JUDGMENT : MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, J. 1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 24.07.2024 passed by the Court of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, at Kalaburagi in MVC.No.698/2017. 2. The appeals are taken up for final disposal, with the consent of the learned counsels appearing on either side. 3. The Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.21,00,500/- with future interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization, to the claimants, in respect of the death of one Maruti Jamadar in a road traffic accident, which took place on 10.11.2016 at about 08.30 p.m. near Guddamma Temple, at Bhoosnoor village, NSL Sugar Factory Cross. 4. Claimants are the wife, children and parents of the deceased. 5. The insurer has preferred MFA.No.201684/2025 challenging the liability and the claimants have preferred MFA.No.201605/2025 seeking enhancement of compensation. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the insurance company that as per spot mahazar and sketch map, the accident occurred on the right side of the road, towards Bhoosnoor village, where the deceased was proceeding and therefore, the accident was on account of his fault. He contended that the liability fixed on the offending vehicle which is insured with the appellant herein is erroneous. He further contended that the rider of the motorcycle insured with appellant herein was not possessing a valid and effective driving license and therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in fixing the liability on the insurance company. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimants contended that the Tribunal having appreciated the material on record has rightly come to the conclusion that it was the rider of the opposite vehicle, who was responsible for the accident and therefore, fixed the liability on the insurer of the said vehicle. He contended that there is no material placed on record to show that the rider of the motorcycle was not holding a valid and effective driving license. He further contended that the Tribunal has awarded a lesser compensation towards loss of consortium and therefore, seeks to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 8. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. 9. He further contended that the Tribunal has awarded a lesser compensation towards loss of consortium and therefore, seeks to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 8. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. 9. According to claimants, on 10.11.2016 at about 08.30 p.m., the deceased Maruti Jamadar along with one P.M. Nagaraj s/o Shankar Jamadar had been to Moulali Darga on motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-32/EK-1014 and after performing pooja, while they were returning to Bhoosnoor village, near NSL Sugar Factory Cross, a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-32/Q-0692 came from the opposite direction in a high speed and rash and negligent manner and hit against the motorcycle in which the deceased and another were traveling, due to the said accident, Maruti Jamadar sustained severe injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. 10. It is not in dispute that the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-32/Q-0692 had a valid insurance policy from 21.04.2016 to 20.04.2017 issued by the appellant. 11. Primary contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company is that the accident was on account of the fault of the deceased himself, as he came to the wrong side of the road and caused the accident. To buttress the said contention, the learned counsel has relied on the spot mahazar, marked as Ex.R.2 before the Tribunal. 12. The Tribunal while appreciating the said document has came to the conclusion that in the absence of evidence of the investigating officer or the eyewitnesses to the effect as to how the accident occurred, merely on the basis of the hand sketch map prepared by the investigating officer, it cannot be believed that, the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased. The said finding of the Tribunal cannot be held to be erroneous. In this case it is not in dispute that FIR and charge-sheet was filed against the rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-32/Q-0692. The same has remained unchallenged. Before the Tribunal no witness was examined to establish that the deceased came to the wrong side of the road and caused the accident, in support of the spot shown in Ex.R.2. Insofar as the second leg of contention that the rider of the motorcycle was not holding a valid driving license, we find that there is no such material placed to accept the said contention. Insofar as the second leg of contention that the rider of the motorcycle was not holding a valid driving license, we find that there is no such material placed to accept the said contention. The charge- sheet was not filed against the rider of the motorcycle for not possessing a valid driving license. Hence, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal rightly fixed the liability on the appellant/insurer to pay the compensation. 13. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation under the following heads:- S. No. Heads Amount 1. Towards loss of love and affection (Rs.10,000/- x 6) Rs.60,000/- 2. Loss of consortium Rs.20,000/- 3. Towards loss of estate Rs.18,000/- 4. Towards funeral expenses and transportation charges Rs.18,000/- 5. Loss of dependency Rs.19,84,500/- Total Rs.21,00,500/- 14. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium. It is relevant to extract paragraph Nos.21, 23 and 24 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and others, 2018 (18) SCC 130 , which are as under: “21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss of consortium. In legal parlance, “consortium” is a compendious term which encompasses “spousal consortium” or “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. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse. 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. 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. 22. ****** 23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at 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 children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of filial consortium. 24. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under “loss of consortium” as laid down in. Pranay Sethi . In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs 40,000 each for loss of filial consortium.” 15. Considering the relationship of the claimants with the deceased and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.40,000/- each to the claimants towards the loss of consortium. No separate compensation needs to be awarded towards loss of love and affection. 16. The deceased was aged 25 years at the time of accident. According to the claimants, the deceased was an agriculturist and he was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month. The Tribunal, in the absence of cogent material placed on record, has taken the notional income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.8,750/- per month. An addition of 40% is made towards future prospects and the income was arrived at Rs.12,250/- per month. The annual income was therefore Rs.1,47,000/-. After deducting 1/4 th of the said income and adopting 18 as the multiplier, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.19,84,500/- towards loss of dependency. An addition of 40% is made towards future prospects and the income was arrived at Rs.12,250/- per month. The annual income was therefore Rs.1,47,000/-. After deducting 1/4 th of the said income and adopting 18 as the multiplier, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.19,84,500/- towards loss of dependency. The compensation awarded towards loss of estate and towards funeral expenses is just and proper. Hence, we re-assess the compensation as under: S. No. Heads Amount 1. Towards Loss of Consortium (Rs.40,000x6) Rs.2,40,000=00 2. Towards loss of Estate Rs.18,000=00 3. Towards loss of Funeral expenses Rs.18,000=00 4. Loss of dependency Rs.19,84,500=00 Total Compensation Rs.22,60,500=00 17. Accordingly, the following: ORDER : I. MFA No.201684/2025 is dismissed. II. MFA No.201605/2025 is allowed in part. III. The judgment and award dated 24.07.2024 passed by the Court of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, at Kalaburagi in MVC.No.698/2017, is hereby modified. IV. The appellants/claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.22,60,500/- as against Rs.21,00,500/- awarded by the Tribunal. V. Rest of the order passed by the Tribunal regarding rate of interest and apportionment of the compensation shall remain intact. Statutory amount in deposit shall be transferred to the Tribunal.