is obligatory on the part of the Tribunal to be guided by the expression, i.e. just compensation. 19. In a case of death, the legal heirs of the claimants cannot expect a windfall. Simultaneously, the compensation granted cannot be an apology for compensation. It cannot be a pittance. Though the discretion vested in the Tribunal is quite wide, yet it is obligatory on the part of the Tribunal to be guided by the expression, i.e. just compensation. 19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Gopal and Another vs. Lala and Others, (2014) 1 SCC 244 and after following the ratio in Lata Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 197 considering the case of death of a ten years old child, assessed his notional income at Rs. 30,000/- per annum, applied the multiplier of 15 by taking the age of the younger parents and calculated the loss of dependency at Rs. 4,50,000/- (Rs. 30,000 x 15). Further, it awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- under conventional heads. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: “37. Further, in Lata Wadhwa case it was observed that insofar as the children of age group between 10 to 15 years are concerned, they are all students of Class VI to Class X and are children of employees of TISCO and one of the children was employed in the Company in the said case having regard to the fact the contribution of the deceased child was taken Rs. 12,000/- p.a. appears to be on the lower side and held that the contribution of such children should be Rs. 24,000 p.a. 38. In our considered view, the aforesaid legal principle laid down in Lata Wadhwa case with all fours is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand having regard to the fact that the deceased was 10 years old, who was assisting the appellants in their agricultural occupation which is an undisputed fact. We have also considered the fact that the rupee value has come down drastically from the year 1994, when the notional income of the non-earning member prior to the date of accident was fixed at Rs. 15,000. Further, the deceased boy, had he been alive would have certainly contributed substantially to the family of the appellants by working hard. 39. In view of the aforesaid reasons, it would be just and reasonable for us to take his notional income at Rs. 15,000. Further, the deceased boy, had he been alive would have certainly contributed substantially to the family of the appellants by working hard. 39. In view of the aforesaid reasons, it would be just and reasonable for us to take his notional income at Rs. 30,000 and further taking the young age of the parents, namely, the mother who was about 36 years old, at the time of accident, by applying the legal principles laid down in Sarla Verma vs. DTC, the multiplier of 15 can be applied to the multiplicand. Thus, 30,000 x 15 = 4,50,000 and 50,000 under conventional heads towards loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, last rites as held in Kerala SRTC vs. Susamma Thomas, which is referred to in Lata Wadhwa case and the said amount under the conventional heads is awarded even in relation to the death of children between 10 to 15 years old. In this case also we award Rs. 50,000 under conventional heads. In our view, for the aforesaid reasons, the said amount would be fair, just and reasonable compensation to be awarded in favour of the appellants.” 20. Thereafter, in Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali and Another vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and Another, (2022) 1 SCC 317 , considering the case of death of a seven year old boy studying in Class-II and noticing the earlier judgments in the case of Rajendra Singh and Others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others, (2020) 7 SCC 256 , Puttamma and Others vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and Another, (2013) 15 SCC 45 , R.K. Malik vs. Kiran Pal, (2009) 14 SCC 1 , as well as the case of Kishan Gopal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 25,000/- per annum, applied the multiplier of 15 and assessed the loss of dependency at Rs. 3,75,000/- (25,000 x 15). It further awarded compensation towards filial consortium and funeral expenses. The Supreme Court reiterated that the fixing notional income in the sum of Rs. 15,000 per annum under Schedule-II for computing compensation on the basis of Schedule-II, as inserted in the Act on 14.11.1994, is unjust and unreasonable due to higher cost of living. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: “13. The Supreme Court reiterated that the fixing notional income in the sum of Rs. 15,000 per annum under Schedule-II for computing compensation on the basis of Schedule-II, as inserted in the Act on 14.11.1994, is unjust and unreasonable due to higher cost of living. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: “13. In R.K. Malik also, this Court has observed that the notional income fixed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as Rs. 15,000 per annum should be enhanced and increased as the same continued to exist without any amendment since 14-11-1994. In Kishan Gopal where the deceased was a ten-year-old child, this Court has fixed his notional income at Rs. 30,000 per annum. 14. In this case, it is to be noted that the accident was on 6-9-2004. In spite of repeated directions, Schedule II is not yet amended. Therefore, fixing notional income at Rs. 15,000 per annum for non-earning members is not just and reasonable. 15. In view of the judgments in Puttamma, R.K. Malik and Kishan Gopal, we are of the view that it is a fit case to increase the notional income by taking into account the inflation, devaluation of the rupee and cost of living. In view of the same, the judgment in Rajendra Singh relied on by the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 insurance company would not render any assistance to the case of the insurance company.” 21. In a recent judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Meena Devi vs. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto and Others, (2023) 1 SCC 204 , considering the case of a death of a 12 year old child, assessed his notional earning at Rs. 30,000/- per annum including the future prospects, applied the multiplier of 15 and calculated the loss of dependency at Rs. 4,50,000. Further it awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- under the conventional heads. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is as under: “15. In view of the foregoing decisions, it is apparent that in the cases of child death, the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- as specified in the IInd Schedule of M.V. Act has been enhanced on account of devaluation of money and value of rupee coming down from the date on which the IInd Schedule of M.V. Act was introduced and the said notional income was treated as Rs. 15,000/- as specified in the IInd Schedule of M.V. Act has been enhanced on account of devaluation of money and value of rupee coming down from the date on which the IInd Schedule of M.V. Act was introduced and the said notional income was treated as Rs. 30,000/- in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra) and Rs. 25,000/- in Kurvan Ansari (supra) in age group of 10 and 7 years respectively. 16. Thus applying the ratio of the said judgments, looking to the age of the child in the present case i.e. 12 years, the principles laid down in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra) are aptly applicable to the facts of the present case. As per the ocular statement of the mother of the deceased, it is clear that deceased was a brilliant student and studying in a private school. Therefore, accepting the notional earning Rs. 30,000/- including future prospect and applying the multiplier of 15 in view of the decision of this Court in Sarla Verma (supra), the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4,50,000/- and if we add Rs. 50,000/- in conventional heads, then the total sum of compensation comes to Rs. 5,00,000/-. As per the judgment of MACT, lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- has been awarded, while the High Court enhanced it to Rs. 2,00,000/- up to the value of the Claim Petition. In our view, the said amount of compensation is not just and reasonable looking to the computation made hereinabove. Hence, we determine the total compensation as Rs. 5,00,000/- and on reducing the amount as awarded by the High Court i.e. Rs. 2,00,000/- the enhanced amount comes to Rs. 3,00,000/-.” 22. On coming to the case on hand, the deceased was aged about 8 years old at the material time, which is not disputed. As per the above cited decisions of the Supreme Court, had he been alive, he would have rendered his valuable help both physically and financially to his parents. Hence, considering the age of the minor child being 8 years, it is deemed appropriate to assess the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 30,000/- per annum including the future prospects as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Meena Devi vs. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto and Others (supra) and by applying the multiplier of 15, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 30,000/- per annum including the future prospects as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Meena Devi vs. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto and Others (supra) and by applying the multiplier of 15, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4,50,000/- (30,000 x 15). 23. In National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that the head relating to loss of care and guidance for minor children does not exist. The conventional and traditional heads cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The Court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the Tribunals and Courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, the reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. The Apex Court observed that, it would be condign that the amounts that have quantified as above should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years, which will bring in consistency in respect of those heads. 24. In Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss of consortium. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi 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” or “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: 21.1. Spousal consortium is general defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation o the surviving spouse for loss of “company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation.” 21.2. 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.” 21.3. 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. 22. 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 love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.” 25. While placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Somwati and Others, (2020) 9 SCC 644 , the learned counsel representing the petitioners submitted that petitioners being parents of the deceased are also entitled for consortium @ Rs. 40,000/- each. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment rendered in case titled Magma General Insurance Co. 40,000/- each. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment rendered in case titled Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) which has also been taken note of, in Somwati’s case, has laid down that consortium is not limited to spousal consortium and it also includes parental consortium as well as filial consortium. Having taken note of the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court in its latest judgment passed in Somwati’s case (supra) has held as under: “34. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi has also not under conventional head included any compensation towards ‘loss of love and affection’ which have been now further reiterated by three-Judge Bench in United India Insurance Company Ltd. (supra). It is thus now authoritatively well settled that no compensation can be awarded under the head ‘loss of love and affection’. 35. The word ‘consortium’ has been defined in Black’s law Dictionary, 10th edition. The Black’s law dictionary also simultaneously notices the filial consortium, parental consortium and spousal consortium in following manner: “Consortium 1 - The benefits that one person, esp. A spouse, is entitled to receive from another, including companionship, cooperation, affection, aid, financial support, and (between spouses) sexual relations a claim for loss of consortium. Filial consortium A child’s society, affection, and companionship given to a parent. Parental consortium A parent’s society, affection and companionship given to a child. Spousal consortium A spouse’s society, affection and companionship given to the other spouse.” 36. In Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. (Supra) as well as United India Insurance Company Ltd. (Supra), Three-Judge Bench laid down that the consortium is not limited to spousal consortium and it also includes parental consortium as well as filial consortium. In paragraph 87 of United India Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) ‘consortium’ to all the three claimants was thus awarded. Paragraph 87 is quoted below: 37. Insofar as the conventional heads are concerned, the deceased Satpal Singh left behind a widow and three children as his dependants. On the basis of the judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General (supra), the following amounts are awarded under the conventional heads: (i) Loss of estate Rs. 15,000 (ii) Loss of consortium (a) Spousal consortium Rs. 40,000 (b) Parental consortium [40,000 x 3] Rs. 1,20,000 (iii) Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000 37. On the basis of the judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General (supra), the following amounts are awarded under the conventional heads: (i) Loss of estate Rs. 15,000 (ii) Loss of consortium (a) Spousal consortium Rs. 40,000 (b) Parental consortium [40,000 x 3] Rs. 1,20,000 (iii) Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000 37. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Pranay Sethi has only referred to spousal consortium and no other consortium was referred to in the judgment of Pranay Sethi, hence, there is no justification for allowing the parental consortium and filial consortium. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi has referred to amount of Rs. 40,000/- to the ‘loss of consortium’ but the Constitution Bench had not addressed the issue as to whether consortium of Rs. 40,000/- is only payable as spousal consortium. The judgment of Pranay Sethi cannot be read to mean that it lays down the proposition that the consortium is payable only to the wife. 38. The Three-Judge Bench in United India Insurance Company Ltd. (Supra) has categorically laid down that apart from spousal consortium, parental and filial consortium is payable. We feel ourselves bound by the above judgment of Three Judge Bench. We, thus, cannot accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the amount of consortium awarded to each of the claimants is not sustainable. 39. We, thus, found the impugned judgments of the High Court awarding consortium to each of the claimants in accordance with law which does not warrant any interference in this appeal. We, however, accept the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant that there is no justification for award of compensation under separate head ‘loss of love and affection’. The appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed insofar as the award of compensation under the head ‘loss of love and affection.” 26. In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the afore-cited judgments, besides the loss of dependency, the petitioners are also entitled to loss of estate in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- funeral expenses in the sum of Rs. 15,000 and filial consortium in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- each and the aforesaid figures quantified by the Apex Court have to be enhanced on percentage basis, at the rate of 10% in a span of every three years. 15,000/- funeral expenses in the sum of Rs. 15,000 and filial consortium in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- each and the aforesaid figures quantified by the Apex Court have to be enhanced on percentage basis, at the rate of 10% in a span of every three years. Accordingly, by taking the increase @ 10% after every three years, under the conventional heads, the compensation towards loss of filial consortium is re-assessed at Rs. 53,240/- each to both the petitioners, which amounts to Rs. 1,06,480/-. Further, they are entitled for Rs. 19,965/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 19,965/- towards funeral expenses. Accordingly, the total amount of compensation comes out as under: S. No. Head Compensation awarded 1. Loss of dependency Rs. 4,50,000/- 2. Funeral expenses Rs. 19,965/- 3. Loss of Estate Rs. 19,965/- 4. Filial consortium Rs. 1,06,480/- (Rs. 53,240 + Rs. 53,240) Total compensation awarded Rs. 5,96,410/- 27. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made here-in-above and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the impugned award stands modified. The remaining terms of the impugned award, including the interest component, shall remain the same. The appeals stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending applications, if any.