JUDGMENT : A.V. Ravindra Babu, J. Challenge in this MACMA is to the award, dated 28.08.2016 in M.V.O.P.No.324 of 2014, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guduru (MVOP No.570 of 2012, on the file of V Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore) (“Tribunal” for short), whereunder the Tribunal dealing with a claim for compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- made by the claimants on account of death of Yalla Nandakumar Reddy (hereinafter will be referred to as “deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident, which was occurred on 28.01.2012, awarded a sum of Rs.12,76,800/-. 2. The appellants are the claimants in M.V.O.P.No.324 of 2014 and feeling that the compensation so awarded by the tribunal is not just and reasonable, they filed the present MACMA. 3. The parties to this MACMA will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 4. The case of the claimants, in brief, according to the averments set out in the claim before the Tribunal, is that the first claimant is wife. Claimants 2 and 3 are sons and fourth claimant is mother of the deceased. The deceased was aged about 42 years at the time of his death. He was hale and healthy prior to his death. He purchased combined Harvester machine bearing No.A.P.26-AF-5733 for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- under hypothecation agreement with L & T Finance Limited, Hyderabad on 11.03.2010. He is paying Rs.93,000/- per month regularly towards instalments under the loan amount. He used to hire the harvester machine to the ryots in his village and surrounding villages. He used to get income of Rs.20,000/- per month on harvester machine after deducting all expenses. He also took Ac.10-00 cents of agricultural land from Satish Reddy and Nudhar Reddy on lease and used to cultivate the same personally. He used to earn Rs.24,00,000/- per annum after deducting expenses. He used to get Rs.40,000/- per month on both agricultural as well as on harvester machine. He used to contribute the same for the first claimant for family maintenance. The claimants are depending upon his earnings and there are no other legal heirs. 5. On 28.01.2012, the deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No.A.P.26-AF-9232 from Buchireddipalem towards Kalavakuru village of Pellakuru Mandal, for collection of harvester hire amount. He used to contribute the same for the first claimant for family maintenance. The claimants are depending upon his earnings and there are no other legal heirs. 5. On 28.01.2012, the deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No.A.P.26-AF-9232 from Buchireddipalem towards Kalavakuru village of Pellakuru Mandal, for collection of harvester hire amount. When he reached near Pandluru cross road on NH.5 road, Naidupet Mandal, at about 9-30 a.m., one Tata Sumo Grandey LX bearing No.A.P.03-AJ-0236 (hereinafter will be referred to as “offending vehicle”) being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed came in opposite direction and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased. He fell down on the road and sustained severe bleeding injuries on his forehead and on his both legs and left hand and died on the spot. His dead body was brought back to his village from Government Hospital, Naidupet by spending Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges. Naidupet Police registered FIR under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the offending vehicle. The first respondent insured his vehicle with second respondent under valid insurance policy as on the date of accident. The second respondent has to indemnify the first respondent to pay the compensation. Both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 6. The first respondent got filed a counter resisting the claim and contending in substance that the claimants have to prove the hale and healthy condition of the deceased prior to the accident and his purchasing combined harvester machine and his income thereon and his agricultural income and the manner of the accident and that they are the legal heirs. The driver of the offending vehicle possessed valid and effective driving licence. It was insured with the second respondent. The second respondent has to indemnify the liability of the first respondent. There was no rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. 7. The second respondent got filed a counter denying the case of the claimants and putting burden on claimants to prove the manner of accident and earnings of the deceased, etc. There was no contract of insurance between second respondent and first respondent. Hence, the claim is to be dismissed. 8. 7. The second respondent got filed a counter denying the case of the claimants and putting burden on claimants to prove the manner of accident and earnings of the deceased, etc. There was no contract of insurance between second respondent and first respondent. Hence, the claim is to be dismissed. 8. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issues for trail : (1) Whether the accident that took place on 28.01.2012 at about 9-30 a.m., near Pandlur cross road on N.H.5, Naidupet Mandal was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tata Sumo Grandey LX bearing Registration No.A.P.03-AJ-0236? (2) Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation as prayed for, if so to what amount and from which of the respondent? (3) To what relief? 9. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.10 were marked. R.W.1 was examined on behalf of the second respondent and Ex.B.1 was marked. 10. The Tribunal on hearing both sides and considering the oral as well as documentary evidence answered the issues to the effect that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving made by the driver of the offending vehicle and that the claimants are entitled to compensation and awarded a sum of Rs.12,76,800/- towards compensation. Felt aggrieved that the compensation so awarded is not just and reasonable the claimants filed the present MACMA. 11. Now, in deciding the present MACMA, the point for determination is whether the award, dated 28.08.2016 in M.V.O.P.No.324 of 2014, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guduru, in awarding compensation of Rs.12,76,800/- as against the original claim of Rs.20,00,000/-, is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to enhance the compensation? POINT:- 12. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Sivaprasad Reddy Venati, during the course of hearing is twofold. One is that the tribunal did not award parental consortium in favour of the claimants 2 and 3 who are minor children as on the date of death of deceased and in support of his contention, he would rely upon a decision in Janabai Wd/o Dinakarrao Ghorpade and others vs. ICICI Lambord Insurance Company Limited, (2022) 10 SCC 512 . One is that the tribunal did not award parental consortium in favour of the claimants 2 and 3 who are minor children as on the date of death of deceased and in support of his contention, he would rely upon a decision in Janabai Wd/o Dinakarrao Ghorpade and others vs. ICICI Lambord Insurance Company Limited, (2022) 10 SCC 512 . His further contention is that the tribunal fixed up the notional income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month. During the period of accident i.e., for the year 2011-12, the income of the deceased as Rs.1,20,000/- which was fixed notionally and future prospects was not at all in the income tax range. The tribunal arrived at the multiplicand as that of Rs.17,64,000/- and awarded Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges; funeral and obsequies charges of Rs.25,000/- and consortium to the first claimant as Rs.30,000/- and thereby arrived at the figure of Rs.18,24,000/- and deducted a sum of 30% towards income tax which is wholly unsustainable in law. When the deceased was not in the tax bracket for the year 2011-12, such exercise made by the tribunal is not at all sustainable. He would submit that accordingly the compensation is to be enhanced. 13. Smt. A. Jayanthi, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, would seek to support the judgment of the tribunal on the ground that as the compensation that was fixed up comes to Rs.18,24,000/-, the tribunal deducted 30% towards income tax i.e., Rs.5,47,000/- thereby the award of the tribunal needs no interference. 14. It is to be noted that P.W.1 is no other than the first claimant, who put forth the facts in tune with the pleadings. Through her examination Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.10 were marked. 15. In support of the manner of the accident, she examined P.W.2 and P.W.3 who were direct witnesses to the occurrence. Further P.W.4 was also examined as a witness to the occurrence and also to speak of so-called income of the deceased. 16. As against the findings of the tribunal that the accident occurred was on account of the rash and negligent driving made by the driver of the offending vehicle, there is no appeal filed by the respondents herein. Further P.W.4 was also examined as a witness to the occurrence and also to speak of so-called income of the deceased. 16. As against the findings of the tribunal that the accident occurred was on account of the rash and negligent driving made by the driver of the offending vehicle, there is no appeal filed by the respondents herein. In other words, the respondents herein i.e., owner of the offending vehicle as well as insurance company did not choose to file any cross objection or appeal questioning the findings of the tribunal on issue No.1. The whole dispute in the present appeal is regarding quantum of compensation and the manner in which the compensation was calculated. 17. Coming to the judgment of the tribunal, the findings of the tribunal are that though the claimants pleaded that the deceased used to get income of Rs.20,000/- per month due to harvester machine and further was getting income by doing agriculture, the same is not proved. The tribunal considered the notional income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month. When the claimants did not choose to file proof to show the probable income, the only course left open to the tribunal was to consider the income on notional theory. There was no dispute during the course of enquiry about the fact that the deceased purchased combined harvester machine and was getting some income. The tribunal rightly considered the notional income as Rs.10,000/- per month and thereby arrived at the figure of Rs.1,20,000/-. As the claimants were four in number, the tribunal deducted 1/4th amount towards personal expenses and arrived at the figure of Rs.90,000/-. The tribunal considered to award a sum of 30% towards future prospects of the deceased which comes to Rs.36,000/- thereby it comes to Rs.1,26,000/-. The deceased was self-employed by hiring his harvester machine. The act of the tribunal in considering to award of 30% of the future prospects is not sought to be challenged by the respondents in any way. As the deceased was in the age group of 42 years, the tribunal applied multiplier "14" in view of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and arrived at the multiplicand as Rs.17,64,000/-. The tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards transport expenses. As the deceased was in the age group of 42 years, the tribunal applied multiplier "14" in view of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and arrived at the multiplicand as Rs.17,64,000/-. The tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards transport expenses. The tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral and obsequies expenses and it awarded Rs.30,000/- to the first claimant towards consortium. What the tribunal did is that it added Rs.60,000/- to Rs.17,64,000/- and deducted 30% of the income towards income tax i.e., Rs.5,29,200/- thereby arrived at net compensation of Rs.12,76,800/-. 18. The exercise made by the tribunal in deducting 30% towards income tax is not at all tenable. During the financial year 2011-12 the deceased was not liable to pay income tax. The income tax range in the year 2011-12 was Rs.1,60,000/-. Absolutely, the deceased was not at all in the tax bracket during the year 2011-12. The tribunal also deducted income tax on the transport charges, funeral and obsequies expenses and loss of consortium to the first claimant. Viewing from any angle, the exercise made by the tribunal so as to deduct income tax of 30% is not at all sustainable. 19. Under the circumstances, compensation needs to be modified accordingly. 20. In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the multiplicand is to be treated as Rs.17,64,000/- as awarded by the tribunal. Further the tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges which is reasonable. In view of the decision in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (16) SCC 680 , the first claimant being the wife is entitled to consortium of Rs.40,000/- and further funeral and obsequies expenses and loss of estate should be Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/- under conventional heads. Thus, a sum of Rs.70,000/- is to be added towards compensation. 21. Apart from this, in view of the decision in Janabai’s case (1 supra), the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para No.33 is as follows : “The Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims, or their families, in cases of genuine claims. 21. Apart from this, in view of the decision in Janabai’s case (1 supra), the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para No.33 is as follows : “The Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of 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 the children who lose the care and protection of their parents in motor vehicle accidents. The amount to be awarded for loss of consortium will be as per the amount fixed in Pranay Sethi’s case.” 22. The claimants 2 and 3 are no other than the minor children of the deceased. In view of the above, the claimants 2 and 3 are entitled to parental consortium for the last of their father and according to the same the amount to be awarded towards loss of consortium will be as per the amount fixed in Pranay Sethi’s case (2 supra). In Janabhai’s case (1 supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court for two children awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- each to the claimants 2 and 3 towards parental consortium. Hence, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants, claimants 2 and 3 are entitled to parental consortium at Rs.40,000/- each. Thus, the total compensation which the claimants are entitled is summarized as follows : (a) Multiplicand Rs.17,64,000-00 (b) Transport charges Rs.5,000-00 (c) Consortium to the first claimant Rs.40,000-00 (d) Funeral and obsequies expenses and loss of estate Rs.30,000-00 (e) Parental consortium to the claimants 2 and 3 (Rs.40,000/- x 2) Rs.80,000-00 23. Therefore, the claimants are entitled total compensation of Rs.19,19,000/-. 24. Though the tribunal arrived at the figure of Rs.18,24,000/-, but erroneously deducted a sum of Rs.5,47,200/- towards income tax which is not sustainable. The tribunal did not award the conventional heads of compensation properly in view of Pranay Sethi’s case (2 supra). Subsequent to the same, this Janabhai’s case (1 supra), came into picture and as the appeal is pending as on this day, the same principle can be applied to this case. Hence, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.19,19,000/-. 25. The tribunal did not award the conventional heads of compensation properly in view of Pranay Sethi’s case (2 supra). Subsequent to the same, this Janabhai’s case (1 supra), came into picture and as the appeal is pending as on this day, the same principle can be applied to this case. Hence, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.19,19,000/-. 25. In the result, MACMA is allowed in part with proportionate costs enhancing the compensation from that of Rs.12,76,800/- to Rs.19,19,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The respondents shall deposit the difference amount of Rs.6,42,200/- within a period of one month from this day. On such deposit the whole compensation is to be apportioned as follows : The first claimant is entitled Rs.9,76,800-00 The second claimant is entitled Rs.3,96,100-00 The third claimant is entitled Rs.3,96,100-00 The fourth respondent is entitled Rs.1,50,000-00 Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.