JUDGMENT : (V.G. ARUN, J.) The 1 st and 2 nd appellants are the parents and the 3 rd appellant the sister of minor Adith, who died in a motor accident on 11.04.2015. The accident occurred at about 6:25 am when the car driven by the 1 st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit Adith while he was walking by the side of the Kodunganllur- Irinjalakuda public road. As against a claim for Rs.20 lakhs raised by the appellants, the Tribunal awarded Rs.6,90,000/- as compensation. Hence this appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal committed gross illegality in granting only a meagre amount of Rs.6 Lakhs as compensation for loss of dependency. The mistake occurred in fixing only Rs.5000/- as the monthly income of the deceased, in an unscientific manner, without taking into account the depreciation in rupee value and the effect of inflation. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on this Court's decision in National Insurance Company Limited v. Assainar [ 2019 (4) KLT 39 ]. It is pointed out that in Assainar (supra), this Court has emphasised the importance of accounting for the future prospects of the deceased, especially in the case of minors who had potential for higher future earnings. It is then contended that the Tribunal ought to have awarded more amount towards pain and suffering and went wrong in refusing compensation for loss of consortium. 3. Learned counsel for the insurance company relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto and Others [ (2023) 1 SCC 204 ] and the judgment of this Court in Vinod v. Suresh Kumar [2023 KHC 191], to contend that the deceased child being aged only 13 years, the annual income should have been taken as Rs.30,000/-, but the Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income as Rs.5,000/-, which works out to Rs.60,000/- per annum. As such, the compensation awarded towards loss of dependency is actually excessive. 4. The primary question involved being the manner in which the compensation towards loss of dependency for the death of a child aged 13 years is to be calculated, it will be apposite to refer the decision in Meena Devi (supra), rendered after considering the earlier decisions on the point. 4. The primary question involved being the manner in which the compensation towards loss of dependency for the death of a child aged 13 years is to be calculated, it will be apposite to refer the decision in Meena Devi (supra), rendered after considering the earlier decisions on the point. Therein, the Apex Court followed the principles laid down in Kishan Gopal v. Lala [ (2014) 1 SCC 244 ] to fix Rs.30,000/- as the annual income and 15 as the multiplier. In Assainar, this Court held that even if in the 2 nd schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, the notional income of a non-earning person is fixed as Rs.15,000/-, having regard to the compensation granted by various courts as also the introduction of Section 163A the notional income in respect of children below the age of 15 can be reckoned at Rs.24,000/-. As rightly observed in the judgement, while fixing the notional income of children who had died in accidents after 1995-1996, the depreciation in value of rupee and the effect of inflation should be taken into account. The learned Judge was therefore correct in placing reliance on the Cost Inflation Index notified by the Government of India and calculating the corresponding money value for Rs.24,000/- upto the year 2018-2019. 5. While fixing the monthly income, courts cannot be oblivious of the devaluation of rupee value and the rate of inflation. In Meena Devi, also the Apex Court had taken into account the above factors while fixing the notional income as Rs.30,000/-, the accident therein having occurred in the year 2003. Hence, following the methodology in Assainar, the annual income of deceased Adith is taken as Rs.92,000/- and the compensation towards loss of dependency is recomputed as under; 92000 x 15 x 2/3 = 9,20,000/- 6. A perusal of the impugned award shows that, while Rs.40,000/- is granted for loss of love and affection, no amount is granted as compensation for loss of consortium. In Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Others [ (2018) 18 SCC 130 ], dilating on the concept of consortium the Apex Court held that, in legal parlance, consortium is a compendious term which encompasses “spousal consortium”, “parental consortium” and “filial consortium”. The court went on to explain the three heads, under which consortium can be claimed, in the following words; “21.1. The court went on to explain the three heads, under which consortium can be claimed, in the following words; “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". 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.” 7. Thus, appellants 1 and 2, being the parents, are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards filial consortium. As the evidence on record shows that the child had died almost instantaneously, the claim for enhanced compensation towards pain and suffering is rejected. 8.Based on the decision above, compensation under the heads loss of dependency and loss of consortium are re-fixed under;- Sl. No. Head of claims Amount awarded by the Tribunal Amount fixed in appeal Enhanced compensation 1 Loss of dependency Rs.6,00,000/- Rs.9,20,000/- Rs.3,20,000/- 2 Loss of consortium Nil Rs.80,000/- Rs.80,000/- TOTAL Rs.4,00,000/- 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The appellants are found entitled to additional amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only), towards enhanced compensation. The amount granted towards enhanced compensation shall be paid to the appellants within three months, with interest @ 8% from the date of petition. The insurer is permitted to recover the enhanced compensation from the 1 st respondent. The MACA is disposed of accordingly.