JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Vijay Kr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr. Rajesh Kr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and Ms. Shweta Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 09.02.2023 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge-1, Chatra in Motor Accident Claim Case No.07 of 2018 for enhancement of the claim. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the claimants before the learned Tribunal were the wife and three minor children of the deceased. He further submits that the claim case was instituted stating that on 26.06.2016 the deceased Kangresh Bhuiyan was returning from Dobhi to his house at village – Majhgawan on a bus bearing Registration No. BR-2Q-7951. When the bus reached at Nagar at around 6:00 hours, then the electric wire got entangled in the neck of deceased Kangresh Bhuiyan due to which he fell down on the road and got seriously injured. He submits that the deceased was forced to sit on the roof of the bus by the driver and khalasi. The deceased was taken to Hunterganj Hospital from where he was referred to Nagar Medical Hospital but while he was being taken, he died on the way. He submits that on this ground the claim case was filed. He further submits that the learned tribunal has been pleased to allow a total sum of Rs.11,78,800/- and wrongly considered the notional income to the tune of Rs.9,000/- only wherein the deceased was a semi-skilled worker. He submits in view of that the monthly income may kindly be modified. According to him, the loss of consortium has been wrongly allowed to the tune of Rs.40,000/- in a case where the spouse and three minor children are claimants, the future prospect has been wrongly considered as 10% in place of 25% in light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the deduction has also been wrongly made as 1/3 rd in place of 1/4 th and the interest is also not in accordance with law. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company opposes the prayer and submits that the insurance company has already complied and satisfied the award and the entire payment has already been made. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company opposes the prayer and submits that the insurance company has already complied and satisfied the award and the entire payment has already been made. She submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order and the learned Court has rightly calculated the quantum. On this ground, she submits that this appeal may kindly be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the owner submits that the vehicle in question was insured and the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the award and there is no illegality in the impugned award. 6. It is an admitted position that the death has occurred. From the impugned award, it transpires that the appellants herein were not placed any document to suggest that the deceased was a skilled or unskilled worker and even not the oral evidence has been led on that fact and in view of that the learned Tribunal has calculated the income on notional basis and in that view of the matter so far the income is concerned there is no illegality in the award, as such the contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellants are not being accepted by this Court. The age of the deceased was said to be 42 years in light of the postmortem report and in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 the future prospect for the age between 40 to 50 years it should be 25% and in that view of the matter the award on future prospect will be 25% on the established income in place of 10% in terms of the impugned order. 7. Admittedly, there are four dependents and in view of that the deduction made will be 1/4 th in place of 1/3 rd . 7. Admittedly, there are four dependents and in view of that the deduction made will be 1/4 th in place of 1/3 rd . The Court finds that the consortium has already been awarded in accordance with law and in the Pranay Shetty judgment it has been held that at 70% in that head will be awarded and 10% for every three years has to be added in the said value and this aspect of the matter has been considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Janabai Wd/o Dinkarrao Ghorpade and Others vs. ICICI Lambord Insurance Company Limited, (2022) 10 SCC 512 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has awarded the consortium under the said head for the spouse consortium and parental consortium for the children and in paragraph Nos.13 and 14, this aspect has been discussed by Hon’ble Supreme Court which is as under : 13. The appellants have not filed any appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal before the High Court. The Constitution Bench judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 , was rendered when the appeal was pending before the High Court but since the appeal filed by the Insurance Company was accepted, there was no occasion for the High Court to examine the question of enhancement of compensation. We find that the appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation particularly in respect of future prospects and other damages in terms of the judgment of this Court in Pranay Sethi. Therefore, in exercise of powers conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution, we have decided to recompute the amount of compensation to be in tune with the constitution Bench Judgment. 14. The appellant has claimed compensation on account of love and affection as well on account of spousal consortium for wife and for the parental consortium for the children in the calculation given to this Court but in view of three Judge Bench judgment reported as United India Insurance Company Limited v. Satinder Kaur & Ors. (2021) 11 SCC 780 , the compensation under the head on account of loss of love and affection is not permissible but compensation on account of spousal consortium for wife and for the parental consortium for children is admissible. This Court held as under: “30. In Magma General Insurance Co. (2021) 11 SCC 780 , the compensation under the head on account of loss of love and affection is not permissible but compensation on account of spousal consortium for wife and for the parental consortium for children is admissible. This Court held as under: “30. In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram this Court interpreted “consortium” to be a compendious term, which encompasses spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as 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. 31. 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. 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 and affection, and their role in the family unit. 32. 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 permit parents to be awarded compensation under the loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is the compensation for loss of love and affection, care and companionship of the deceased child. 33. The Motor Vehicles 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 consortium will be as per the amount fixed in [National Insurance Co. 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 consortium will be as per the amount fixed in [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205]. 34. At this stage, we consider it necessary to provide uniformity with respect to the grant of consortium, and loss of love and affection. Several Tribunals and the High Courts have been awarding compensation for both loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. The Constitution Bench in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205, has recognised only three conventional heads under which compensation can be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 : (2019) 3 SCC (Civ) 146 : (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 153, this Court gave a comprehensive interpretation to consortium to include spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial consortium. Loss of love and affection is comprehended in loss of consortium. 35. The Tribunals and the High Courts are directed to award compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate conventional head. There is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head.” 15. The evidence of appellant No. 1 on affidavit is that her husband was getting salary of Rs.12,450/- and that he was over 50 years of age. The learned Tribunal assessed monthly income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- in the absence of proof of salary. Therefore, keeping in view the income and the age and the future prospects in terms of judgment of this Court in Pranay Sethi, the compensation is assessed as follows: Head Amount A Loss of earnings @ monthly salary @ 10,000 and future prospects @ 15% (6670 + 1000 X 12 X 11) Rs. 10,12,440.00 B Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000.00 C P Spousal consortium for wife Prental consortium for two children (appellant Nos. 2 and 3 @ Rs.40,000/- each Rs. 40,000.00 Rs. 80,000.00 D Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000.00 Total Rs. 11,62,440.00 Rounded off Rs. 11,63,000.00 8. 10,12,440.00 B Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000.00 C P Spousal consortium for wife Prental consortium for two children (appellant Nos. 2 and 3 @ Rs.40,000/- each Rs. 40,000.00 Rs. 80,000.00 D Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000.00 Total Rs. 11,62,440.00 Rounded off Rs. 11,63,000.00 8. In view of the above judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court the wife is entitled for Rs.40,000/- of the consortium and the children are further entitled for the parental consortium, as such the award is modified to the effect that wife will be entitled for Rs.40,000/- on account of spousal consortium and parental consortium for three children will be Rs.40,000/- each. 9. In light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharampal and Others vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, (2008) 12 SCC 208 the interest will be @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the application. 10. In view of the above, the award will be modified to the effect that wife will be entitled for Rs.40,000/- on account of spousal consortium and parental consortium for three children will be Rs.40,000/- each and interest will be 7.5% per annum from the date of application and under future prospect income in place of 10% it should be 25% as deceased was aged between 40 to 50 years and further deduction will be 1/4 th in place of 1/3 rd . Rest of the award is kept intact. 11. The further amount in terms of this order shall be paid by the insurance company to the claimants within four weeks. 12. This appeal is allowed in above terms and disposed of.