JUDGMENT : (PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE) 1. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant – insurance company - original opponent no.2 being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 27th March, 2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Bharuch in Motor Accident Claim Petition no.579 of 2006. By the said impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the present respondent nos.1 to 5 – original claimants u/s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The Tribunal has held the original opponent nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.25,31,000/- to the aforesaid claimants along with the proportionate costs and interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of such awarded amount. The Tribunal has issued further directions with regard to the deposit, release and the disbursement of the awarded amount to the tune of 70-30% in FDR and in cash respectively to the respective claimants. 2. The material facts, necessary for adjudication of the claim petition as narrated by the Tribunal in its judgment are reproduced hereunder: 2.1 On 30th September, 2006, the original applicant no.1 i.e. Kundanben Dharmendrasinh Vachchhani was traveling along with his husband (deceased) i.e. Dharmendrasinh Vachchhani on their motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-16 N-4468 from their village Gajra to Anand. The purpose was to get a dressing of the ear of Dharmendrasinh Vachchhani (deceased) at Anand. On their way, while returning back to their village from Anand on the aforesaid motorcycle, which was driven by the husband of the applicant on the left side of the road in slow and moderate speed, one Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-7 AD-283, which was coming from Valvod side and was driven by the opponent no.1 driver at an excessive speed in rash and negligent manner, dashed with the motorcycle of the husband of the applicant no.1. The accident took place near the Chotra of Manima at village Vavlod, which falls within the jurisdiction of Bhadran Police Station. Because of the impact of the accident, both the husband of the applicant no.1 (deceased) and the original claimant no.1 were thrown away on the road. The accident took place near the Chotra of Manima at village Vavlod, which falls within the jurisdiction of Bhadran Police Station. Because of the impact of the accident, both the husband of the applicant no.1 (deceased) and the original claimant no.1 were thrown away on the road. The husband of the applicant no.1 had received grievous injuries on his forehead, as well as on his right hand and was profusely bleeding. The deceased was immediately shifted to the nearby dispensary of Dr.Amul Raj, where he was given primary treatment and thereafter, he was admitted in PramukhSwami Medical College, Karamsad, where he unfortunately succumbed to the injuries on 1st October, 2006. The applicant herself also sustained injuries. 2.2 The complaint was lodged with the Bhadran Police Station vide C.R. no.63 of 2006 against the opponent no.1 driver of the offending vehicle – Hero Honda motorcycle. Because of the untimely death of the husband of the applicant no.1, loss of father and son, the respective claimants, who are the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased have approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by filing petition u/s.166 of the Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.40,00,000/-. The said claim petition was registered as Motor Accident Claims Petition no.579 of 2006. 2.3 Before the Tribunal, the summons were issued upon the respective opponents and the opponent no.1, who was the driver-cum-owner of the offending motorcycle had appeared and filed a written statement at Exh.13. The opponent no.2 – insurance company has contested the claim petition by filing a written statement at Exh.39 by denying the allegations made in the claim petition. The specific defense was raised with regard to the contributory negligence of the deceased, who was driving the motorcycle at the time of accident by contending that it was a case of head-to-head collision. The opponent no.2 – insurance company has also filed written submissions at Exh.18 and had raised similar contentions. Ultimately, considering the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the issues at Exh.23, which reads thus : 1. Whether it is proved that the deceased sustained injuries and died on account of the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident? 2. What amount the claimants are entitled to by way of compensation and from which of the opponents? 3. What order? Whether it is proved that the deceased sustained injuries and died on account of the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident? 2. What amount the claimants are entitled to by way of compensation and from which of the opponents? 3. What order? The Tribunal, upon appreciation of the evidence brought on record, answered the aforesaid issues, as under: 1. In the affirmative. 2. Rs.25,31,000/- from the opponent nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. 3. As per the final order. 2.4 The Tribunal, while examining the issue of rash and negligent driving on the part of the offending vehicle, has appreciated the evidence of the wife of the deceased – original applicant no.1, who has entered into the witness box and has been examined at Exh.24. The Tribunal has further taken into consideration the documentary evidence, more particularly, the complaint at Exh.36, FIR at Exh.37 and the panchnama of the place of accident at Exh.38. Upon appreciation of the aforesaid evidence, the Tribunal noticed that the evidence of the claimant – applicant no.1 had remained unshaken and unrebutted and was corroborated by the aforesaid documentary evidence. The Tribunal noticed that in fact, a charge-sheet was filed against the original opponent no.1 after due investigation. The written statement filed at Exh.13 was also taken into consideration. 2.5 Upon overall appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal found that the driver of the offending motorcycle – original opponent no.1 had not entered the witness box and had not offered himself for cross-examination. Thus, the Tribunal has held the driver of the offending vehicle – motorcycle – original opponent no.1 solely negligent for the occurrence of the accident. 2.6 On the aspect of computation of compensation, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the salary slips of the deceased, which are produced at Exh.24. The Tribunal noticed that the deceased was aged around 33 years. The date of birth reflected in the salary slip was 23rd November, 1973, therefore, on the date of accident, the deceased was aged 32 years, 10 months and 7 days. The Tribunal noticed that the deceased was aged around 33 years. The date of birth reflected in the salary slip was 23rd November, 1973, therefore, on the date of accident, the deceased was aged 32 years, 10 months and 7 days. The Tribunal also took into consideration the rise in the actual income to determine the prospective income in light of the evidence of the Personal and Welfare Officer of G.A.C.L. company, who has been examined at Exh.28 and the Authority Letter produced by the said company at Exh.30 followed by the letter issued by Mr. N.S. Patel, at Exh.31. The Tribunal noticed that the deceased was serving as Junior peon in the aforesaid company and considering his age of hardly 33 years at the relevant point of time, the retirement date of the deceased was likely to be on 23rd November, 2033. The Tribunal has also taken into consideration the pay-slips produced at Exh.33 right from the month of October, 2005 to September, 2006, wherein the salary of the deceased on September, 2006 was reflected as Rs.22,543/- . The card issued by the company at Exh.32 was also taken into consideration. Thus, the Tribunal had accepted the actual income to be Rs.24,000/- noticing the fact that the deceased was survived by 5 members in the family and has considered 1/3rd deduction towards his personal expenses. Accordingly, the prospective income of the deceased was considered as Rs.16,000/- i.e. Rs.1,92,000/- per annum. Considering his age of 33 years, the Tribunal had adopted a multiplier of 13. Thus, the dependency loss was computed at Rs.24,96,000/-. Apart from the aforesaid compensation under the head of loss of dependency, the Tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/- under the head of expectation of life. Rs.10,000/- towards consortium and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral / transportation expenses. The Tribunal has thus, awarded total compensation to the tune of Rs.25,31,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the awarded amount. Hence, this appeal at the instance of the appellant – insurance company - original opponent no.2. 3. The Tribunal has thus, awarded total compensation to the tune of Rs.25,31,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the awarded amount. Hence, this appeal at the instance of the appellant – insurance company - original opponent no.2. 3. Before proceeding with the merits of the case, it would be relevant to mention that at the stage of admission hearing, the learned advocate for the appellant – insurance company had sought amendment for addition of the grounds in the appeal memo, which was allowed by this Court at the stage of issuance of notice by order dated 30th September, 2008. That much emphasis was made by the learned advocate for the appellant – insurance company on the fact that the original claimants, who are the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased have received various amounts to the tune of Rs.20,28,460/-, which is evident from the certificate obtained from the GACL (M/s. Gujarat Alkalies & Chemicals Limited), the company wherein the deceased was serving as Junior peon at the time of accident. According to the appellant – insurance company, the original claimant has not disclosed the aforesaid fact of having received the amount from his employer and in such circumstances, the Tribunal ought not to have passed a huge award of Rs.25,31,000/-. In light of the aforesaid fact, the appellant - insurance company seems to have preferred separate application, which is pending adjudication and is heard with the main appeal being Civil Application (for orders) no.1167 of 2008. In light of the order dated 11th January, 2012 passed by this Court, the same is heard along with the present appeal. 4. From the record, it further transpires that the appeal was admitted by this Court by order dated 14th November, 2008. Belatedly, the cross-objections were preferred by the original claimants, which was registered as Cross-objection no.40 of 2012. After the condonation of delay, the crossobjections were admitted and directed to be heard with the First Appeal preferred by the appellant – insurance company. Since the aforesaid matters arise out of the same impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, all these matters were heard together and are decided by this common order. 5. After the condonation of delay, the crossobjections were admitted and directed to be heard with the First Appeal preferred by the appellant – insurance company. Since the aforesaid matters arise out of the same impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, all these matters were heard together and are decided by this common order. 5. It would be relevant to mention here that the original claimants have restricted their enhancement of claim in the cross-objection to the tune of Rs.14,69,000/- and the Court fees are accordingly deposited with this Court. 6. We have heard Mr. Mitesh Rangras, learned advocate for the appellant – insurance company and Mr. Y. N. Ravani, learned advocate on record for the respondent nos.1 to 5 – original claimants. Mr. Shailesh Sharma, learned advocate has though filed his appearance for the respondent no.6, has not appeared at the time of hearing of these matters. 7. At the outset, Mr.Ravani, learned advocate for the original claimants has placed reliance upon the computation earlier referred to and relied upon by the learned advocate for the appellant – insurance company to assist the Court on the aspect of determination of compensation under the different heads. 7.1 The learned advocates for the respective parties, at the outset have expressed their reservations with regard to the manner of computation suggested in the aforesaid table. Hence, we have proceeded to determine the computation as per the provisions of law and the legal principles laid down pursuant to the various decisions of this High Court, as well as, the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 8. Mr. Mitesh Rangras, learned advocate for the appellant – insurance company has vehemently objected to the findings and reasons recorded by the Tribunal as regards the issue of negligence solely attributed to the original opponent no.1 – driver of offending vehicle - Hero Honda motorcycle. According to him, it was a clear case of head to head collision between the same type of vehicles. He had therefore submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal requires intervention by this Court in the present appeal and has urged before us to reduce the negligence of the original owner and to fix the negligence of the deceased to the extent of 50-50% each. 9. Mr. He had therefore submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal requires intervention by this Court in the present appeal and has urged before us to reduce the negligence of the original owner and to fix the negligence of the deceased to the extent of 50-50% each. 9. Mr. Ravani, learned advocate for the original claimants has vehemently objected to the aforesaid submission and has placed reliance upon the findings and reasons given by the Tribunal. According to the learned advocate, the aforesaid findings and reasons assigned are based on proper appreciation of the evidence brought on record by the original claimants. Hence, no error can be found in the approach of the Tribunal in determining the sole negligence of the original opponent no.1 – driver. 10. On the issue of computation of compensation, Mr. Mitesh Rangras, learned advocate for the appellant – insurance company had placed heavy reliance upon the amended grounds incorporated in the memo of the appeal. The averments made in the civil application (for orders) were referred to and relied upon. It was submitted that in light of the certificate issued by GACL acknowledging the fact of payment of an amount of Rs.20,28,460/- the same is required to be deducted from the amount of award determined by the Tribunal. Though he had fairly agreed to consider the income of the deceased as Rs.16,000/- as determined by the Tribunal and to apply multiplier of 16 and accordingly, to determine the loss of dependency to Rs.30,72,000/- and to consider the amount of compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards the expectation of life, Rs.2,40,000/- towards consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards the funeral and transportation expenses and additional compensation towards the loss of love and affection to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. However, the same was to be considered after deducting the amount received by the original claimants from the GACL company. 11. As against the aforesaid submissions of the learned advocate for the appellant – insurance company, Mr.Ravani, learned advocate for the original claimants has vehemently objected. However, the same was to be considered after deducting the amount received by the original claimants from the GACL company. 11. As against the aforesaid submissions of the learned advocate for the appellant – insurance company, Mr.Ravani, learned advocate for the original claimants has vehemently objected. The reliance was placed on the various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as well as, of this Court to contend that the aforesaid amount received from the GACL company is in the nature of pecuniary advantages, which has been received by the claimants under the policy of the employer-company to secure the interest of their deceased employee, which cannot be correlated with the occurrence of the accident. In support of his aforesaid submission, learned advocate for the original claimants had placed reliance on the following authorities : 1. (1999) 1 SCC 90 – Helen C. Rebello Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport (Para-35); 2. First Appeal no.2263 of 2014 – Oral order dated 21st July, 2014 – New India Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Shashikantbhai Harsukhlal Koticha (Para- 6); 3. 2013 ACJ 1441 – Vimal Kanwar and others Vs. Kishore Dan and others (Para-19); 4. 2016 ACJ 253 – National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Nainaben and others (Para-7.2); 5. 2019 ACJ 2498 – United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rehanaben Salimbhai Mukindo and others (Paras-18 to 22); 6. 2019 ACJ 34 – Sebastiani Lakra and others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. And another (Paras-18 to 22); 12. Learned advocate for the original claimants by referring to the relevant observations in the aforesaid decisions has therefore objected to any deduction to be made in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13. Apart from the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate for the original claimants has further submitted that in fact the awarded amount granted by the Tribunal is required to be modified in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Shethi - (2017) 16 SCC 680 . By referring to the relevant observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, the learned advocate for the original claimant had urged to consider prospective income of the deceased by making appropriate addition by giving rise by taking into consideration the age of the deceased, which was undisputedly 33 years at the time of accident. By referring to the relevant observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, the learned advocate for the original claimant had urged to consider prospective income of the deceased by making appropriate addition by giving rise by taking into consideration the age of the deceased, which was undisputedly 33 years at the time of accident. 13.1 Learned advocate for the original claimants had further submitted to take into consideration the enhancement of the awarded amount, which has been fairly suggested by the learned advocate for the appellant – insurance company insofar as remaining heads of compensation are concerned. He has therefore urged before us to allow the cross-objections in the aforesaid terms. 14. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having perused the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in light of the evidence brought on record, we have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties. The only issue, which falls for our consideration in the present appeal, which is heard along with the Civil Application for the additional evidence and the crossobjections, is whether the compensation awarded to the original claimants is just and proper. 15. We would first like to address on the issue of the deduction, which is pressed into service by the learned advocate for the appellant – insurance company towards the receipt of the amount of Rs.20,28,460/- received by the original claimants from the ex-employer of the deceased i.e. GACL company. The reading of the averments made in the application seeking appropriate directions preferred by the appellant insurance company, it is undisputed fact that the aforesaid amount have been received towards the services rendered by the deceased to his employer company and under the scheme floated by the company to secure the interest of the family of the employees. The law on the aforesaid aspect is no more res-integra in view of the number of decisions laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The bare perusal of the ground – 12A incorporated in the appeal memo clearly indicates that such amounts have been disbursed under the head of one day salary contribution, benevolent fund, which includes PF accumulation and LIC pension and group scheme (DLI), superannuation scheme annuity, superannuation annuity installment (monthly), bonus, ex-gratia amount, legal due salary, leave etc., gratuity, GSLI insurance (ICICI Lombard) and medical reimbursement claim. Thus, what is evident from the aforesaid particulars is that the amount of Rs.20,28,460/- has been received by the heirs of the deceased under the scheme whereby a separate contractual obligation have been created to secure the interest of the deceased employee, which in our opinion has nothing to do with the occurrence of the accident and the consequential deriving of the compensation towards the untimely death of the husband of the applicant no.1 in the accident. We are in complete agreement with the submission made by Mr. Ravani, learned advocate for the respondents – original claimants, more particularly the various judgments relied upon, clearly laid downs that the amount earned out of one’s labour or contribution towards one’s wealth, saving etc., either for himself or his family which such person knows under the law, has to go to his heirs after his death either by succession or under a will could be said to be “pecuniary gain” only on account of one’s accidental death. This of course is a pecuniary gain and cannot be considered to balance-out the amount to be received as compensation under the head of Motor Vehicles Act. German would be to reproduce the relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Helen C. Rebello (supra) whereby the two Judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court held and observed as under : “35. Broadly, we may examine the receipt of the provident fund which is a deferred payment out of the contribution made by an employee during the tenure of his service. Such employee or his heirs are entitled to receive this amount irrespective of the accidental death. This amount is secured, is certain to be received, while the amount under the Motor Vehicles Act is uncertain and is receivable only on the happening of the event viz., accident which may not take place at all. Similarly., family pension is also earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in the service in terms of the service conditions receivable by the heirs after his death. The heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental death. No co-relation between the two. Similarly, life insurance policy is received either by the insured or the heirs of the insured on account of the contract with the insurer, for which insured contributes in the form of premium. The heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental death. No co-relation between the two. Similarly, life insurance policy is received either by the insured or the heirs of the insured on account of the contract with the insurer, for which insured contributes in the form of premium. It is receivable even by the insured, if he lives till maturity after paying all the premiums, in the case of death insurer indemnifies to pay the sum to the heirs, again in terms of the contracts for the premium paid. Again, this amount is receivable by the claimant not on account of any accidental death but otherwise on insured's death. Death is only a step or contingency in terms of the contract, to receive the amount. Similarly any case, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. though are all a pecuniary advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one's death but all these have no co-relation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. How could such an amount come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as 'pecuniary advantage' liable for deduction. When we seek the principle of loss and gain, it has to be on similar and same plane having nexus inter so between them and not to which, there is no semblance of any corelation. The insured (deceased) contributes his own money for which he receives the amount has no co-relation to the compensation computed as against torfeasor for his negligence on account of accident. As aforesaid, the amount receivable as compensation under the Act is on account of the injury of death without making any contribution towards it then how can fruits of an amount received through contributions of the insured be deducted out of the amount receivable under the Motor Vehicles Act. The amount under this Act, he receives without any contribution. As we have said the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory while the amount received under the life insurance policy is contractual.” The aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has thereafter been followed by the various High Courts as can be noticed from the list of authorities relied upon by the learned advocate for the original claimants. Hence, the aforesaid ground of deduction of pecuniary amount received by the deceased employee under the scheme of the company, cannot be deducted towards the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act. 16. Having held so, we proceed further with the determination of the compensation. In light of the decision of the constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Shethi (Supra), undoubtedly, the original claimants are entitled to enhancement of the award amount in light of the legal principles laid down therein. For the sake of convenience, the relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Shethi (Supra) are reproduced as under: “44. At this stage, we must immediately say that insofar as the aforesaid multiplicand/multiplier is concerned, it has to be accepted on the basis of income established by the legal representatives of the deceased. Future prospects are to be added to the sum on the percentage basis and “income” means actual income less the tax paid. The multiplier has already been fixed in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] which has been approved in Kumari Reshma Kumari Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65 : Reshma v. (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 191 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 826] with which we concur. xx xx xx 59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. 59.7. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. 59.7. The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.” 17. Applying the aforesaid legal principle in the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the age of the deceased as 33 years, the actual income of the deceased for the purpose of determination of loss of dependency is required to be recomputed by giving addition of 50% of the actual salary towards the future prospects, as the deceased was having permanent job in a company and was below the age of 40 years. Considering the legal principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transportation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, and the table provided in the second schedule, the multiplier of 16 is adopted for the purpose of loss of dependency. Apart from the aforesaid facts, the deceased was married at the time of the accident and survived by his wife, two minor children and his parents. Accordingly, the deduction towards the personal expenses of the deceased is redetermined in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), which provides for 1/4th deduction in case of 3 to 6 family members. Hence, the actual loss of income is considered based on the gross income reflected in the salary slip of September, 2006 produced before the Tribunal at Exh.33, which is Rs.22,543/-. The 1/4th deduction of the aforesaid salary towards the personal expenses comes to Rs.5,635.75/-. Therefore, Rs.16,907.25 ps. x 12 months = Rs.2,02,887/- x 16, it comes to Rs.32,46,192/-. Thus, the loss of dependency is redetermined @ Rs.32,46,192/-. 18. This brings us to the determination of compensation under the head of loss of consortium. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Megama General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Nanuram and others – (2018) 18 SCC 130 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a sum of Rs.40,000/- is to be paid to each of the parents towards the loss of consortium on death of a child. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Megama General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Nanuram and others – (2018) 18 SCC 130 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a sum of Rs.40,000/- is to be paid to each of the parents towards the loss of consortium on death of a child. The consortium for the death of the parents and also towards the consortium of loss of the spouse has been separately recognised. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance (supra) reads as under : “The Motor Vehicle Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. The Court is duty bound and entitled to award “just compensation”, irrespective of whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the Claimant. In exercise of our power under Article 142, and in the interests of justice, we deem it appropriate to award an amount of Rs. 15,000 towards Loss of Estate to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 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 3 Rajesh and Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 54 4 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. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and 3 Rajesh and Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 54 4 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. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child. The Motor Vehicle 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. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count5. However, there was no clarity with Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram @ Jagmal Singh & Ors. v. Sohi Ram & Ors 2017 (4) RLW 3368 (Raj); Uttarakhand High Court in Smt. Rita Rana & Anr. v. Pradeep Kumar & 6 Ors. respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of Filial Consortium. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under ‘Loss of Consortium’ as laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra). In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs. 40,000 each for loss of Filial Consortium.” 19. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under ‘Loss of Consortium’ as laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra). In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs. 40,000 each for loss of Filial Consortium.” 19. Applying the aforesaid legal principles in the facts of the case and considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), more particularly para -52, for applying 10% rise every three years towards compensation under three conventional heads, we are inclined to accept the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties and hereby hold the original claimants entitled to the amount of Rs.2,40,000/- (Rs. 48,000 x 5) under the head of loss of consortium. The compensation under the head of funeral and transportation expenses is redetermined as Rs.18,000/-. The additional compensation towards loss of love and affection is suggested for consideration to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. Having held the original claimants entitled to the enhanced amount of consortium, in our opinion, no separate compensation is required to be thereafter awarded under the head of love and affection. We noticed that in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd.(supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court while giving comprehensive interpretation to consortium to include spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial consortium has considered Loss of love and affection to be comprehended in loss of consortium. 20. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the compensation under the different heads awarded to the original claimants is redetermined as under :- Sr. no. Heads of compensation Amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal Enhanced amount of compensation 1 Loss of dependency Rs.24,96,000/- Rs.32,46,192/- 2 Loss of expectation of life Rs.20,000/- Rs.20,000/- 3 Towards Consortium Rs.10,000/- Rs.2,40,000/- 4 Towards funeral and transportation expenses Rs.5,000/- Rs.18,000/- 5 Additionally prayed for loss of love and affection -- -- Total compensation :- Rs.25,31,000/- Rs.35,24,192/- Thus, the original claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.35,24,192/- instead of Rs. 25,31,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 21. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal preferred by the appellant – insurance company is not entertained and is hereby dismissed. Whereas, the cross-objections preferred by the original claimants is allowed in the aforesaid terms. 25,31,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 21. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal preferred by the appellant – insurance company is not entertained and is hereby dismissed. Whereas, the cross-objections preferred by the original claimants is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The civil application seeking directions does not survive and is hereby disposed of in view of the dismissal of the appeal preferred by the appellant – insurance company. 22. The original opponents are hereby held jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid enhanced amount of compensation with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its actual realization. The aforesaid awarded amount with proportionate costs and interest is directed to be deposited by the original opponents before the concerned Tribunal preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The concerned Tribunal is thereafter directed to release and disburse the aforesaid awarded amount among the claimants in terms of the directions of the Tribunal subject to due verification. Since, the cross-objections have been allowed beyond the enhancement sought for, the Tribunal is directed to determine the Court fees as per the enhanced amount of compensation and realize the deficit Court fees before the disbursement of such amount of compensation to the original claimants. 23. With these observations, the First Appeal along with the Cross-objections and Civil Application stands disposed of. The R. & P. be sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.