JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. 1. Heard Mr. C. Phukan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. S. Dey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Mr. M. Barman, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2. 2. This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) challenging the judgment and award dated 19.08.2019 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as the learned Tribunal) in MAC Case No.2402/2017 whereby an amount of Rs.12,92,688/- was awarded along with bank interest of fixed deposit from the date of filing of the evidence by the claimant i.e. 19.03.2019. 3. The instant appeal has been preferred primarily on three grounds. First is on the question of quantum that the compensation so awarded was not in terms with Section 168 of the Act of 1988 which stipulates that the compensation so awarded has to be just and reasonable. Mr. C. Phukan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that in the instant case, the future prospect have been held at 40% without proving the income of the deceased by the claimants. 4. The second ground of objection taken is on the question of contributory negligence which was not taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal and thereby saddling the entire liability on the appellant Insurance Company. 5. The third ground of objection so taken is that the claimant No.1 having married off after the death of her husband, she would not be entitled to compensation. 6. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of both the respondents have jointly submitted that both the claimants are entitled to the compensation. The learned counsels for the respondents further submitted that the future prospect which have been granted at 40% is in terms with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . The learned counsels further submitted by drawing the attention of this Court to the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . The learned counsels further submitted by drawing the attention of this Court to the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 that in the instant case, the loss of consortium have been granted by the learned Tribunal without taking into consideration that the loss of consortium includes the loss of spousal consortium as well as loss of filial consortium and as such, the amount which have been awarded in the instant case is less. 7. The learned counsels for the respondents further submitted that in terms with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), there is an additional amount which is required to be paid i.e. on account of loss of estate which is Rs.15,000/- have not been paid. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that as the spousal consortium, filial consortium and the loss of estate are based upon the law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution, this Court may enhance the compensation as the same would come within the ambit of just and reasonable compensation. 8. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court now take note of the facts which led to the filing of the instant appeal. 9. On 05.11.2017 at around 7 PM, the husband of the claimant No.1 while riding a motor cycle from Narayanpur side towards Bhugpur by the left side of the road was knocked down by a truck bearing Registration No. AS-02-AC- 7299. The husband of the claimant No.1 thereupon was taken to the hospital but he succumbed to his injuries and expired. On the basis of the above, a claim proceedings was filed by both the wife of the deceased as well as the mother of the deceased as Claimant Nos. 1 and 2 respectively which was registered as MAC Case No.2402/2017. The appellant Insurance Company appeared and contested the case by filing written statement and denying the whole accident. Various defences were also taken but surprisingly there was no defence taken as regards contributory negligence. 10. 1 and 2 respectively which was registered as MAC Case No.2402/2017. The appellant Insurance Company appeared and contested the case by filing written statement and denying the whole accident. Various defences were also taken but surprisingly there was no defence taken as regards contributory negligence. 10. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed two issues which are mentioned herein under: “1. Whether on 05.11.2017, at about 07:00 PM, at Bhugpur Chariali, under Narayana Police Station, an accident has arisen due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing its registration No.AS-02-AC-7299 (Truck) on the part of its driver and whether the said accident has caused the death of Ajit Barman? 2. If so, whether the claimants are entitled to receive any compensation, and if so, what should be the quantum and who amongst the opposite parties, is liable to pay the compensation amount?” 11. From the materials on record, it appears that on behalf of the claimants, there were two witnesses. One was the claimant No.1 and the other was the eye witness. On behalf of the appellant Insurance Company, there were two witnesses. The learned Tribunal while deciding the Issue No.2, came to a categorical finding that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No.AS-02-AC-7299. In respect to the Issue No.2, the learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.12,92,668/- and taking into account that the truck in question had a valid insurance policy, saddled the entire liability upon the appellant Insurance Company. It is under such circumstances, the present appeal has been filed. 12. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court now take into consideration as regards the grounds of objection so taken. 13. The first ground of objection which has been taken is on the question of future prospects. It is relevant to take note of that the deceased was 26 years when he met with the unfortunate accident as would appear from a perusal of paragraph No.17 of the impugned judgment and award dated 19.08.2019. The deceased further was self-employed and in terms with paragraph No.59.4 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) , the future prospect which is required to be added is 40%. The deceased further was self-employed and in terms with paragraph No.59.4 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) , the future prospect which is required to be added is 40%. Considering the above, the first ground of objection i.e. the future prospect was not properly decided by the learned Tribunal in the opinion of this Court does not arise. 14. The second ground of objection pertains to contributory negligence. It is well settled that for the purpose of claiming the defence of contributory negligence, there has to be pleadings as well as proof. Admittedly, there was no pleadings to that effect as well as any evidence being led to the effect that the accident occurred on account of the fault of the deceased. 15. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of the findings of the learned Tribunal in Issue No.1 wherein it was categorically opined that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No.AS-02-AC-7299 (Truck). Nothing substantial could be shown to take any other opinion on this aspect. Considering the above, the second ground of objection does not arise. 16. The third ground of objection is taken on the question of that the claimant No.1 had remarried after the death of her husband. In the opinion of this Court, the said ground so taken would have no basis on the adjudication of just and fair compensation. 17. Now let this Court take note of the judgment of the learned Tribunal and more particularly at paragraph No.24 wherein compensation on conventional head, only an amount of Rs.40,000/- has been awarded for loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- on account of funeral expenses. But there is no amount being paid on account of loss of estate which is the mandate of law as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) more particularly at paragraph No.59.8. 18. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) wherein the Supreme Court categorically observed that the loss of consortium cannot only be limited to spousal consortium but would also be parental consortium and filial consortium. 18. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) wherein the Supreme Court categorically observed that the loss of consortium cannot only be limited to spousal consortium but would also be parental consortium and filial consortium. In the instant case, the claimant No.1 was the wife and the claimant No.2 was the mother. However, the learned Tribunal only granted loss of consortium of Rs.40,000/-. Taking into account the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) , each of the claimants were actually entitled to Rs.40,000/- on account of loss of consortium. 19. This Court further takes note of that the judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) as well as Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) are law within the ambit of Article 141 of the Constitution and therefore are factors which ought to have been taken for arriving at a just and reasonable compensation in terms with Section 168 of the Act of 1988. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the claimants would be further entitled to an amount of Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate. Therefore, this Court modifies the judgment and award dated 19.08.2019 by adding the amount of Rs.55,000/- (Rs.40,000/- + Rs.15,000/-) to the already adjudged amount of Rs.12,92,668/- and thereby the total entitlement of the claimants would be Rs.13,47,668/-. 20. Taking into account the above, the additional amount so adjudged herein shall carry an interest in terms with paragraph No.28 of the impugned judgment and award. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that certain modifications are required to the directions passed in paragraph No.29 of the impugned judgment and award taking into account that the claimant No.2 is an old aged lady and if the said amounts are kept in the FDR, it would serve no purpose more particularly for the claimant No.2. It is the opinion of this Court that if the claimants want certain changes to the directions so passed by the learned Tribunal in paragraph No.29, they can very well approach the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal shall duly consider the same taking into account that the mother of the deceased would have no use to the awarded compensation, if the amounts are kept in Fixed Deposit. 21. The appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of Rs.13,47,668/- along with interest in terms with paragraph No.28 of the impugned judgment and award dated 19.08.2019 before the learned Tribunal within 6 (six) weeks from today. 22. This Court further directs that upon producing the order of the learned Tribunal acknowledging the receipt of the amount directed herein above to be deposited and the same being produced before the Registry, the appellant Insurance Company would be entitled to the refund of the statutory deposit. 23. With above observations and directions, the instant appeal stands disposed off.