JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, who are the claimants and Mrs. Nivedita Kundu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6, who is the owner of the offending vehicle. 2. This appeal is preferred being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment / award dated 31.05.2022, passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 216 of 2017, by the learned Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi. 3. With regard to admission of the present appeal, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company has agitated two grounds. Firstly, the vehicle in question was impersonated and in spite of that the learned tribunal has passed the award, which is against the mandate of law and secondly the income has wrongly been assessed by the learned tribunal. On these grounds, the insurance company has challenged the award of the learned tribunal. 4. By way of elaborating the argument, Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company submits that the vehicle in question itself was not involved in the accident and the owner of the vehicle has denied the accident and the DO with regard to the lifting of the coal was also not taken into consideration and the driver has also stated that the vehicle in question was not involved in the accident. He submits that the learned Tribunal has erroneously rejected these grounds and also not considered the documents in its right perspective. He further submits that the income of the deceased has wrongly been calculated ignoring the income tax return. He submits that on the above grounds, the award is fit to be set aside. 5. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5-claimants submits that the learned tribunal has considered all aspect of the matter with regard to the involvement of the vehicle in question and the case has proceeded ex-parte against the owner. He submits that the driver has surrendered in a criminal case and took bail without raising any protest, post-mortem was also there and investigation was completed and considering all these aspects, the contention of the insurance company is negated. He submits that the driver has surrendered in a criminal case and took bail without raising any protest, post-mortem was also there and investigation was completed and considering all these aspects, the contention of the insurance company is negated. He submits that there is no illegality in the award and to buttress his argument, he relied in the case of Janabai Wd/o Dinkarrao Ghorpade & Ors. Versus ICICI Lambord Insurance Company Limited, reported in (2022) 10 SCC 512 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras-9 to 11, 14 and 15, it has been held as follows:- “9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find that the order [ICICI Lombard Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Janabai, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 21282] of the High Court is unsustainable. Appellant 1 and her husband had received injuries in an accident which took place on 1-6-2007. She lost her husband on 25-6-2007. The primary concern of Appellant 1 or other relatives at the time of incident was to take care of the deceased in his critical condition. The health and well- being of her husband was her priority rather than to lodge an FIR. The High Court has proceeded primarily on the basis of information to the police regarding non- disclosure of the name of the driver of the car in the FIR. Appellant 1 has filed her examination-in-chief on 1-8-2011 disclosing the car number of the offending vehicle. The owner and the Insurance Company had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness in support of their stand that the vehicle number given by her was not involved in the accident. In cross-examination, she deposed that she was brought to the hospital in the vehicle which dashed into their vehicle. She deposed that she was mentally disturbed and hospitalised, therefore, she filed the complaint late. 10. On the other hand, the owner has appeared as a witness. He admitted that he had taken the vehicle on superdari and that he has not filed any proceedings to quash FIR against Sanjay, driver of the Car. He admitted that bail application form and surety bond (Exts. 68, 69 and 70) show that he has stood surety for the driver wherein he has mentioned the accused as driver of his vehicle. He admitted that bail application form and surety bond (Exts. 68, 69 and 70) show that he has stood surety for the driver wherein he has mentioned the accused as driver of his vehicle. It has also come on record that the owner has not made any complaint in respect of false implication of his vehicle or the driver. 11. We find that the rule of evidence to prove charges in a criminal trial cannot be used while deciding an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 which is summary in nature. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of the statement of Appellant 1 who suffered injuries in the accident. The application under the Act has to be decided on the basis of evidence led before it and not on the basis of evidence which should have been or could have been led in a criminal trial. We find that the entire approach of the High Court is clearly not sustainable. 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 the three-Judge Bench judgment reported as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur [ United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur , (2021) 11 SCC 780 : (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 306] , 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 : (SCC pp. 797-98, paras 30-35) “30. In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram [ Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram , (2018) 18 SCC 130 : (2019) 3 SCC (Civ) 146 : (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 153] 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. 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 Pranay Sethi [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 Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. 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 Pranay Sethi [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 [ 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 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 [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] , the compensation is assessed as follows:- Head Amount A. Loss of earnings @ monthly salary @ 10,000 and future prospects @ 15% (6670 + 1000 × 12 × 11) Rs. 10,12,440.00 B. Loss of estate Rs. 15,000.00 C. Spousal consortium for wife Parental consortium for two children (Appellants 2 & 3) @ Rs 40,000 each Rs. 40,000.00 Rs. 80,000.00 D. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000.00 Total Rounded off Rs. 11,62,440.00 Rs. 11,63,000.00 6. 10,12,440.00 B. Loss of estate Rs. 15,000.00 C. Spousal consortium for wife Parental consortium for two children (Appellants 2 & 3) @ Rs 40,000 each Rs. 40,000.00 Rs. 80,000.00 D. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000.00 Total Rounded off Rs. 11,62,440.00 Rs. 11,63,000.00 6. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants further submits that income has rightly been calculated and the learned tribunal after looking into the salary slip and the income tax return has calculated the income, as such, there is no illegality in the award of the learned tribunal. He submits that so far DO with regard to coal is concerned, that point has not been taken in the written statement by the insurance company. 7. Mrs. Nivedita Kundu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6, who is the owner of the vehicle in question submits that now the driver has been acquitted in the criminal case. 8. In view of the above submissions of the parties, the court has gone through the materials available on record, from which, it transpires that the claim case was instituted stating that on 21.01.2017, the informant received information that the accident took place near Bakuliatard on Chama-Balumath road. It was informed that an unknown vehicle had dashed a motorcyclist, the motorcyclist had died at the place of accident itself. On receiving information, the informant Jagmohan Ghatwar reached at the place of accident to find a person between the age of 30-35 years, was grievously injured laying on the road and a motorcycle bearing registration No. JH-01-T-3135 and the motorcycle was in the damaged condition. The people of locality came and identified the accident victim as Binod Kumar. The informant claimed that the accident was result of rash and negligent driving of unknown vehicle. On basis of the statement of informant FIR, bearing Mackulaskiganj P.S Case No.01/17 dated 21.01.2017 under Sections 279, & 304A of I.P.C was registered against unknown driver of the unknown offending vehicle. That claimant has contended that the victim Binod Kumar was going to his home on the Motorcycle, bearing registration No. JH-01-T-3151, he sustained fatal injuries and died of injuries at the place of accident itself. Postmortem upon body of the deceased was conducted at RIMS, Ranchi vide P. M. report No. 154/17 dated 21.01.2017, wherein the age was found to be 48 years. Postmortem upon body of the deceased was conducted at RIMS, Ranchi vide P. M. report No. 154/17 dated 21.01.2017, wherein the age was found to be 48 years. The I. O. conducted investigation about the alleged offence and submitted Chargesheet No. 24/17 dated 17.03.2017 disclosing that the offending vehicle was bearing registration number JH-19A-5630. One Sainath Yadav was identified as driver of the offending vehicle. Charge sheet was submitted for committing offence punishable u/s 279 and 304A of IPC. It is further disclosed deceased Binod Kumar was aged about 48 years, he was a government employee and working as Assistant Teacher and having monthly salary amount Rs.54,732/- per month. 9. The learned tribunal has considered the evidence of P.W.-1, A.W.-2 as well the relevant documents, such as insurance policy, tax token and fitness certificate of the offending vehicle, permit of the vehicle, bearing registration number JH-19-A-5630 as well as the certified copy of the surrender and bail order of the driver, release order of the vehicle in question. The learned tribunal further found that the FIR was registered against unknown vehicle and the investigation was conducted and the truck bearing registration number JH-19-A-5630 was found to be involved in the accident, the driver surrendered before the court and took the bail without raising any protest, in view of that the learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the vehicle in question was involved in the accident and falsehood of the implication of the vehicle was not proved. 10. So far as the DO of the colliery is concerned, the learned Tribunal has found that the same is not helping the insurer, as the accident took place that is an admitted position, the post-mortem was conducted on the body of the deceased at RIMS, Ranchi. The documentary evidence by way of FIR, final form and the post-mortem report established the death of the deceased Binod Kumar, which was resulted out of the said accident and the manner of the accident has not been disputed in the cross-examination of the eye-witnesses produced by the claimants. In light of that the learned Tribunal has held that the contention of the insurance company is not tenable and that finding is negated, this court finds that there is no illegality in the said finding of the learned Tribunal. In light of that the learned Tribunal has held that the contention of the insurance company is not tenable and that finding is negated, this court finds that there is no illegality in the said finding of the learned Tribunal. Further, if falsely the vehicle was made offending vehicle, the owner of the vehicle has not challenged the quashing of that in the court of law. 11. The judgment relied by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 claimants in the case of Janabai (Supra), this aspect has also been set at rest, which has been argued by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company. 12. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned, the salary slip was produced and gross salary was found Rs. 46,570/-, which included basic salary, grade pay, DA, HRA and medical allowance. The deduction includes group life insurance, GPF, income tax deduction and professional tax. The salary was taxable and the learned tribunal has deducted 10% from total income and he has found the gross salary to the tune of Rs. 5,58,840/- annually and out of that he has directed to deduct Rs. 55,884/- i.e. 10% and income was finally assessed as Rs. 5,02,956/- annually and in view of that on that head, this court finds that there is no illegality. 13. In view of the above, the court finds that there is no illegality in the award, passed by the learned tribunal, as such, this appeal is dismissed. 14. The statutory amount, deposited before this court shall be transmitted back to the learned tribunal, which will be utilized in satisfying the award. 15. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the learned tribunal forthwith.