JUDGMENT : 1. The claimants are the legal heirs and representatives of Mukeshbhai Kantibhai Solanki, who have challenged the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) Anand dated 03.12.2019 in M.A.C.P. No.777 of 2014 praying for enhancement. 2. Advocate Mr. R.G. Dwivedi for Advocate Mr. Pradeep R.Mishra for the appellants submitted that the income of the deceased has been considered as Rs.4,500/-, as minimum wages. Advocate Mr. Dwivedi contended that as per the schedule for the date of accident as 03.11.2014, it should be around Rs.6,000/-, as the claimant was a farm labourer, and his age was 32 years, thus, accordingly 40% rise in prospective income was required to be added, as considered by the Tribunal. 3. Advocate Mr. Dwivedi further stated that the learned Tribunal has referred to the judgment of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., reported in (2018) SCC 130 [ 2018 ACJ 2782 ], however, has not granted money as consortium loss to the children and the parents. 4. Per contra, Mr. Maulik Shelat for the insurance company submitted that the claimants are required to prove the income by way of cogent evidence, and even otherwise, if the evidence is to be considered, then the claimants had stated that the deceased was getting Rs.200/- per day by doing agriculture labour work, and, thus stated that the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation. 5. The facts pleaded for the accident before the Tribunal shows that on 03.11.2014, the deceased was on his motorcycle bearing Registration No.GJ-23 AE-5088, and was on the road from Bechri to Bharoda; at that time, opponent no.1, came driving his Motorcycle bearing Registration No.GJ-23 AP-8964, alleging to be on the wrong side of the road, in a rash and negligent manner, endangering the human life, dashed with the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result, he received grievous injuries and died during the medical treatment. 6. The Tribunal has considered the FIR, panchnama of scene of offence, inquest panchnama, P.M. Note and R.C. Book of the offending vehicle, even the insurance policy together with chargesheet, and has concluded about the negligence, attributing 80% of the other offending motorcyclist, while 20% of the deceased driver. 6.1 The income as per the minimum wages, if taken on the date of accident as 03.11.2014, would come around Rs.6,000/- per month. 6.1 The income as per the minimum wages, if taken on the date of accident as 03.11.2014, would come around Rs.6,000/- per month. Hence, this Court considers it appropriate to assess the monthly income as Rs.6,000/-. 6.2 Considering the age of the deceased, 40% prospective rise in income is assessed, and 1/4th deduction is required to be made; thus the yearly future loss would come as under: Actual Income 6,000/- Prospective Income 8,400/- [6,000 + 2,400 (40% rise)] 1/4th Deduction 8,400/4 = 2,100 Future Dependency loss 75,600/- [8,400–2,100 = 6,300x12] 6.3 The multiplier applied would be 16; hence, the future dependency loss would come to Rs.12,09,600/- (75,600 x 16). Thus, accordingly the claimants would be entitled to Rs.5,99,940/- as dependency loss. 7. In the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 , it has been observed as under:- “8.7 A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is Loss of Consortium. In legal parlance, “consortium” is a compendious term which encompasses ‘spousal consortium’, ‘parental consortium’, and ‘filial consortium’. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse. (Rajesh and Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 54 ) Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of “company, society, co-operation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation.” BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (5th ed. 1979) Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training.” Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognized that the value of a child’s consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium. Parental Consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act.” 7.1 As per Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra), each individual claimant would be entitled to the amount of Rs.40,000/-. Hence, under the head of consortium loss, Rs.2,00,000/- (40,000 x 5) is granted. 7.2 The amount of Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- under the head of funeral expenses have been appropriately granted by the learned Tribunal as per judgment of Pranay Sethi and Ors. (supra). 7.3 In view of the above, compensation under different heads would be: Heads Tribunal has granted Amount Loss of Dependency Rs. 9,07,200/- Rs. 12,09,600/- Consortium Loss Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 2,00,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 9,77,200/- Rs. 14,39,600/- 7.4 The Tribunal has attributed 20% negligence to the deceased, hence, the amount, which gets deducted is Rs.2,87,920/- (14,39,600 x 20%); thus, the amount would come to Rs.11,51,680/-. The Tribunal has awarded total compensation, after deducting 20% negligence, as Rs.7,81,760/- (9,77,200 – 1,95,440). Now, the claimant would be entitled to get Rs.3,69,920/- (11,51,680 – 7,81,760) as enhanced compensation at the rate of 7.5%. The Tribunal has awarded total compensation, after deducting 20% negligence, as Rs.7,81,760/- (9,77,200 – 1,95,440). Now, the claimant would be entitled to get Rs.3,69,920/- (11,51,680 – 7,81,760) as enhanced compensation at the rate of 7.5%. The enhanced amount be deposited before the concerned Tribunal within Eight weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this order. 7.5 It is stated that now the applicant no.5 – Champaben Kantibhai Solanki has died, let the total amount of her share be paid to applicant no.4 including his share, by Account Payee Cheque/NEFT on verification of identity. 7.6 It is also stated that minor claimants nos.2 and 3 have now turned into major, hence, 60% amount of their share be paid to them by Account Payee Cheque/NEFT on proper verification of identity and rest of 40% be deposited in any nationalized bank in their names for a period of two years, and thereafter be paid to them with accumulated interest without reference to the Court. 8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated dated 03.12.2019 passed in M.A.C.P. No.777 of 2014 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) Anand, stands modified to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. Record and Proceeding be sent back to the concerned Court, if received.