JUDGMENT : NISHA M. THAKORE, J. 1. This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) at the instance of the Insurance Company original opponent nos. 3 and 5 challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 19.03.2015 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi) in MACP No.458 of 2008. By the said judgment and award, the Tribunal has allowed the claim petition preferred by the respondent nos. 1 to 3 – original claimants under Section 166 of the Act by awarding compensation of Rs.11,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of claim petition till its actual realization. The Tribunal has held that the present appellant along with respondent nos. 6 to 8 is jointly and severally liable for payment of such award amount. 2. In nutshell the case of the original claimants before the Tribunal was: 2.1 On 03.06.2008, the deceased Bhanabhai Parmar was going to Gadseesha from Mandvi on his motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ- 12-AP-1949. It was contended that the deceased was driving the motorcycle by following the traffic rules at moderate speed on the correct side of the road. While the deceased had reached near village Don which is approximately 12 km away from Mandvi, the respondent no.1 who was driving the Tata Mobile Vehicle bearing registration No. GJ-12- X-5237 came from the wrong side at excessive speed and in a negligent manner endangering the human life and dashed with the motorcycle of the deceased. Due to the said accident, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to such injuries. 3. The original claimant viz. Kesaben Ramjibhai Parmar – grandmother of the deceased, Narsinhbhai Ramjibhai Parmar- father of the deceased, Bhagniben Narsinhbhai Parmar- mother of the deceased, Hemlataben Narsinhbhai Parmar-sister of the deceased, Vijay Narsinhbhai Parmar- brother of the deceased and Nishaben Narsinhbhai Parmar- younger sister of the deceased had moved the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bhuj- Kutch by preferring claim petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation of Rs.25 lakhs along with interest and proportionate costs from the respondents. Pending the claim petition, the original applicant no.2 Narsinhbhai Parmar had expired and was deleted from the array of the parties. Pending the claim petition, the original applicant no.2 Narsinhbhai Parmar had expired and was deleted from the array of the parties. The claim petition was preferred against the driver of the offending vehicle – Shailesh Kalyanji Rathod- opponent no.1 and owner of the vehicle – Mohanbhai Karsandas – opponent no.2. The motorcycle was of the ownership of opponent no.4 Ratanshi Ladha Patel – opponent no.5. , the insurer of the said motorcycle was also joined as party respondent. The Tribunal considering the case of the original claimants had issued notice upon the respective respondents. The original respondent nos. 1 and 2 had submitted written submission jointly at Exh.15 who have disputed the occurrence of the accident. The dispute with regard to the negligence of the offending Tata Mobile Vehicle was objected to and in fact the defence was raised that it was the deceased who had driven his vehicle in a negligent manner resulting in an accident. The respondent no.3 had also submitted their defence at Exh.23 though the same Insurance Company has been arraigned separately representing the respective vehicles as respondent nos. 3 and 5, the Tribunal has treated the written statement produced at Exh.23 by the respondent no.3 to be the joint written statement tendered by the respondents nos. 3 and 5. No written statement has been filed by the respondent no.4. The Tribunal, noticing the pleadings of the respective parties had framed the issue at Exh.35. The Tribunal upon appreciation of the evidence on record has answered the issue no.1 partly in favour of the original claimants by holding that because of the negligence of the respondent no.1, the deceased had met with the accident resulting in his death. On the issue of compensation, the Tribunal upon appreciation of the evidence has partly allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.11,25,000/- with 9% interest to be realized from the respondent nos. 1 to 3 by holding them jointly and severally liable, whereas, the Tribunal has exonerated the respondent nos. 4 an 5. Hence, this appeal at the instance of the respondent no.3- Insurance Company. 4. This Court by order dated 10.09.2015 had admitted the appeal. 1 to 3 by holding them jointly and severally liable, whereas, the Tribunal has exonerated the respondent nos. 4 an 5. Hence, this appeal at the instance of the respondent no.3- Insurance Company. 4. This Court by order dated 10.09.2015 had admitted the appeal. In the application seeking stay by separate order dated 10.09.2015, the Coordinate Bench had directed the appellant –Insurance Company to deposit entire amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with interest and proportionate costs and subject to such deposit of compensation amount, the stay was granted against the implementation and execution of the award. At the same time, the Court had further directed the Claims Tribunal to proceed with the investment and the disbursement of the award amount in terms of the award. On the next date of hearing i.e. 08.10.2015 on confirmation of the fact of deposit of the award amount, this Court confirmed the earlier order of stay. 5. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and had permitted them to place on record the written submissions along with the authorities relied upon. The matter was finally heard and reserved for orders. 6. Mr. Ninad Shah, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of Ms. Aditi Raol, learned advocate for the appellant – Insurance Company. According to learned advocate the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. The attention of this Court was invited to the findings of the Tribunal insofar as the quantum awarded under the head of future loss of income is concerned. It was submitted that while considering the prospective income, the Tribunal has committed an error in considering 30% increase in the actual income for calculation of prospective income. The attention of this Court was invited to the nature of work of the deceased who was otherwise working as a supervisor in the Crusher plant and was paid Rs.226.50 per day. It was submitted that the deceased was therefore not holding a permanent job and the Tribunal ought to have considered the aforesaid fact. The attention of this Court was invited to the nature of work of the deceased who was otherwise working as a supervisor in the Crusher plant and was paid Rs.226.50 per day. It was submitted that the deceased was therefore not holding a permanent job and the Tribunal ought to have considered the aforesaid fact. The reliance was placed on the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & ors reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , more particularly, para 59.4 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the addition of 40% of the established income in case where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. Thus, it was submitted that the prospective income which could have been taken into consideration by applying 40% would come to Rs.2400/- per month. Secondly, it was submitted that the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased who was otherwise bachelor. Reference was made to the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) , more particularly, para 59.5 and the guidelines rendered in the case of Sarla Verma and ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . It was submitted that the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/2 of the aforesaid amount towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased and has urged this Court to consider such an amount as Rs.50,400/-. Learned advocate has not disputed the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal as 17 which is otherwise applicable in case of the age group of deceased prevailing between 25 to 30 years as per the schedule. Thus, it was submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in determining the amount of prospective income as Rs.10,60800 as against Rs. 8,56,800/-. Apart from the aforesaid issue, the learned advocate had also raised grievance about the amount of award computed under the conventional heads. The attention of this Court was invited to the reasonable figures under the conventional head viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium, funeral expenses to be considered as Rs.15,000/-, Rs. 8,56,800/-. Apart from the aforesaid issue, the learned advocate had also raised grievance about the amount of award computed under the conventional heads. The attention of this Court was invited to the reasonable figures under the conventional head viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium, funeral expenses to be considered as Rs.15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), more particularly, the reference was made to para 59.8 of the aforesaid decision, whereas the Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- under the head of love and affection and Rs.25,000/- under the head of funeral expenses. Learned advocate in his written submissions has fairly pointed out that as per legal position, original claimants shall be entitled to Rs.80,000/- under the head of loss of consortium. By making aforesaid submissions, learned advocate has urged this Court to reduce the amount of compensation from Rs.11,25,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.9,66,800/-. 7. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Hiren Modi appeared for the respondents no. 1 to 5 herein– original claimants objected to the submissions of deduction of 1/2 instead of 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Learned advocate has not disputed the legal proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) wherein in case of bachelor 1/2 of the amount is to be deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, however in the peculiar facts of the case he had objected to be reduced. Our attention was invited to the relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, more particularly, para 15. He has submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has further clarified that where the family of the bachelor is large and is dependent on the income of the deceased, it may be restricted to 1/3rd and the contribution of the family may be considered as 2/3rd. By referring to the aforesaid observations, it was submitted that the claimant mainly included the grandmother, parents of the deceased, two unmarried sisters and younger brother. It was further submitted that the father of the deceased was suffering from aliment and he in fact expired pending the original claim petition. By referring to the aforesaid observations, it was submitted that the claimant mainly included the grandmother, parents of the deceased, two unmarried sisters and younger brother. It was further submitted that the father of the deceased was suffering from aliment and he in fact expired pending the original claim petition. It was further submitted that there were two unmarried sisters in the family and the deceased was the only responsible male person who was earning at the time of accident for the entire family. In support of his submission, reliance was placed on the evidence of the brother of the deceased at Exh.38 who categorically stated in his cross examination that his father was doing nothing as he was suffering from illness, both the sisters were unmarried and they all were residing together. By referring to the aforesaid circumstances, the learned advocate has submitted that no error can be found with the approach of the Tribunal in deducting 1/3rd amount and has urged this Court not to interfere with the aforesaid computation adopted by the Tribunal. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Nanu Ral Alias Chuhur Ram & Ors reported in (2018)18 SCC 130 , wherein in a similar set of facts, the Court had approved the deduction of 1/3rd amount instead of 1/2 of the amount. 8. While responding to the submission of the learned advocate with regard to the prospective income at 30% is concerned, the learned advocate has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), wherein, the Court has considered 50% of the income for determination of the prospective income of the deceased and has accordingly urged that such computation of the Tribunal for prospective income is required to be re-visited as being on lower side. The learned advocate has fairly submitted that no appeal is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation and has therefore urged this Court not to interfere with the just and proper compensation as determined by the Tribunal. 9. The learned advocate has fairly submitted that no appeal is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation and has therefore urged this Court not to interfere with the just and proper compensation as determined by the Tribunal. 9. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having perused the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in light of the submissions made by the learned advocate for the respective parties and the facts relied upon, the only question which falls for consideration of this Court is whether the Tribunal committed any error while passing the impugned judgment and award in the facts of the case. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties, there are three points on which the awarded compensation requires scrutiny and a just award is required to be determined. The first point therefore which falls for consideration is whether the Tribunal was right in determining compensation towards future prospects. Second, whether the Tribunal was right in directing a deduction of 1/3rd of the deceased's income, given the number of his family members. It is also to be examined whether the award of compensation under the conventional heads is in accordance with law. 11. On the first issue, the law regarding future prospects was summarized by the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), where it is held: "56. The seminal issue is the fixation of future prospects in cases of deceased who are self employed or on a fixed salary. Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] has carved out an exception permitting the claimants to bring materials on record to get the benefit of addition of future prospects. It has not, per se, allowed any future prospects in respect of the said category. 57. Having bestowed our anxious consideration, we are disposed to think when we accept the principle of standardisation, there is really no rationale not to apply the said principle to the self employed or a person who is on a fixed salary. To follow the doctrine of actual income at the time of death and not to add any amount with regard to future prospects to the income for the purpose of determination of multiplicand would be unjust. To follow the doctrine of actual income at the time of death and not to add any amount with regard to future prospects to the income for the purpose of determination of multiplicand would be unjust. The determination of income while computing compensation has to include future prospects so that the method will come within the ambit and sweep of just compensation as postulated under Section 168 of the Act. In case of a deceased who had held a permanent job with inbuilt grant of annual increment, there is an acceptable certainty. But to state that the legal representatives of a deceased who was on a fixed salary would not be entitled to the benefit of future prospects for the purpose of computation of compensation would be inapposite. It is because the criterion of distinction between the two in that event would be certainty on the one hand and staticness on the other. One may perceive that the comparative measure is certainty on the one hand and uncertainty on the other but such a perception is fallacious. It is because the price rise does affect a self employed person; and that apart there is always an incessant effort to enhance one's income for sustenance. The purchasing capacity of a salaried person on permanent job when increases because of grant of increments and pay revision or for some other change in service conditions, there is always a competing attitude in the private sector to enhance the salary to get better efficiency from the employees. Similarly, a person who is self-employed is bound to garner his resources and raise his charges/fees so that he can live with same facilities. To have the perception that he is likely to remain static and his income to remain stagnant is contrary to the fundamental concept of human attitude which always intends to live with dynamism and move and change with the time. Though it may seem appropriate that there cannot be certainty in addition of future prospects to the existing income unlike in the case of a person having a permanent job, yet the said perception does not really deserve acceptance. Though it may seem appropriate that there cannot be certainty in addition of future prospects to the existing income unlike in the case of a person having a permanent job, yet the said perception does not really deserve acceptance. We are inclined to think that there can be some degree of difference as regards the percentage that is meant for or applied to in respect of the legal representatives who claim on behalf of the deceased who had a permanent job than a person who is self- employed or on a fixed salary. But not to apply the principle of standardisation on the foundation of perceived lack of certainty would tantamount to remaining oblivious to the marrows of ground reality. And, therefore, degree-test is imperative. Unless the degree test is applied and left to the parties to adduce evidence to establish, it would be unfair and inequitable. The degree-test has to have the inbuilt concept of percentage. Taking into consideration the cumulative factors, namely, passage of time, the changing society, escalation of price, the change in price index, the human attitude to follow a particular pattern of life, etc., an addition of 40% of the established income of the deceased towards future prospects and where the deceased was below 40 years an addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years would be reasonable. 58. The controversy does not end here. The question still remains whether there should be no addition where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] thinks it appropriate not to add any amount and the same has been approved in Reshma Kumari [Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 191 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 826]. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that salary does not remain the same. When a person is in a permanent job, there is always an enhancement due to one reason or the other. To lay down as a thumb rule that there will be no addition after 50 years will be an unacceptable concept. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that salary does not remain the same. When a person is in a permanent job, there is always an enhancement due to one reason or the other. To lay down as a thumb rule that there will be no addition after 50 years will be an unacceptable concept. We are disposed to think, there should be an addition of 15% if the deceased is between the age of 50 to 60 years and there should be no addition thereafter. Similarly, in case of self-employed or person on fixed salary, the addition should be 10% between the age of 50 to 60 years. The aforesaid yardstick has been fixed so that there can be consistency in the approach by the tribunals and the courts." 12. There is no dispute with regard to the age of the deceased at the time of accident. The original claimants have brought on record the cogent material to establish the age of the deceased as 29 years at the time of accident. The documentary evidence in the nature of attendance sheet, monthly presence marking sheet, copy of list of Crush plant where the deceased used to work as supervisor has been brought on record to establish that the deceased was engaged as supervisor at Crush Plant. The original claimants have also examined the witness viz. Bharatbhai Karshandas Parvadiya who was the owner of the Crush Plant at Mandvi. The said witness had deposed before the Tribunal that the deceased was earning a monthly salary of Rs.6000/-. In support of such submission, the relevant documents in the nature of attendance sheets marked at Exhs. 48 to 53 for the period between January 2008 to June 2008 have been brought on record. Apart from the aforesaid attendance sheet, monthly presence registers at Exhs. 54 to 59 have also been produced on record which goes to indicate that the deceased was engaged as a supervisor during this period. Upon appreciation of the aforesaid evidence, the Tribunal has noticed the rate of wages which was fixed at Rs.226.60 per day and as against the amount to be paid at the end of the month is reflected in the register. The Tribunal has noticed the different amounts shown in the register as against the withdrawal amount by the deceased. Upon appreciation of the aforesaid evidence, the Tribunal has noticed the rate of wages which was fixed at Rs.226.60 per day and as against the amount to be paid at the end of the month is reflected in the register. The Tribunal has noticed the different amounts shown in the register as against the withdrawal amount by the deceased. Upon appreciation of the aforesaid evidence, considering the fact of deceased having attended minimum 25 days per month and daily wage at the rate of Rs.227/- , has computed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6000/-. In order to consider the aspect of prospective income, the Tribunal has followed the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Limited reported in 2012 ACJ 1428 whereby, the Court has clarified that even in cases of self employed or the persons engaged on fixed wages are concerned, they shall be entitled to get a 30% increase in their total income for a period of time. Applying the aforesaid principle, in the facts of the case, the Tribunal has considered prospective income as Rs.7800/- per month. In our opinion, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the factors relevant for the purpose of determination of prospective income. It is to be noted that the Tribunal has followed the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Devi (supra) pronounced on 23.4.2012, which was the ratio prevailing at the time when the Tribunal has opined by the impugned judgment and award dated 19.03.2015. The submission of learned advocate for the appellant – Insurance Company to consider the rise in income by considering at the rate of 40% of the established income, is in light of the subsequent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). We are of the opinion that since the deceased was engaged in a fixed salary and was below the age of 40 years, the benefit of a rise in income at the rate of 40% of the established income is required to be extended. Hence, the total income per year is required to be considered as Rs.1,00,800/- instead of Rs.93,600/- as determined by the Tribunal. 13. This brings us to the second submission of the learned advocate for the appellant- Insurance Company on the aspect of deduction. Hence, the total income per year is required to be considered as Rs.1,00,800/- instead of Rs.93,600/- as determined by the Tribunal. 13. This brings us to the second submission of the learned advocate for the appellant- Insurance Company on the aspect of deduction. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 has been followed and approved by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi(supra), and, later on, followed in United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur and others, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 410. In Sarla Verma (supra), it has been held : "30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra [ (1996) 4 SCC 362 ], the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six. 31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. 32. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. 32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.” 14. Having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances where the deceased was survived by the parents and the siblings and as can be culled out from the evidence of the brother of the deceased who has been examined at Exh.38 the family members of the deceased were relying upon the income of the deceased at the time of accident. In our view, no error can be found with the approach of the Tribunal considering the aforesaid facts while applying the deduction of 1/3rd of the personal and living expenses of the deceased in order to determine the compensation under the head of loss of dependency. As point out by learned counsel for the appellant –Insurance Company, it is true that in regard to the bachelor normally 50% was required to be deducted as personal and living expenses because it is assumed that the bachelor would taint to spend more on himself as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has further clarified in case the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased being guided by the aforesaid observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, then 1/3rd of deduction is reasonable as he would be contributing 2/3rd of his income towards family. The aforesaid factor would be applicable in absence of evidence to the contrary. Though the deceased was bachelor, this court cannot ignore the fact that the family of the deceased was large and dependent on the income of the deceased. The aforesaid factor would be applicable in absence of evidence to the contrary. Though the deceased was bachelor, this court cannot ignore the fact that the family of the deceased was large and dependent on the income of the deceased. We do not agree with the submission made by the learned advocate for the respective parties to consider 1/2 deduction towards personal and living expenses though the deceased was a bachelor. Hence, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased is restricted to 1/3rd is rightly applied by the Tribunal. Since the multiplier 17 adopted by the Tribunal is not disputed, the amount of compensation under the head of loss of dependency is redetermined to Rs.11,42,400/- ( 6000 x 40% = 2400 + 6000= 8400 x 12= 1,00,800 x ? rd deduction = 33,600 viz. 1,00,800 - 33,600 = 67,200 x 17 multiplier = 11,42,400/- ), as against the amount of Rs.10,60,800/- awarded by the Tribunal. 15. This brings us to the last submission of the learned advocate for the appellant on the quantum of compensation awarded under the conventional heads are concerned. The principles governing award of compensation under conventional heads, particularly with regard to award for loss of consortium, have been laid down by the Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 . In Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. (supra), it has been held: "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 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] 21.1. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse : [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] 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. 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 [Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram v. Sohi Ram, 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 3848 : (2017) 4 RLW 3368; Uttarakhand High Court in Rita Rana v. Pradeep Kumar, 2013 SCC OnLine Utt 2435 : (2014) 3 UC 1687; Karnataka High Court in Lakshman v. Susheela Chand Choudhary, 1996 SCC OnLine Kar 74 : (1996) 3 Kant LJ 570]. 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 [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] . 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." (emphasis by Court) 16. As rightly pointed out by learned advocate for the appellant – Insurance Company, the original claimant shall be entitled to benefit of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and the subsequent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd (supra), the amount under the head of loss of love and affection as awarded by the Tribunal for Rs.40,000/- is required to be re-determined as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Considering the fact that the father of the deceased and the mother of the deceased have suffered loss of love and affection of their son, the said claimants are entitled to the compensation of Rs.80,000/- under the head of loss of consortium. 17. For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion no case is made out for entertaining appeal praying for reduction of the award amount at the instance of the appellant Insurance company, however, the award impugned requires to be revisited and is required to be modified. 17. For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion no case is made out for entertaining appeal praying for reduction of the award amount at the instance of the appellant Insurance company, however, the award impugned requires to be revisited and is required to be modified. Indisputably the challenge in the present appeal filed at the instance of the Insurance Company is restricted to award amount and no submissions have been made by the learned advocates for the parties on the aspect of negligence and the liability. In such circumstances, this Court is called upon to examine the determination of the award amount mainly on the two grounds which is the loss of dependency and amount awarded under the conventional heads. As noted earlier, the impugned award requires reconsideration but at the same time, no cross objections or appeal is filed by the respondent - original claimants praying for enhancement of the award amount. 18. In peculiar facts of the case, since the claimants are entitled to the benefit of the decision of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same being declared under Art. 141 of the Constitution is binding on this Court. The view expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the retrospective applicability, appears in the case of Manoj Parihar & Ors Vs. State of J&K & Ors., (2022) 14 SCC 172, wherein, it held that when the Supreme Court declares a law, the same will have retrospective effect. Taking note of the case of P. V. George (supra) the Supreme Court further reiterated the law declared by the Supreme Court will have retrospective effect, if not otherwise stated to be so specifically. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) will not reopen the settled claims but shall be applicable to the cases which are pending before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals and before the High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India at the appellate stage, since an appeal is continuation of original proceedings. 19. 19. Having considered the aforesaid legal position, considering the fact that the Motor Accident Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation, which aims to extend just and proper compensation to the victim, in the peculiar circumstances, we are inclined to invoke Order 41 rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to extend the aforesaid benefits of the law laid down by the Supreme Court by modifying the impugned award accordingly. For the reasons recorded earlier, the total amount of compensation is revised as under: Heads Compensation in Rs. Income Rs. 6000/- per month Prospective income Rs. 2400/- per month (40%) Total income per year Rs. 8400*12 = Rs. 1,00,800/- Deduction towards personal and living expense Rs. 67,200/- (1/3rd) (1,00,800 – 33,600) Multiplier (Age of the deceased 25-30 years) Rs. 11,42,400/- (67,200 * 17) Conventional heads Rs. 15,000/- (Loss of estate) Rs. 15,000/- (Funeral expenses) Rs. 80,000/- (loss of consortium) Total Compensation Rs. 12,52,400/- at the rate of 7.5% pa 20. Hence to meet the ends of justice, the impugned judgment and award dated 19.03.2015 passed in MACP no. 458 of 2008, by the Motor Accident Claims tribunal, (Auxi.), Kachchh is hereby modified. The original claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs. 12,52,400/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing the claim petition till its actual realization. The appellant Insurance company is further directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation with proportionate cost and interest, preferably within eight weeks from date of receipt of this order with the concerned tribunal. The Tribunal is directed to proceed with the release and disbursement of the amounts amongst the claimants in terms of the proportion of share as determined by the Tribunal in its impugned award. Needles to clarify that the court fees, if any to be realized may be appropriated accordingly before the disbursement of the amount. 21. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal stands disposed in terms of the directions issued. Notice stands discharged. Let Record and proceedings be sent back forthwith to the concerned Tribunal.