JUDGMENT : MARY JOSEPH, J. 1. The appeal on hand is originated from an award passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) on 10.06.2016 in O.P. (M.V.) No. 665/2011. The appellant is the 4th respondent in the above Original Petition, who is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Challenge is raised mainly against the quantum of compensation stood awarded by the Tribunal for the reason that it is exorbitant. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred to as petitioners 1 to 3 and respondent No. 4 in accordance with their status in the Original Petition. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel that the victim of the motor accident who died, was not having regular and permanent employment and therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have added 30% to the monthly income in consideration of loss of future prospects. According to her, the age of the deceased was not proved by petitioners before the Tribunal and therefore, the multiplier of 13 adopted by the Tribunal and addition of 30% to the monthly income in consideration of loss of future prospects are without any basis. According to her, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3rd , instead of 1/4th towards the expenses the victim would have spend, had he been alive. According to her, Tribunal went wrong in awarding Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation towards loss of consortium only in favour of the spouse of the deceased, ignoring the fact that minor children, two in numbers and the mother also survived him and are entitled to get compensation under that head. According to her, Rs. 25,000/- each was awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of estate and funeral expenses which are excess than Rs. 15,000/- the sum petitioners are legally entitled to receive. According to her, Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- respectively were also awarded by the Tribunal as compensation towards pain and suffering and loss of love and affection, which they are not entitled to receive. Accordingly, the compensation stood awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is sought to be modified and awarded in favour of the petitioners, afresh. 4. Challenge was not raised against the monthly income fixed. Salary certificate was produced by the petitioners and marked in evidence as Ext.A9 through the HR of a firm namely United Breweries examined as PW-1. Accordingly, the compensation stood awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is sought to be modified and awarded in favour of the petitioners, afresh. 4. Challenge was not raised against the monthly income fixed. Salary certificate was produced by the petitioners and marked in evidence as Ext.A9 through the HR of a firm namely United Breweries examined as PW-1. Thus, relying on the oral evidence of PW-1 and Ext.A9, Rs. 12,965/- was fixed as the monthly income of the deceased. It being reasonable, is maintained. 5. It is true that an authentic document to prove the age of the deceased was not marked in evidence. Therefore, relying on the postmortem certificate marked in evidence as Ext.A4, the age of the deceased was taken by the Tribunal as 49 years. Thus 13 was adopted as the multiplier. In that backdrop, the Tribunal cannot be found fault with in adopting 13 as the multiplier, it being appropriate to 49 years. The employer of the deceased was examined as PW-1 and he deposed that the deceased was an employee of United Breweries. Evidence has not come to the effect that the petitioner was employed in United Breweries under a contract of employment. Therefore, his employment can be considered as a permanent one and having fixed salary. When viewed in the light of the dictum in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC) a man employed permanently and died untimely at his age above 40 years is entitled to have 25% of the monthly income fixed, added to it in consideration of loss of future prospects, while calculating the compensation payable. 6. The deceased was survived by his wife, two children and mother. The mother died during the pendency of the Original Petition and based on the submission made that apart from the petitioners already in the array, others are not there to be brought on record as her legal representatives, that was recorded. 7. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent advanced an argument that in view of the death of the mother of the deceased after raising a claim for compensation, compensation for loss of consortium is not liable to be awarded in her favour. 7. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent advanced an argument that in view of the death of the mother of the deceased after raising a claim for compensation, compensation for loss of consortium is not liable to be awarded in her favour. An argument was also advanced that in view of the death of the mother of the victim during pendency of the Original Petition, the surviving family members can only be treated as three and 1/3rd alone can be deducted from the monthly income in consideration of personal expenditure the deceased would have met, had he been alive. 8. True that the mother of the deceased died during the pendency of the Original Petition before the Tribunal. She being alive at the relevant time when the cause of action for raising a claim for compensation originated, undoubtedly compensation towards loss of consortium is payable to her and deduction for personal expenditure of the deceased can also be applied, she being alive at the time when cause of action was originated. The cause of action for the legal representatives to raise a claim for compensation in the case on hand being the death of the victim in the motor accident, the death of a legal representative after filing of the Original Petition and during its pendency, who may be the spouse, children and parents in their relationship with the victim are also to be reckoned while considering the personal expenditure for livelihood, the victim would have spent, had he been alive. The mother died in the case on hand in the year 2015, whereas the Original Petition seeking compensation was filed in the year 2011. The impugned award was passed on 10.06.2016. For the reason that the award was passed belatedly, the petitioners shall not be deprived of just and reasonable compensation which they are entitled to get as on the date when the cause of action was originated. Compensation has to be calculated based on the status of the case on the date, when the cause of action was originated. In the case on hand, the cause of action for raising a claim for compensation is nothing but the death of the victim in the motor accident in question. 9. Compensation has to be calculated based on the status of the case on the date, when the cause of action was originated. In the case on hand, the cause of action for raising a claim for compensation is nothing but the death of the victim in the motor accident in question. 9. In the above circumstances, 1/4th is deducted in consideration of the personal expenditure of the victim, since four family members survived him at the relevant time of filing of the Original Petition. Since the Tribunal arrived at Rs. 22,52,834/- as compensation in a calculation based on incorrect factors, this Court finds it appropriate to discard the compensation stood awarded and to calculate it afresh. In the absence of a challenge raised against the monthly income fixed, Rs. 12,965/- itself is taken into consideration. 25% is added to it in consideration of loss of future prospects and thus, Rs. 16,206/- (Rs. 12,965/- + 25% of Rs. 12,965/-) is arrived at. When compensation is calculated afresh applying the correct factors, Rs. 18,96,102/- (Rs. 16,206/- x 12 x 13 x ¾) is arrived at and that is payable as compensation towards loss of dependency in favour of the petitioners. 10. Rs. 15,000/- each is also awarded as compensation towards funeral expenses and loss of estate and Rs. 1,60,000/- (Rs. 40,000/- x 4) towards loss of consortium in favour of the petitioners who are four in numbers. Apart from the above, Rs. 1,500/- and Rs. 1,000/- respectively are also awarded as compensation towards transportation expenses and damages to clothing. Thus a sum of Rs. 20,88,602/- (Rs. 18,96,102/- + Rs. 1,60,000/- + Rs. 15,000/- + Rs. 15,000/- + Rs. 1,500/- + Rs. 1,000/-) (Rupees twenty lakh eighty eight thousand six hundred and two only) is arrived at as the modified compensation in the fresh calculation and that is payable to the petitioners with interest accrued on it at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Petition till the date of realisation. Proportionate costs is also ordered to be paid. 4th respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle shall deposit the compensation arrived at as above alongwith interest accrued on it at the rate fixed and proportionate costs in favour of petitioners 1 to 3, on themselves furnishing the particulars of the accounts maintained by them with a bank. Proportionate costs is also ordered to be paid. 4th respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle shall deposit the compensation arrived at as above alongwith interest accrued on it at the rate fixed and proportionate costs in favour of petitioners 1 to 3, on themselves furnishing the particulars of the accounts maintained by them with a bank. While disbursing the amount, the Tribunal shall see that the guidelines issued by this Court in Circular No. 03/2019 dated 06.09.2019 are followed. 11. MACA is allowed accordingly.