JUDGMENT : SUSHIL KUKREJA, J. 1. The instant appeal has been maintained by appellants, who were petitioners/claimants before the learned Tribunal below (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioners/claimants”) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘The Act’) against impugned award, dated 30.10.2012, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Shimla, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”), whereby the claim petition filed by the petitioners-claimants, under Section 166 of the Act, was allowed and they were held entitled for compensation of Rs.6,06,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the realization of the amount from respondent No. 1-Brij Lal (owner of the offending vehicle). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners-claimants, Smt. Sudha Devi, wife and Shri Deepak and Shri Sanju sons of Shri Gagan (deceased), filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act before the learned Tribunal below, wherein they sought compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from respondent No. 1- Brij Lal and respondent No. 2-ICICI Lombard, Motor Insurance, on account of death of Shri Gagan, which took place on 15.06.2009, due to the rash and negligent use of truck, bearing registration No. HP-63-5015, by its driver. 2(a). The petitioners averred that deceased (Gagan) was a fisherman and labourer and he used to earn Rs.9000/- per month. On 15.06.2009, on the request of the driver of the aforesaid truck that the cement loaded in the truck had to be unloaded, the deceased boarded the truck in district Kinnaur, therefore, the deceased was travelling in the aforesaid truck as employee of respondent No. 1, as the services of the deceased were required for unloading of the goods. As per the petitioners, the driver of the truck was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, due to which, the truck fell down the hill near village Jaisi. The driver of the truck, i.e., one Pappu and the deceased died in the accident. 3. The petitioners alleged that at the time of the accident, they were totally dependent upon the deceased, thus they were entitled for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the accident till the realization of the amount. The vehicle at the time of the accident was insured with ICICI Lombard, i.e., respondent No. 2 and it was bound to indemnify the award. 4. The vehicle at the time of the accident was insured with ICICI Lombard, i.e., respondent No. 2 and it was bound to indemnify the award. 4. Respondent No. 1, i.e., owner of the vehicle, in his reply admitted the accident and death of the deceased, but he denied that the decased was engaged by him as labourer in the aforesaid vehicle. He prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. Respondent No. 2, i.e., ICICI Lombard Insurance Company, in its reply, raised preliminary objection of cause of action and maintainability of the petition and on merits averred that the driver of the vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence to ply the vehicle at the relevant time and further that the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in the vehicle, which was not meant for carrying passengers. It was further averred that there was breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, thus insurance company was not liable to indemnify the award amount. It was also averred that at the relevant time the vehicle was being driven without any valid registration and fitness certificate. 6. On 01.03.2011 the learned Tribunal below had framed the following issues for consideration and adjudication: “1. Whether Gagan died due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No. 1 while driving vehicle bearing No. HP63-5013 (5015) on 15.06.2009)? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled and from whom? OPP 3. whether driver of vehicle bearing No. HP-63- 5013 (5015) was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR 4. Whether deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger? OPR 5. Relief.” 7. After deciding issues No. 1 and 2 in favour of the petitioners/claimants, issues No. 3 against the respondents and issue No. 4 in favour of the respondent No.2, the claim petition was allowed and the petitioners/claimants were held entitled for compensation in the sum of Rs.6,06,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the realization of the amount from respondent No. 1, i.e., owner of the offending vehicle. 8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellants-claimants preferred the instant appeal against the impugned award dated 30.10.2012, with prayer to allow the instant appeal and to enhance the compensation amount by modifying the impugned award. 9. 8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellants-claimants preferred the instant appeal against the impugned award dated 30.10.2012, with prayer to allow the instant appeal and to enhance the compensation amount by modifying the impugned award. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Tribunal below had erred in applying the multiplier, thus granted lesser compensation. He further contended that the learned Tribunal below also failed to appreciate the documentary evidence and wrongly assessed the income of the deceased @ Rs.4000/- per month, whereas his monthly income was Rs.9000/- per month. He also contended that the learned Tribunal below misinterpreted and misread the evidence qua the travelling of the deceased as a gratuitous passenger, whereas it has come on record that the deceased was engaged as labourer by the driver of the offending vehicle. He contended that the learned Tribunal below wrongly exonerated respondent No. 2 from indemnifying the petitioners/claimants by fastening liability to indemnify the award amount on respondent No. 1. 10. Despite service, none has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1, thus he was proceeded against ex parte. 11. Conversely, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1-Insurance Company supported the impugned award. He contended that the impugned award is the result of proper appreciation of both law and facts, thus the same does not need any interference and prayed for dismissal of the instant appeal. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and carefully examined the entire records. 13. Now, the question which arises for consideration is as to what amount of compensation, the petitioners/claimants are entitled for. Admittedly, the petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased Gagan, who died in a motor vehicle accident on 15.06.2009, which occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the vehicle which was owned by respondent No. 1-Brij Lal, bearing registration No. HP-63-5015. 14. The case of the petitioners is that the deceased was working in the fields of Shri Diwan Chand and was earning Rs.12,000/- per annum from there. The deceased used to earn by fishing and also by doing labour work @ Rs.150/- per day. 14. The case of the petitioners is that the deceased was working in the fields of Shri Diwan Chand and was earning Rs.12,000/- per annum from there. The deceased used to earn by fishing and also by doing labour work @ Rs.150/- per day. However, no documentary evidence has been adduced by the petitioners with respect to the income of the deceased and also no document has been placed on record to prove that the deceased was employed by Shri Diwan Chand and he used to pay him Rs.150/- per day with diet. 15. The licence issued by the Department of Fisheries had expired and it was not renewed thereafter by the Department. Therefore, at the time of the death of the deceased, no licence of fishing was possessed by him. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the absence of any cogent and satisfactory evidence on record, the learned Tribunal below had rightly quantified the income of the deceased at Rs.4000/- per month. 16. 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. 17. In the instant case, since there were three family members who were dependent upon the income of the deceased at the time of accident, 1/3rd 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). 18. 17. In the instant case, since there were three family members who were dependent upon the income of the deceased at the time of accident, 1/3rd 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). 18. 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. Paras 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.” 19. In the instant case, at the time of accident, the deceased was of 35 years of age, 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. 20. The learned Tribunal below has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.4000/-. The deceased was 35 years old and while computing the future prospects @ 40%, the income of the deceased comes out to Rs.5600/- per month. Thus, after the deduction of 1/3rd of the income towards the personal expenses of the deceased, his contribution to family comes out to Rs.5600 – Rs.1867 = Rs.3733/- per month and his annual contribution comes out to Rs.44796/-(3733/- x 12). 21. Thus, after the deduction of 1/3rd of the income towards the personal expenses of the deceased, his contribution to family comes out to Rs.5600 – Rs.1867 = Rs.3733/- per month and his annual contribution comes out to Rs.44796/-(3733/- x 12). 21. In Sarla Verma’s case (supra), it has further 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. 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, M16 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.” 22. Since the deceased was 35 years of age, as such by applying the multiplier of ‘16’ as per the settled law, the compensation under the head, loss of dependency is re-fixed as Rs.7,16,736/- (44796/- x 16). 23. Now, coming to the last aspect, i.e., the amount under conventional heads. Since the deceased was 35 years of age, as such by applying the multiplier of ‘16’ as per the settled law, the compensation under the head, loss of dependency is re-fixed as Rs.7,16,736/- (44796/- x 16). 23. Now, coming to the last aspect, i.e., the amount under conventional heads. In Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), 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.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively and the aforesaid figures quantified by the Apex Court have to be enhanced on percentage basis, at the rate of 10%, in a span of every three years. 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.” 24. In Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & 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 judgment 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. 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 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. 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.” 25. While placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunita & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 9538 of 2025, decided on July 17, 2025, had enhanced the compensation under the conventional heads @ 10% after a span of every three years w.e.f. the year 2017 and held as follows:- “20. Regarding the monthly income of the deceased, we concur with the view taken by the Courts below in assessing the same to be Rs.12,000/- per month, for there being no error therein. Regarding the monthly income of the deceased, we concur with the view taken by the Courts below in assessing the same to be Rs.12,000/- per month, for there being no error therein. Hence, in awarding compensation which is just and fair, we are inclined to increase the amount awarded under the conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses by 10% adverting to the settled principle of law laid down by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, that such amount should be revised every three years.” 26. Accordingly in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s as well as Sunita’s cases (supra), by enhancing the compensation under the conventional heads @ 10%, after every three years from the year 2017, the petitioners are entitled to loss of estate at Rs.19,965/-, funeral expenses at Rs.19,965/-, petitioner No.1, being widow of the deceased, is entitled to spousal consortium of Rs.53,240/-, and petitioners No.3 and 4, being children, are entitled to parental consortium of Rs.53,240/- each. Accordingly, the total amount of compensation comes out as under: 27. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made here-in-above and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the impugned award stands modified. The petitioners are held entitled to the compensation in the sum of Rs. 9,16,386/- from respondent No. 1 only. The remaining terms of the impugned award, including the interest component as well as the apportionment amongst the claimants shall remain the same. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any.