JUDGMENT : (Nisha M. Thakore, J.) 1. The present appeal is filed at the instance of the appellants-original claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking enhancement of the award amount as against the amount awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (main) at Mehsana by its impugned judgment and order dated 05.03.2015 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.749 of 2009. By the said judgment and order, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the present appellants for an amount of Rs.30,49,000/- and after deduction of 30% towards the contributory negligency of the deceased, has finally granted the compensation of Rs.21,34,300/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum with proportionate costs. 2. In nutshell, the occurrence of the accident as stated by the original claimants, is: 2.1 On 21.09.2009, the deceased- Prajapati Dipakkumar Amrutlal was crossing Palavasana-Vijapur Highway on his motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-2-S-4342 and at around 4:00 p.m., while he had reached near sim of village- Rupal, opposite- Altratech Cement Godown, one trailer bearing registration no.GJ-01-BT-8839 came from the opposite direction in high speed and in rash and negligent manner, dashed with the motorcycle of the deceased. 2.2 It is the case of the original claimants that the deceased was driving his motorcycle on correct side of the road with moderate speed and the accident had occurred due to sole negligency of the driver of the trailer. The deceased sustained serious fatal injuries and died on the spot, because of the negligency of the driver of the trailer. 3. The original claimants-the legal heirs of the deceased are the parents, wife and his minor son, who have preferred claim petition before the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (main), Mehsana, which was registered as M.A.C.P. No.749 of 2009. In the aforesaid claim petition, the driver and the owner of the trailer were joined as opponents nos.1 and 2 respectively. The Insurance Company of the offending vehicle-trailer was joined as opponent no.3, and the same Insurance Company had also extended the coverage to the motorcycle of the deceased, was also joined as opponent no.4. 3.1 The original claimants have prayed for compensation of amount of Rs.35 Lakhs by contending that the deceased was aged around 27 years and was having no medical history and was hale and hearty. 3.1 The original claimants have prayed for compensation of amount of Rs.35 Lakhs by contending that the deceased was aged around 27 years and was having no medical history and was hale and hearty. It was contended that the deceased was a teacher in a primary school and was having salary of Rs.14,000/- per month. Due to untimely death of the deceased, the original claimants have suffered mentally, physically and financially. 3.2 The opponents were duly served with the summons. The opponent nos.1 and 2 have failed to appear before the Tribunal. Opponent nos.3 and 4 i.e. Insurance Company of the trailer and the motorcycle, has submitted written statement at Exh.19, inter alia, objecting the aforesaid averments made in the claim petition. Apart from raising the objection with regard to income and dependency of the deceased, the objection was raised that the driver of the trailer was not holding effective and valid license at the time of the accident. 3.3 The Tribunal framed the following issues: “[1] Whether claimant proved that the deceased sustained injuries and died on account of rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident? [2] What amount, if the claimant/s is/are entitled to, by way of compensation and from which of the opponent ? [3] What order and decree ?” The Tribunal on the above common issues answered as under: [1] In the affirmative. [2] As per final order. [3] As per final order. 3.4 The original claimants have brought on record various documentary evidences which includes the FIR at Exh.30, the panchnama of place of accident at Exh.31, the inquest panchnama at Exh.32, the post mortem report of the deceased at Exh.33, the driving license of the opponent no.1 at Exh.47, the R.C. Book of the trailer at Exh.48, the driving license of the deceased at Exh.45, the R.C. Book of motorcycle at Exh.46, the copy of charge-sheet at Exh.35, the copy of the insurance policy of the trailer at Exh.52. The father of the deceased-original claimant has tendered his examination-in-chief at Exh.20 and has been cross-examined by the opponent-Insurance Company. 3.5 The Tribunal upon appreciation of overall evidences brought on record, more particularly, the panchnama of the scene of the accident, noticing the position in which the vehicles were lying, has held both the drivers negligent. The father of the deceased-original claimant has tendered his examination-in-chief at Exh.20 and has been cross-examined by the opponent-Insurance Company. 3.5 The Tribunal upon appreciation of overall evidences brought on record, more particularly, the panchnama of the scene of the accident, noticing the position in which the vehicles were lying, has held both the drivers negligent. The Tribunal has noticed that the road was sufficient wide for the motorcyclist to take the turn to avoid the accident. At the same time, the Tribunal has noticed that the driver of the trailer could have taken caution by driving the vehicle on the extreme left side of the road, failing which, has resulted into the accident. With these observations, the Tribunal has held the driver of the offending trailer negligent to the extent of 70% and the deceased being the driver of the motorcycle to the extent of 30%. 3.6 On the aspect of the computation of the compensation amount under the different heads, the Tribunal after considering the documentary evidences brought on record, essentially the school leaving certificate at Exh.37, the birth certificate of the deceased at Exh.38 and the mark-sheets of the relevant year of the deceased to arrive at a conclusion that the deceased was aged around 27 years at the time of the accident. As regards the income of the deceased is concerned, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the pay slip produced at Exh.22 and Exh.23, whereby net salary of the deceased as on the date of accident reflected is Rs.11,835/-. By applying guess work, the Tribunal has considered salary of Rs.54,564/- for the month of July-2039 i.e. prior to the year, if the deceased would have continued in service and had retired in the year-2040. On overall appreciation and after considering the opposition of the respondent- Insurance Company, the Tribunal has considered the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.14,000/-. While considering the prospective income of the deceased, the Tribunal has followed the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr reported in (2009) 2 ACJ 1298 to adopt addition of 50% of the actual salary, by considering the fact that the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. The Court has further adopted multiplier of 17 by taking into consideration the age of the deceased as 27 years. The Court has further adopted multiplier of 17 by taking into consideration the age of the deceased as 27 years. Thus, the Tribunal has considered 50% of the actual salary i.e. Rs.21,000/- (Rs.14,000/-+Rs.7,000/- (50% of the actual salary)). Considering the number of dependent members in the family of the deceased, the Tribunal has applied 1/4th deduction towards the personal expenses of the deceased, which comes to Rs.5,250/-. Hence, the loss of dependency benefit has been calculated as Rs.15,750/- × 12 × 17= Rs. 30,24,000/-. Apart from the aforesaid compensation, the Tribunal has awarded amount of Rs.10,000/- towards the conventional i.e. consortium amount and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards the loss of expectation of life. Thus, the Tribunal has awarded total amount of compensation as under: Amount Rs. Details of Compensation 30,24,000-00 Dependency Loss 10,000-00 Conventional/Consortium charges 10,000-00 Loss of expectation of life 5,000-00 Funeral ceremony 30,49,000-00 Total amount of Compensation 3.7 Having held so, the Tribunal has deducted 30% from the aforesaid total amount of compensation and thereby, held the original claimants entitled to 70% of the aforesaid total amount of award i.e. Rs.21,34,300/-. Considering the insurance policy brought on record, the Tribunal has found the respondent-Insurance Company liable to indemnify the act of the driver of the offending vehicle to the aforesaid extent. 3.8 Since in the original claim petition, the claimants have prayed for compensation of an amount of Rs.35 Lakhs as against the awarded amount of Rs.21,34,300/-, being found on the lower side, the aggrieved claimants have approached this Court by way of this Appeal. 4. Mr. J.M. Barot, learned advocate on record for the appellant and Mr. Maulik J. Shelat, learned advocate on record for the respondent nos.3 and 4-Insurance Company have appeared and have invited our attention to the facts of the case. Learned advocates have restriected their submissions for enhancement of the award amount in light of the subsequent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram reported in AIRONLINE 2018 SC 1249. 4.1 Learned advocates have submitted that the original claimants are entitled to the enhancement of the amount awarded under the head of conventional compensation. Ltd vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram reported in AIRONLINE 2018 SC 1249. 4.1 Learned advocates have submitted that the original claimants are entitled to the enhancement of the amount awarded under the head of conventional compensation. It was urged before us as against the amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded towards the consortium, the claimants, who are the aged parents of the deceased and the widow as well his minor son, are entitled for an amount of Rs.48,400/- each. It was, therefore, submitted that the amount of compensation towards the loss of consortium to be enhanced from Rs.10,000/-to Rs.1,93,600/-. Learned advocates have jointly submitted to enhance the amount of the compensation awarded towards the loss of expectation of life from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.18,150/- and for Rs.5,000/- awarded under the head of funeral expenses, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 4.2 No other prayers have been sought for. 5. We have considered the aforesaid submissions of learned advocates on record for the respective parties, in light of the facts of the case as well as the evidence brought on record. It is a settled legal position, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). The relevant observation of the Constitutional Bench in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), whereby 10% increase for every three years has been held as against the amount of compensation awarded under the conventional heads is concerned, reads as under: “54. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh. It has granted Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/- loss of consortium and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to Santosh Devi, it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, 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. 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, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, 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. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified 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. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads.” The aforesaid decision of the Constitutional Bench as reiterated in the subsequent decision in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd (supra), reads as under: “21. 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. 21.1 Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husbandwife which allows compensation to 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 worldover 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. 23. 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. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of Filial Consortium. 24. 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 count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of Filial Consortium. 24. 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.” 6. Applying the aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the facts of the case, undoubtedly the original claimants shall be entitled to enhancement of the award amount in the aforesaid terms. The amount of compensation under the head of loss of consortium is enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.1,93,600/-. Accordingly, giving 10% increase for every three years, as against the award amount of the loss of consortium, expectation of life and funeral expenses, noticing the fact that accident had occurred in year 2009 and claim petition was disposed of in year-2015, the original claimants were entitled to twice 10% rise in compensation, we are inclined to accept the claim of compensation of Rs.1,93,600/- and Rs.18,150/- respectively. Hence, the total amount of compensation is enhanced and modified as under: Compensation As per Award under Challenge As per submission of Claimant (A) Dependency Benefit (I) Actual Income Rs.14,000/- p.m. Rs.14,000/- p.m. (ii) Prospective income Rs.7,000/- p.m. …………….. Rs.21,000/- p.m. Rs.7,000/- p.m. …………….. Rs.21,000/- p.m. 50% rise (iii) Deduction of amount spent by deceased on himself-1/5 Rs.5,250/- p.m. Rs.5,250/- p.m. Deducted ¼ personal expenses (iv) Dependency benefit Annual dependency Rs.1,89,000/- p.a. Rs.1,89,000/ - p.a. (v.) Multiplier 17 17 Age 27 years (A) Loss of dependency benefit Rs.30,24,000/- Rs.30,24,000/- (B) Conventional amount for loss to estate, funeral expenses, consortium Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- Rs.5,000/- Rs.1,93,600/- Rs.18,150/- Rs.18,150/- 4 claimants, Rs.48,400/- each. Loss to estate Funeral expenses (C) Compensation Rs.30,49,000/- Rs.32,53,900/- (D) Deduction of Contributory-30% Negligence of deceased Rs.9,14,700/- Rs.9,76,170/- (E) Total Compensation Rs.21,34,300/- Rs.22,77,730/- (F) Interest rate 9% 9% Rs. 1,43,430/- (Additional Compensation) 7. Loss to estate Funeral expenses (C) Compensation Rs.30,49,000/- Rs.32,53,900/- (D) Deduction of Contributory-30% Negligence of deceased Rs.9,14,700/- Rs.9,76,170/- (E) Total Compensation Rs.21,34,300/- Rs.22,77,730/- (F) Interest rate 9% 9% Rs. 1,43,430/- (Additional Compensation) 7. For the foregoing reasons, the original claimants are held entitled to total amount of compensation of Rs.22,77,730/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till its actual realization. 8. The First Appeal is hereby partly allowed. The respondents are hereby held jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid amount of compensation to the extent of 70% of the liability as fixed by the Tribunal. In absence of any challenge of the impugned order of the Tribunal exonerating opponent no.4-Insurance Company, the same is hereby confirmed. 9. Noticing the fact that the incident relates to year-2009, the Tribunal is hereby directed to release the entire amount of compensation equally in favour of the original claimant i.e. 25% of the award amount, which is to be disbursed amongst the original claimants, subject to proper verification. The Tribunal is directed to strictly adhere to the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard. 10. So far as the share of the minor son is concerned, the same may be continued in the fixed deposit receipts, till he attains the age of majority. The claimants shall be entitled for withdrawal of the interest accrued on such fixed deposit receipt. No charge or loan shall be availed on such fixed deposit receipt, without prior permission of the Tribunal concerned. 11. The First Appeal stands disposed of, in aforesaid terms. Record & proceedings be sent back to the concerned Court/Tribunal forthwith.