JUDGEMENT : MARLI VANKUNG, J. Heard Mr. Roshan Subedi, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company. Also heard Mr. Lalremtluanga, learned counsel for the claimant respondent No. 1. 2. This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the impugned Judgment & Award dated 02.11.2023 passed by the learned Member-cum-Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl in MAC Case No. 43/2019, wherein the learned Tribunal had awarded the sum of Rs. 20,49,000/- with 7% interest per annum, from the date of filing the application i.e., on 06.08.2019 to be paid by the Insurance Company/appellant. 3. Facts of the case in brief is that the daughter of the claimant Lalrempuii, aged 34 years died in the vehicular accident on 05.04.2019 at 2:15 PM, when one tripper bearing registration No. MZ 01 M-7405 belonging to the respondent No. 2, which was driven by respondent No. 2, while proceeding towards Mamit side, carrying a load of stone chips, knocked down the Scooty bearing registration No. MZ 01/3847 driven by Lalrempuii (deceased) with one pillion rider. The accident caused the instant death of Scooty driver Lalrempuii, while the pillion rider is kept unhurt. Accordingly, Mamit PS Case No. 20/2019 dated 05.04.2019 was registered under Section 279/304A/427 IPC r/w Section 184 MV Act, 1988 against the driver of the offending vehicle. The claimant then filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the respondents claiming compensation for the death of her daughter in the vehicular accident. The deceased Lalrempuii was employed as a teacher in Helen Lowry Higher Secondary School and said to have a monthly fixed pay of Rs. 10,000/- and that the offending vehicle was validly insured with the Insurance Company Cholamandalam M/s General Insurance Company bearing policy No. 3379/01760929/000/01, which had a validity from 27.08.2018 to 26.08.2019. The claim was contested by the respondents and the Insurance Company (present appellant), by stating that the claim petition was not maintainable in its present form and style and that they had not received the accident information report in form 54 as required under Section 134(c) and under Section 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act r/w Rules 150 (1 & 2) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. That there were no eye witness and it is not proved that the death of the deceased Lalrempuii was caused due to the accident. That there were no eye witness and it is not proved that the death of the deceased Lalrempuii was caused due to the accident. The respondent No. 2, owner of the vehicle and respondent No. 3, driver of the accident vehicle did not contest the case. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:- (i) Whether the present claim application is maintainable in its present form and style (ii) Whether there was fault on the part of the driver or owner of the accident vehicle (iii) Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation, if so, who is liable to pay and to what extend? 4. During trial, the claimant examined 3 (three) witnesses including herself being the mother of late Lalrempuii. She exhibited the following documents:- Ext.C-1 claimed form, Ext. C-1 (A) her signature, Ext. C-2 Goods permit in r/o MZ01M-7405, Ext. C-3 fresh permit of MZ01 M-7405, Ext. C-4 PUCC of MZ01 M-7405 which valid from 15.1.2019 to 14.7.2019, Ext. C-5 Fitness Inspection/Certificate dated 01.10.2018 in r/o MZO1 M-7405, Ext. C-6 MV Tax payment for the period from 1.8.2018 to 31.7.2019 of MZ01 M-7405 Ext. C-7 is insurance certificate of MZO1 M-7405 showing insurance policy No 3379/01760929/000/01 covering a period between 27.08.2018 to 26.08.2019, Ext. C-8 vehicular particulars of MZO1M-7405, Ext. C-9 Certificate of fitness of MZO1 M-7405 which valids from 16 January 2019 to 14 January 2020, Ext. C-10 FIR dated 05.04.2019 against SajiburRahman, Ext.C-11 Enquiry Report dated 05.04.2019, Ext.C-12 is Preliminary Police Report dated 29.04.2019, Ext. C-13 is Extract copy of GDE No 89 dated 05.04.2019, Ext.C-14 is Extract copy of GDE No 95 dated 05.04.2019, Ext. C-15arrest memo of Jakir Hussein Laskar, Ext. C- 16 PMER of Lalrempuii, Ext. C-17Inquest report, Ext. C-18 vehicle inspection report of MZ01 M-7405, Ext. C-19 vehicle inspection report of MZO1-Q-3847, Ext. C-20 driving license of Jakir Hussein Laskar B/R. No. AS-24200900 12011 issued on 1.7.2009 which valid upto 04.05.2038 and 04.05.2021 respectively, Ext. C-21 death certificate of Lalrempuii, Ext. C-22 Last pay certificate of late Lalrempui, Ext. C- 23 Family list of late Lalrempuii under Family ration card, Ext. C-24 family ration card of Lalrempuii, Ext.C-25 Aadhar Card of late Lalrempuii, Ext.C-26 Epic of late Lalrempuii Ext.C-27valid driving licence of late Lalrempui Ext. C-28 HSLC of late Lalrempuii, Ext. C-29 provisional certificate of M.Com of late Lalrempuii issued by ICFAI University of Mizoram Ext. C- 23 Family list of late Lalrempuii under Family ration card, Ext. C-24 family ration card of Lalrempuii, Ext.C-25 Aadhar Card of late Lalrempuii, Ext.C-26 Epic of late Lalrempuii Ext.C-27valid driving licence of late Lalrempui Ext. C-28 HSLC of late Lalrempuii, Ext. C-29 provisional certificate of M.Com of late Lalrempuii issued by ICFAI University of Mizoram Ext. C-30 Provisional Grade Sheet of late Lalrempuií in SM.Com, Ext-C 31M. Com certificate of late Lalrempuii Ext. C-32 Gold Medal Certificate issued to late Lalrempui in 2018 and Ext. C-33 birth certificate of late Lalrempuii. 5. CW-2, R. Lalchhuanawma is a teacher of Helen Lowry Higher Secondary School, Chawnpui, Aizawl who deposed that he knew that the deceased was paid Rs. 10,000/- per month. CW-3 is the pillion rider of the Scooty bearing Registration No. MZ 01Q 3847 driven by the deceased Lalrempuii. He deposed how the accident had occurred and opined that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the accident truck. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal heard both the parties and decided all the issues in favour of the claimant. The learned Tribunal by relying on the judgments of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation &Anr., reported in 2009 6 SCC 121 calculated the compensation to be awarded to the claimant as follows:- 1) Annual income 10000 x 12= 120000 (2) Addition of 40% towards future prospects 120000x40= 48000 100 (3) Loss of income 120000+48000x18x2 = 2016000 3 (4) Funeral Expenses (with 10% increase after every 3 years) 16500 5) Loss of Estate (with 10% increase after every 3 years) 16500 Total Compensation Awarded Rs. 20,49,000/- (Rupees twenty lakh forty nine thousand) only, with 7% interest per annum, from the date of filing the application i.e., on 06.08.2019 6. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the Insurance Company has filed the instant appeal. 7. Mr. Roshan Subedi, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submits that the appeal in the instant case is with regards to the quantum of the awarded by the learned Tribunal. He submitted that the learned Tribunal had erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased Lalrempuii as Rs. 7. Mr. Roshan Subedi, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submits that the appeal in the instant case is with regards to the quantum of the awarded by the learned Tribunal. He submitted that the learned Tribunal had erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased Lalrempuii as Rs. 10,000/- per month when the person issuing the Last Pay Certificate to prove the income of the deceased has not been produced before the court to prove the same. He submits that CW-2, R. Lalchhuanawma is a co-worker of the deceased Lalrempuii and not the person who had issued the last pay certificate and therefore, is not competent to certify the income as Rs. 10,000/- per month. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the deceased Lalrempuii at the time of her death was unmarried and a spinster and therefore, in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. (Supra) Case there should be a deduction of the percentage for her personal expenses which has not been done so by the learned Tribunal. 9. Mr. Lalremtluanga, learned counsel for the claimant respondent No. 1, on the other hand, submitted that the present appeal is not maintainable in its present form and style, since the appellants have not obtained the leave of the learned Tribunal to file the instant appeal under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In support of his submission, he has cited the judgments of the Apex court in National Insurance Co. Limited Vs. Lalnunpari D/o Laltanngaia , reported in 2019 Legal Eagle (GAU) 287 and the judgments of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors ., reported in 2018 Legal Eagle (SC) 786 and Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pratul Kalita & Ors ., reported in 2022 Legal Eagle (GAU) 693. 10. The learned counsel for the claimant respondent further submitted that even though no cross objection has been filed, the learned Tribunal had erred in not awarding any amount for loss of Filial consortium as awarded by the Apex court in Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra) case and that the awarded amount may be increased by awarding another Rs. 10. The learned counsel for the claimant respondent further submitted that even though no cross objection has been filed, the learned Tribunal had erred in not awarding any amount for loss of Filial consortium as awarded by the Apex court in Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra) case and that the awarded amount may be increased by awarding another Rs. 40,000/- for loss of Filial consortium by exercising its power under Section 168 of the MV Act and award a just and reasonable compensation. He has relied on the judgment of a coordinate bench of this court in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pratul Kalita & Ors . reported in 2022 Supreme (Gau) 855, wherein the court by relying on the Judgments of the Apex Court Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram , reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 had awarded a just and fair compensation. The learned counsel for the respondent also submits that the income of the deceased is proved by the last pay certificate which has been duly exhibited. He also submitted that the deceased was a school teacher at Helen Lowry Higher Secondary School and was also a Gold medalist in Master of Commerce from ICFAI University, Mizoram and thus her monthly income at Rs. 10,000/- is reasonable. The learned counsel in all fairness thus, submits that the just and fair compensation admissible in the instant case by deducting 50% of the income (the deceased being unmarried) would amount to Rs. 15,45,000/- plus Rs. 40,000/- for Filial consortium. 11. Mr. Roshan Subedi, learned counsel for the appellant in rebuttal submits that the appeal is maintainable in its present form and style, since it has been filed within the parameters of section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicle Act. 12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties and I have also perused the documents on record. It is seen that there is no dispute with regards to the facts of the case, wherein the daughter of the claimant Lalrempuii, aged 34 years died in the vehicular accident on 05.04.2019 at 2:15 PM, due to the rash and negligent driving of the accident vehicle, one tripper bearing registration No. MZ 01 M-7405 belonging to the respondent No. 2, and knocked down the Scooty bearing registration No. MZ 01/3847 driven by Lalrempuii (deceased) with one pillion rider. It is not disputed that the accident vehicle was having a valid insurance policy with the Insurance Company at the time of the accident. The age of the deceased is also not disputed. 13. Regarding the income of the deceased, this court finds it is not disputed that the deceased Lalrempui was a school teacher at Helen Lowry Higher Secondary School. This court also finds that she was awarded a Gold Medal Certificate from ICFAI University Mizoram for achieving Highest Rank in Master of Commerce in the year 2018 and the said certificate has been exhibited as Exhibit C-32. Thus, considering the fact that the deceased is a highly qualified teacher of a Higher Secondary School and therefore, finds no grounds to doubt the income certificate showing her monthly income at Rs. 10,000/- Exhibited as Ext. C-22. It is also an admitted fact that the deceased Lalrempuii was not married at the time of the accident and thus, this court in applying the principles laid out by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) , find it fit to deduct 50% for personal expenses instead of 2/3 . 14. Further , this court, in view of judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd (supra) wherein, the Supreme Court after taking into consideration the judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) held that 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. Paragraph 21.3 being relevant is quoted herein below:— 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.” Thus, this court finds that the claimant being the mother of the deceased Lalrempuii is entitled to be given ‘Filial consortium' of Rs.40,000/- 15. 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.” Thus, this court finds that the claimant being the mother of the deceased Lalrempuii is entitled to be given ‘Filial consortium' of Rs.40,000/- 15. Therefore, this court, considering the submission that the appeal has been filed within the parameters of section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicle Act and in view of the decisions of the Apex court in Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. (Supra) Case, Pranay Sethi (Supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd (supra) find it fit to modify the impugned Judgment and award dated 02.11.2023 and find that the just, fair and equitable compensation is to be awarded to the respondent claimant. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded is calculated as herein under: Pecuniary damages: (1) Annual income (10000x12) =Rs.120,000/- (2) Add 40% (future prospects) Rs.120000 + 48000=168000 (3)Less 50% Rs.168000-50%= 84000 (4)Multiplier - 18 Rs.84,000 x 18 = Rs. 15,12,000/- Non Pecuniary damages: (5) Funeral Expenses (with 10% increase after every 3 years) Rs. 16,500/- (6) Loss of Estate (with 10% increase after every 3 years) Rs.16,500/- (7) Filial Consortium Rs. 40,000/- Total : Rs. 73,000/- Total Compensation Awarded Rs. 15,12,000 + Rs. 73,000 = Rs. 15,85,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lakhs, eighty five thousand) only. Thus, the amount awarded is modified from Rs. 20,49,000/-only to Rs. 15,85,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lakhs, eighty five thousand) only. 16. This court also finds that the awarded amount of Rs. 15,85,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lakhs, eighty five thousand) only, with 7% interest per annum, from the date of filing the application i.e., on 06.08.2019, is to be deposited into the Registry of this High Court within 2 (two) months from the date of the Judgment with an interest of 6% from the date of filing the claim petition, and that any amount withdrawn by the claimant, if any, is to be deducted and the deposited amount thereafter, is to be duly disbursed to the claimant/respondent No. 1 after due verification. 17. MAC App. No.6 of 2024 thus stands disposed of as above. TCR to be returned.