JUDGMENT 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award dated 29.4.2023 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khandwa in Claim Case No.101/12 awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.10,30,000/- in favour of the appellants/claimants, this appeal under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the ‘Act, 1988’) has been filed seeking enhancement in the quantum of compensation. 2. As per facts of the case, on 25.12.2011 at about 07:00 pm when deceased along with his friend namely Nitin was going on his motorcycle then all of a sudden, the alleged offending vehicle i.e. tractor bearing registration No.MP-12-AB-6946, which was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1, dashed the motorcycle due to which the deceased sustained injuries on his head and died on spot. Thereafter, a criminal case was registered against respondent No.1. The alleged offending vehicle was registered in the name of respondent No.2 whereas it got insured with respondent No.3. (2.1) Thereafter, a claim also was made under section 166 of the Act, 1988 mentioning therein that at the time of incident, the deceased was aged about 42 years and doing farming. In the claim, it was averred that though 10.15 acres of agricultural land was recorded in the name of deceased, 13 acres of agricultural land was recorded in the name of his wife and 19.5 acres of land was recorded in the name of his father, but all the aforementioned agricultural land was being cultivated by the deceased having all advanced equipment. It was further averred in the claim that from an agricultural year, the deceased was getting an earning of Rs.9,50,000/-. In addition, the deceased was also earning Rs.1,50,000/- towards rent from his tractor. Likewise, in the business of manufacturing bricks, the deceased was earning Rs.1,00,000/- and as such, it was claimed that since the annul income of the deceased was Rs.12 lac, therefore, an adequate amount towards compensation should be paid to the claimants. (2.2) Denying the claim of claimants, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed their written statement saying that no such accident occurred in which respondent No.1 being a driver was driving the vehicle owned in the name of respondent No.2. According to respondent Nos.1 and 2, a false case got registered against them. (2.3) Respondent No.3 has also filed written statement in which they have denied all the allegations raised in the claim petition. According to respondent Nos.1 and 2, a false case got registered against them. (2.3) Respondent No.3 has also filed written statement in which they have denied all the allegations raised in the claim petition. (2.4) Thereafter, the Tribunal framing issues and recording the statement of parties has passed the award on 29.4.2013 and granted compensation to the tune of Rs.10,30,000/- in different heads in favour of the claimants imposing liabilities upon the respondents jointly and separately. (2.5) Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, this appeal has been filed on various grounds contending therein that neither the income of deceased was properly assessed nor proper compensation was determined in different heads. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that without appreciating the facts in a proper manner, the Tribunal has awarded compensation on a lower side. He has submitted that while assessing the annual income of deceased Rs.96,000/-, the Tribunal has committed an error whereas it should have been Rs.12,00,000/- per year. He has further submitted that after deducting 1/4th, as the number of dependents were four, the annual dependency should have been calculated to be Rs.09,00,000/- per year and by applying multiplier of 14, the loss of dependency should have been Rs.01,26,00,000/- and over this amount, a sum of Rs.25,000/- should also have been added on the other customary heads and as such, the total amount of compensation should have been Rs.01,26,25,000/-. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in support of their claim, there was a specific pleading in the claim petition which was supported by appellant No.1 in her deposition, but despite that the same has not been appreciated by the Tribunal. He has also submitted that neither the evidence adduced by the parties nor the other material produced by the claimants was taken note of by the Tribunal. He has further submitted that while awarding compensation, the Tribunal has not considered the fact that the deceased was earning Rs.1,00,000/- per year towards the business of manufacturing bricks and also that Rs.1,50,000/- per year was being earned from the rent of tractor. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has submitted that the Tribunal after appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties has passed the award. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has submitted that the Tribunal after appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties has passed the award. He has submitted that there is no scope of interference in the impugned award because the Tribunal has considered each and every aspect of the matter in a proper manner. 5. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Appellant No.1, in support of her claim, has exhibited the document relating to the criminal case which got registered because of the said accident, copies of bank statements (Ex.P/10 to Ex.P/12), some receipts of selling crops (Ex.P/13 to Ex.P/18), copy of rin-pustika (Ex.P/19), insurance policy of vehicle, copy of license, but the Tribunal, after considering the statement of witnesses produced by the claimants, has observed that only 4.15 acres of land was in the name of deceased. Although, the other land was found to be recorded in the name of his father and also in the name of his wife, but the Tribunal has found that if total land is to be considered the land of joint family then the deceased has lost income of his share in the joint income of the family. At the same time, the Tribunal has also observed that for other sources of income, neither any documentary evidence has been produced nor any cogent material is available on record to assess the income of the deceased from other heads except agriculture. The Tribunal has further observed that though a witness namely Santosh Kumar in his statement has stated that total 42 acres of land belong to the family of deceased, but in support whereof, he has not produced any document and as such, his evidence to prove that total 42 acres of land of the family was being cultivated by the deceased, is not found proved. However, the Tribunal has observed that in the family of deceased, agriculture is the only source of income. The Tribunal has also found that the deceased owned 4.15 acres of irrigated land and giving his share to the joint family income and under such circumstances, assessing the total income of deceased @ Rs.8,000/- per month, the Tribunal applying the multiplier of 12 has arrived at a conclusion that the annual income of deceased @ Rs.96,000/- (Rs.8000 x 12) would be appropriate. 7. 7. It is an undisputed fact that out of total 42 acres of land, 10.15 acres of land was in the name of deceased, 13 acres of land was in the name of his wife and 19.5 acres of land was in the name of his father. It is also undisputed that the aforesaid land was being cultivated by the deceased and as such, it was a consortium. The Supreme Court in a case reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh] considering the concept of loss of consortium has observed as under:- ‘17. ...... In legal parlance, “consortium” is the right of the spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate. That non-pecuniary head of damages has not been properly understood by our Courts. The loss of companionship, love, care and protection, etc., the spouse is entitled to get, has to be compensated appropriately. The concept of non-pecuniary damage for loss of consortium is one of the major heads of award of compensation in other parts of the world more particularly in the United States of America, Australia, etc. English courts have also recognised the right of a spouse to get compensation even during the period of temporary disablement. By loss of consortium, the courts have made an attempt to compensate the loss of spouse's affection, comfort, solace, companionship, society, assistance, protection, care and sexual relations during the future years. Unlike the compensation awarded in other countries and other jurisdictions, since the legal heirs are otherwise adequately compensated for the pecuniary loss, it would not be proper to award a major amount under this head. Hence, we are of the view that it would only be just and reasonable that the courts award at least rupees one lakh for loss of consortium.’ Similarly, in Civil Appeal No (S). 9233 of 2022 [Harpreet Kaur and others v. Mohinder Yadav and others], the Supreme Court taking note of observation made in the case of Rajesh (supra) has observed as under:- ‘12. The judgment in Rajesh v. Rajbir was followed in other decisions. However, the approach in these decisions, was disapproved by a five-judge bench decision in National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi, where this Court indicated what should be the correct approach in awarding amounts towards consortium: “52. […] Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. The judgment in Rajesh v. Rajbir was followed in other decisions. However, the approach in these decisions, was disapproved by a five-judge bench decision in National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi, where this Court indicated what should be the correct approach in awarding amounts towards consortium: “52. […] 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….” Applying this principle, in Magma General Insurance Co. v. Nanu Ram this Court held as follows: “20. MACT as well as the High Court have not awarded any compensation with respect to loss of consortium and loss of estate, which are the other conventional heads under which compensation is awarded in the event of death, as recognised by the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi. The Motor Vehicles 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 Respondents 1 and 2. 21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] 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 v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 ]. 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 v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 ]. 21.1. 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, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation”. [Black's Law Dictionary (5th Edn., 1979).] 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 world-over have recognised 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.”’ 8. 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.”’ 8. In the present case, though the Tribunal after considering total individual annual income of deceased @ Rs.96,000/- per year has determined the compensation accordingly, but failed to consider the undisputed fact that the death of deceased would also cause loss to the consortium and as such, taking into account the fact that the Act, 1988 is a welfare and beneficial legislation, the Tribunal is duty bound to award compensation under the head of consortium. Looking to the over all circumstances of the case and the material placed before this Court, I have no hesitation to say that while assessing the annual income of deceased @ Rs.96,000/- per year, the Tribunal has committed error whereas as per the documents produced by the claimants i.e. bank statements showing total balance in two accounts of deceased w.e.f. 1.4.2011 to 25.1.2012 came to Rs.2,63,000/- and Rs.1,99,169/- respectively whereas in the account wife of deceased, it came to Rs.2,50,814/-. Likewise, taking note of the receipts of sale of crops in the year 2012 i.e. Ex.P/13 to Ex.P/18, the assessment of annual income of deceased as made by the Tribunal does not appear to be proper because the total amount shown in the accounts comes to Rs.4,62,169.42 as per Ex.P/10 to Ex.P/12. Although, it is not showing his annual income, but being an agriculturist, taking note of statements of sale of crops and balance amount shown in the accounts, if the amount of Rs.4,62,169.42 is the annual income of total 42 acres of land, then 1/4th of said amount would be annual income of the deceased which comes to Rs.01,15,542.35. Applying 40% towards future prospects, the total annual income (Rs.01,15,542.35 + Rs.46,216.94) amounts to Rs.01,61,759.29. With a 1/4th deduction (four dependents), the annual loss of dependency (Rs.01,61,759.29 – Rs.40,439.82) would be Rs.01,21,319.47. Applying 40% towards future prospects, the total annual income (Rs.01,15,542.35 + Rs.46,216.94) amounts to Rs.01,61,759.29. With a 1/4th deduction (four dependents), the annual loss of dependency (Rs.01,61,759.29 – Rs.40,439.82) would be Rs.01,21,319.47. The fact with regard to consortium is not disputed and as such, the amount of consortium is also required to be paid to the claimants and, therefore, as per the total income of deceased, land shown to be recorded in his name and in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Harpreet Kaur (supra), I am of the opinion that taking into account the dependency upon the deceased (total four) the loss of consortium of Rs.01,50,000/- seems to be proper to be paid to the claimants. 9. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified accordingly with a direction that the respondents including the Insurance Company shall pay the enhanced amount Rs.08,18,472.58 in addition to the amount already awarded by the Claims Tribunal to the appellants/claimants under the joint and several liability within one month with 6% interest which includes the enhanced awarded amount, from the date of impugned award till its realization. 10. Let a copy of this judgment and record be sent back to the Claims Tribunal concerned.