JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. 2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and award dated 04.07.2023 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.60 of 2018 whereby the award has been made in favour of the appellants. 3. Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants are the claimants and the present appeal has been preferred for enhancement of the claim. He submits that the income of the deceased was wrongly calculated by the learned Court and under the consortium head meagre amount has been allowed. He submits that there are four dependents and in view of that all are required to be provided Rs.40,000/- each. He further submits that in light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited versus Pranay Shetty and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 the consortium and funeral expenses are required to be enhanced @ 10% in every three years. He submits in view of that at least twice the said amount is required to be enhanced to the tune of 10% as accident took place in the year 2017 and the judgment has been delivered in the year 2023. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that the learned Court has taken care of all the aspects and has rightly passed the award. He submits that the learned Court has rightly calculated the income of the deceased and has come to the figure to Rs.9,500/- as income. He submits in view of the of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited versus Pranay Shetty and Others (supra) the consortium is rightly calculated by the learned Court and according to him there is no illegality in the award. 5. From the judgment of the learned trial court, it transpires that the appellants herein instituted the compensation case stating that on 15.05.2017 the applicant No.1 was travelling with her husband Santosh Toppo from Ranchi to Sisai in their own car bearing Registration No. JH- 01-CC-0204. The car was being driven in a normal speed by her husband namely Santosh Toppo. From the judgment of the learned trial court, it transpires that the appellants herein instituted the compensation case stating that on 15.05.2017 the applicant No.1 was travelling with her husband Santosh Toppo from Ranchi to Sisai in their own car bearing Registration No. JH- 01-CC-0204. The car was being driven in a normal speed by her husband namely Santosh Toppo. It was further contended that when they reached near village – Dombu situated within the jurisdiction of Bharno PS, District – Gumla, all of a sudden a truck being Registration No. JH-05M- 3683 dashed against the car. The driver was driving the truck in rash and negligent manner. As a result of accident both the occupants of the car sustained grievous injuries upon their persons. The people of locality took the accident victim to Primary Health Centre, Bharno for treatment and after primary treatment they were referred to Alam Hospital and Research Centre, Ranchi for better treatment but unfortunately the injured Santosh Toppo died on 16.05.2017 during the course of treatment. FIR was registered as Bharno P.S. Case No.24 of 2017 dated 19.05.2017 under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC against driver of Truck bearing registration No. JH-05N-3683. Postmortem upon body of deceased was conducted at RIMS, Ranchi vide P.M. Report No.1078 of 2017 dated 16.05.17 and Charge-sheet has been submitted on 28.10.17. The deceased died leaving behind his widow son and parents as dependents/legal heirs and in that background, they have instituted the compensation case. 6. The learned Court has examined the contention of appellants herein with regard to the income of the deceased and has found that different contentions in the pleadings and testimony of the witnesses have been taken. In the pleading, it was claimed that he was a private teacher and imparting tuition to the students and it was further disclosed that he was agriculturist also and he was earning 25,000/- per month. A.W.-1, the father of the deceased affirmed the contention of the pleading. However, the widow of the deceased examined as A.W. 2 – Jagrani Baxla expanded the scope of income of the deceased. She stated that her husband was ITI trained mechanic and he had income from that source also. C.W. 3 – Baijnath Prasad Jaiswal has been examined to affirm her stand. However, the widow of the deceased examined as A.W. 2 – Jagrani Baxla expanded the scope of income of the deceased. She stated that her husband was ITI trained mechanic and he had income from that source also. C.W. 3 – Baijnath Prasad Jaiswal has been examined to affirm her stand. He has also deposed that he used to work from 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM as mechanic, contrary to that the witness C.W. 1 – Augustus Kujur, who deposed that his working hours in the school was also between 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM. In this background, the learned Court has found that there is contradiction with regard to the engagement in work of the deceased and has taken the minimum wages of skilled person prevalent in the year 2017 and has come to the conclusion that Rs.9,500/- was the income. 7. In view of the above, the Court finds that there is no error in coming to the conclusion with regard to the skilled worker prevalent in the year 2017 in the minimum wages. The Court further finds that the learned Court in paragraph No.19 of the judgment has considered the case of the “Pranay Shetty” and rightly granted the consortium in light of that judgment. There is no illegality in the finding of the learned Court and has assessed Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium and amount that was also held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Pranay Shetty case. There is no illegality in the order so far consortium and in the said calculation. 8. So far argument of learned counsel appearing for the appellants of enhancement under the heading consortium @ 10% in every three years conventional rate. In the light of Pranay Sethi case, the Court finds force in the argument, as such the conventional head will enhance @ 10% for first three years and further three years till the date of the judgment. 9. The award dated 04.07.2023 is modified to the above extent and rest of the award is kept intact, the Court has not interfered with that. 10. This appeal is allowed in part in above terms and disposed of. 11. Let the trial court record be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith.