JUDGMENT : SUSHIL KUKREJA, J. 1. The instant appeal has been maintained by appellants, who were petitioners/claimants before the learned Court below (hereinafter referred to as “the claimants”) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘The Act’) against impugned award, dated 03.08.2013, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Solan, District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”), whereby MAC Petition No. 44-S/2 of 2010, filed by the petitioners-claimants, under Section 166 of the Act, was allowed and they were held entitled for compensation of Rs.7,45,000/- alongwith pending and future interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till final realization of the amount and respondent No. 2-ICICI Lombard Insurance Company Ltd. (respondent No. 2 herein) was saddled with the liability to pay the amount of compensation. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners-claimants, i.e., Smt. Meera Devi and Shri Hari Krishan, who were parents of the deceased Surender Alias Rommy, preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation on account of death of their son- Surender @ Rommy, who died in motor accident on 03.12.2010, near Gujar Kotha, Police Station Rampur Bushehar, District Shimla, H.P.. The deceased was working as cleaner with respondent No. 1-Shri Jagdish Chand, on his truck, having registration No. HP12-A-6383, and he was getting salary of Rs.7000/- per month with Rs.100/- daily allowance. On 03.10.2010, offending vehicle, bearing registration No. HP12-A-6383, was loaded with apple boxes at Sungari and was enroute to Chandigarh. The driver of the offending vehicle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and near Gujar Kotha, around 02:30 p.m., he lost control over the vehicle and also due to heavy rainfall the danga (retaining wall) of the road collapsed suddenly and the offending vehicle fell into the stream. As per the claimants, the driver of the offending vehicle could have avoided the accident, if he had taken due care and precaution. Due to the accident the deceased died on the spot and the matter was reported to the local police. The claimants averred that they being the parents of the deceased were dependent on his income and they sought compensation from the respondents. 3. The respondents, i.e., owner-Jagdish Chand (respondent No. 1) and Insurance Company (respondent No. 2) contested the claim petition. The claimants averred that they being the parents of the deceased were dependent on his income and they sought compensation from the respondents. 3. The respondents, i.e., owner-Jagdish Chand (respondent No. 1) and Insurance Company (respondent No. 2) contested the claim petition. Respondent No. 1 averred that the petition was not maintainable, as the truck had fallen down due to collapsing of the danga of the road due to heavy rainfall, which was an act of God. He further averred that no rash and negligent act was done by the driver of the offending vehicle, thus the petition was not maintainable. As per respondent No. 1, the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No. 2-Insurance Company and in case any compensation was liable to be paid, then the same is liable to be paid by respondent No. 2, being the insurer of the offending vehicle. 4. Respondent No. 2-Insurance Company contended that the driver was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of the alleged accident and the vehicle was being plied by respondent No. 1 without RC, permit and fitness certificate and thus it was being driven against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and also against the provisions of the Act. Respondent No. 2 further averred that driver of the vehicle was not joined as party, therefore, the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and it was denied that the salary of the deceased was Rs.7000/- per month plus Rs.100/- daily allowance. Respondent No. 2 prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. On 27.06.2012 the learned Tribunal below had framed the following issues for consideration and adjudication: “1. Whether the accident was result of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle in question by its driver and the deceased died in that accident? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR 4. Whether the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? If so, its effect? OPR-2 5. Whether the offending vehicle did not have any valid registration certificate, route permit and fitness certificate at the time of accident? If so, its effect? OPR-2 6. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR 4. Whether the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? If so, its effect? OPR-2 5. Whether the offending vehicle did not have any valid registration certificate, route permit and fitness certificate at the time of accident? If so, its effect? OPR-2 6. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle in question was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? If so, its effect? OPR-2 7. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? If so, its effect? OPR- 2 8. Relief.” 6. After deciding issues No. 1 and 2 in favour of the petitioners/claimants, issues No. 3 to 7 against the respondents, the claim petition was allowed and petitioners (claimants) were held entitled for compensation of Rs.7,45,000/- to be paid by the respondents jointly and severally alongwith pending and future interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. Respondent No. 2-Insurance Company, being the insurer of the offending vehicle, was held liable to pay the aforesaid compensation amount. 7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant-claimants preferred the instant appeal against the impugned award dated 03.08.2013, with prayer to allow the instant appeal by modifying the impugned award and enhancing the compensation amount to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/-. 8. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants (claimants) contended that the learned Tribunal had made wrong calculations while assessing the income of the deceased. She has further contended that the learned Tribunal had rightly assessed the income of the deceased to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per month, but wrongly applied the multiplier of 11 by taking into consideration the age of the appellants. She also contended that multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied in the instant case. Lastly, it is prayed that the instant appeal be allowed and the impugned award be modified by enhancing compensation. 9. Conversely, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company supported the impugned award. He contended that the impugned award is outcome of proper appreciation of both law and facts, thus the same does not need any interference. He prayed that the instant appeal being devoid of merits, be dismissed. 10. 9. Conversely, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company supported the impugned award. He contended that the impugned award is outcome of proper appreciation of both law and facts, thus the same does not need any interference. He prayed that the instant appeal being devoid of merits, be dismissed. 10. It is not in dispute that the vehicle, bearing registration No. HR-12A-6383, was owned by Shri Jagdish Chand (respondent No. 1 herein) and on 03.12.2010, the deceased (son of the claimants), being cleaner in the aforesaid offending vehicle, was travelling in the truck, which was enroute to Chandigarh and was loaded with apple boxes. Around 02:30 p.m., at Gujar Kotha, towards Narkanda, the driver of the vehicle lost control over the vehicle and also due to heavy rainfall the retaining wall of the road suddenly collapsed as a result of which, the vehicle fell into the stream and the deceased died on the spot. 11. The learned Tribunal below had assessed the monthly income of the deceased @ Rs.10,000/- per month. The perusal of the record reveals that respondent No. 2-Insurance Company has not filed any appeal assailing the findings of the learned Tribunal below qua the assessment of the monthly income of the deceased. 12. Admittedly, at the time of the accident the deceased was bachelor. In Sarla Verma & others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the Apex Court, on the question of deduction towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased held that the personal and living expenses of the deceased should be deducted from his monthly income, to arrive at the contribution to the dependents. Where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one-third where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3; one-fourth where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6; and one-fifth where the number of dependent family members exceeds 6. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. 13. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. 13. In the instant case, since the deceased was bachelor at the time of the accident, therefore, 50% of his income is required to be deducted towards personal and living expenses, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case (supra). 14. In National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , it has been held that while determining the income, in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary and below the age of 40 years, an addition of 40% of the established income to the income of the deceased towards future prospects should be made. Para 59.4 of the said judgment read as follows:- 59.4 In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.” 15. In the instant case, at the time of accident, the deceased was of 22 years of age and he was working as cleaner in the offending vehicle. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), an addition of 40% of the notional monthly income of the deceased can be made towards future prospects. 16. The learned Tribunal below has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month. The deceased was 22 years old and while computing the future prospects @ 40%, the income of the deceased comes out to Rs.14000/- per month. Thus, after the deduction of 50% of the income towards the personal expenses of the deceased, his contribution to family comes out to Rs. 7000/- per month and his annual contribution comes out to Rs. 84000/- (7000/- x 12). 17. Thus, after the deduction of 50% of the income towards the personal expenses of the deceased, his contribution to family comes out to Rs. 7000/- per month and his annual contribution comes out to Rs. 84000/- (7000/- x 12). 17. While granting the compensation, the learned Tribunal below had wrongly applied the multiplier of 11 while taking into consideration the age of the petitioners No. 1 and 2 whereas in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), the age of the deceased should have been made basis for applying the multiplier. Para 59.7 of the said judgment read as under: “59.7. The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.” 18. In Sarla Verma’s case (supra), it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is as under:- “42. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is as under:- “42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M- 16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.” 19. Since the deceased was 22 years of age, as such by applying the multiplier of ‘18’ as per the settled law, the compensation under the head, loss of dependency is re-fixed as Rs.15,12,000/- (84000/- x 18). 20. Now, coming to the last aspect, i.e., the amount under conventional heads. In National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that for the conventional heads, namely, “Loss of Estate”, “Loss of Consortium” and “Funeral Expenses” amount of compensation is fixed as Rs.15,000/-, Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x 2 = Rs.80,000/-) and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is as under: “52. …. …. ….. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000, Rs.40,000 and Rs.15,000 respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads.” 21. In Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads.” 21. In Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that consortium is not limited to spousal consortium and it also includes parental consortium as well as filial consortium. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgement reads as under: “21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi 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”, “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 general defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation o 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 taining”. 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. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognized 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 therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.” 22. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.” 22. Having taken note of the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment passed in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Somwati & others, (2020) 9 SCC 644 , has held as under: “34. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi has also not under conventional head included any compensation towards ‘loss of love and affection’ which have been now further reiterated by three-Judge Bench in United India Insurance Company Ltd. (supra). It is thus now authoritatively well settled that no compensation can be awarded under the head ‘loss of love and affection’. 35. The word ‘consortium’ has been defined in Black’s law Dictionary, 10th edition. The Black’s law dictionary also simultaneously notices the filial consortium, parental consortium and spousal consortium in following manner: “Consortium 1. The benefits that one person, esp. A spouse, is entitled to receive from another, including companionship, cooperation, affection, aid, financial support, and (between spouses) sexual relations a claim for loss of consortium. Filial consortium A child’s society, affection, and companionship given to a parent. Parental consortium A parent’s society, affection and companionship given to a child. Spousal consortium A spouse’s society, affection and companionship given to the other spouse.” 36. In Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) as well as United India Insurance Company Ltd. (supra), Three-Judge Bench laid down that the consortium is not limited to spousal consortium and it also includes parental consortium as well as filial consortium. In paragraph 87 of United India Insurance Company Ltd. (supra), ‘consortium’ to all the three claimants was thus awarded. Paragraph 87 is quoted below: “87. Insofar as the conventional heads are concerned, the deceased Satpal Singh left behind a widow and three children as his dependants. On the basis of the judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General (supra), the following amounts are awarded under the conventional heads: 37. Paragraph 87 is quoted below: “87. Insofar as the conventional heads are concerned, the deceased Satpal Singh left behind a widow and three children as his dependants. On the basis of the judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General (supra), the following amounts are awarded under the conventional heads: 37. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Pranay Sethi has only referred to spousal consortium and no other consortium was referred to in the judgment of Pranay Sethi, hence there is no justification for allowing the parental consortium and filial consortium. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi has referred to amount of Rs.40,000/- to the ‘loss of consortium’ but the Constitution Bench had not addressed the issue as to whether consortium of Rs.40,000/- is only payable as spousal consortium. The judgment of Pranay Sethi cannot be read to mean that it lays down the proposition that the consortium is payable only to the wife. 38. The Three-judge Bench in United India Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) has categorically laid down that apart from spousal consortium, parental and filial consortium is payable. We feel ourselves bound by the above judgment of Three Judge Bench. We, thus, cannot accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the amount of consortium awarded to each of the claimants is not sustainable. 39. We, thus, found the impugned judgments of the High Court awarding consortium to each of the claimants in accordance with law which does not warrant any interference in this appeal. We, however, accept the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant that there is no justification for award of compensation under separate head ‘loss of love and affection’. The appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed insofar as the award of compensation under the head ‘loss of love and affection’.” 23. Accordingly, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, under the conventional heads, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- as funeral expenses, they are also entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium. Accordingly, the total amount of compensation is worked out as under: 24. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the appeal filed by the appellants (claimants) is allowed. The impugned award stands modified and the petitioners- claimants are held entitled for compensation in the sum of Rs.16,22,000/-. Accordingly, the total amount of compensation is worked out as under: 24. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the appeal filed by the appellants (claimants) is allowed. The impugned award stands modified and the petitioners- claimants are held entitled for compensation in the sum of Rs.16,22,000/-. However, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal below. The remaining terms of the impugned award, shall also remain the same. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending applications, if any.