JUDGMENT : M.S. SONAK, CJ. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the parties agreed that both these appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment and order. 3. Even otherwise, both these appeals are directed against the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal’s judgment and award dated 23.02.2018. Therefore, it is only appropriate that both these appeals, which are in the nature of cross appeals, are disposed of by a common judgment and order. 4. M.A. No. 256 of 2019 is instituted by the Insurance Company and M.A. No. 652 of 2019 is instituted by the claimants. 5. The Insurance Company contends that the driver of the insured vehicle, who has died in the accident, was only a Cleaner, not authorised to drive the vehicle. The Insurance Company has also contended that this Cleaner had no licence to drive the vehicle. Accordingly, learned counsel for the Insurance Company contends that this constitutes a fundamental breach of a crucial clause of the Insurance Policy and that the Insurance Company should be absolved of any liability. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company also submitted that there was no evidence about the precise income of the deceased and, therefore, the compensation awarded is exorbitant and warrants interference. 6. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that no such issue was raised before the Tribunal and consequently, no issue was cast by the Tribunal. In any event, he submitted that there was ample evidence to show that the deceased was the driver-cum-cleaner, and, further, that the driving licence was produced and marked in evidence. Accordingly, he submitted that there was no breach of the Insurance Policy’s terms and conditions. 7. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the impugned award warrants interference to the extent it has failed to take into account the aspect of future prospect and further, has determined compensation towards the consortium of only Rs. 40,000/- instead of determining this compensation @ Rs. 40,000/- in respect of each of the claimants. Accordingly, he submitted that the claimants’ appeal be allowed and the Insurance Company’s appeal be dismissed. 8. The rival contentions now fall for determination. 9. So far as the appeal by the Insurance Company is concerned, it does not appear that the ground which is now sought to be raised in the appeal was either seriously raised or pressed before the Tribunal. 8. The rival contentions now fall for determination. 9. So far as the appeal by the Insurance Company is concerned, it does not appear that the ground which is now sought to be raised in the appeal was either seriously raised or pressed before the Tribunal. At no stage did the Insurance Company raise any issue in this regard, and it did not insist upon recasting or determining this issue. This is not a purely legal issue. It is a mixed issue of law and fact. 10. Be that as it may, the contention of the Insurance Company is now being considered in this appeal. First, there is no evidence that the deceased was not the driver of the insured vehicle. Father of the deceased, Umesh Rai, has clearly deposed that the deceased was driver-cum-cleaner of the insured vehicle, i.e. Mahindra Bolero Pick Up. Significantly, even the Driving Licence of the deceased bearing No. JH092015/0093188 issued by the D.T.O., Bokaro, was produced in evidence. His driving licence is identified and marked as an exhibit. 11. There was no serious cross-examination on the above aspect, which is now sought to be raised in appeal. The Insurance Company also did not produce any evidence to show that the deceased was indeed not a driver or did not have a driving licence. Ordinarily, the burden is on the Insurance Company to plead and prove any defence of breach of the fundamental policy of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. In any event, after Umesh Rai’s clear and categorical deposition, the onus certainly shifted upon the Insurance Company to make good their case, assuming that such a case was indeed raised and pressed before the Tribunal. The Insurance Company has failed in doing so. Therefore, the Insurance Company’s contention is hereby rejected. 12. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned, the record shows that Umesh Rai, the deceased's father, has clearly deposed that the deceased's income was Rs. 6000/- per month. The Tribunal, however, has adopted the minimum wage and held the deceased's income to be Rs. 5,850/- per month. This is reasonable, given that the accident occurred on 17.05.2016. Accordingly, even the second contention raised on behalf of the Insurance Company is liable to be rejected and is hereby rejected. 13. 6000/- per month. The Tribunal, however, has adopted the minimum wage and held the deceased's income to be Rs. 5,850/- per month. This is reasonable, given that the accident occurred on 17.05.2016. Accordingly, even the second contention raised on behalf of the Insurance Company is liable to be rejected and is hereby rejected. 13. As a result, the Insurance Company’s appeal bearing No. M.A. No. 256 of 2019 is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed without any order for costs. 14. So far as the claimants’ appeal is concerned, it appears that the Tribunal has failed to account for future prospects at 40%, in light of the law laid down in Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr , (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors , (2017) 16 SCC 680 . This contention is well-founded, and, in determining compensation for dependency, future prospects must be taken into account. 15. Upon taking into account the future prospects @ 40% since there was no clarity whether the appellant was a salaried employee or not, the annual income of the deceased would come to Rs. 98,280/- and not merely Rs. 70,200/-. After deducting 25% for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 73,710. The multiplier in this case is admittedly 18 because the deceased was 20 years old at the time of his unfortunate demise. Therefore, the compensation towards dependency would come to Rs. 13,26,780 (Rs. 73,710 x 18). 16. The Tribunal has awarded a consolidated amount of Rs. 70,000/- towards loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, etc. Although the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the claimants hold that no separate compensation is payable for loss of love and affection, compensation of Rs. 40,000/- is payable to each of the claimants for loss of consortium. This is in accordance with the law laid down in M agma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others , (2018) 18 SCC 130 . To this extent, the impugned award also warrants interference. Upon adding Rs. 2,00,000/- for loss of consortium, the compensation amount would be Rs.15,26,780/-. 17. In addition to the above amount, Rs. 15,000/- was awarded for loss of estate and further Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses. This would take the final compensation amount to Rs. 15,56,780. 18. To this extent, the impugned award also warrants interference. Upon adding Rs. 2,00,000/- for loss of consortium, the compensation amount would be Rs.15,26,780/-. 17. In addition to the above amount, Rs. 15,000/- was awarded for loss of estate and further Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses. This would take the final compensation amount to Rs. 15,56,780. 18. As to the payment of interest, the Tribunal has awarded interest at 6% per annum, which is sustainable. However, the Tribunal has granted interest only from the date of its award till realisation. The interest was required to be granted from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e. on 18.01.2017, till the date of actual payment. The impugned award is also modified to the above extent. 19. The claimants’ appeal is therefore partly allowed. The compensation amount, as determined by the Tribunal, is now enhanced from Rs. 10,25,400/- to Rs. 15,56,780/-. The direction regarding the deduction of Rs. 50,000/-, if paid to the claimants, remains in force. 20. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire awarded amount, as modified by this judgment and order, in this Court within four weeks from today, after giving necessary intimation to the learned counsel for the claimants. Upon deposit, learned counsel for the claimants must furnish identity and Bank details of the claimants to the Registry. The Registry must transfer the compensation amount directly into the claimants’ bank account, and under no circumstances should any cash withdrawals be permitted. The Registry should verify that the amount is really being credited into the claimants’ Bank account. 21. If the amount is not deposited within the specified timeline, the Insurance Company shall pay interest at 10% per annum on the delayed payment. This additional 4% interest must be recovered from the Divisional Manager of the appellant-Insurance Company personally, if necessary, by deducting from the salary payable to him. This is, of course, subject to there being no interim relief or stay secured from the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the meanwhile. Otherwise, for the routine delay of the Insurance Company’s officials, public money cannot be squandered. Therefore, the direction for recovery is from the Divisional Manager. 22. Apportionment percentage, as directed in the impugned award, is maintained. However, apportionment should now take into account the enhanced compensation. 23. Both appeals are disposed of on the above terms, without any order for costs. 24. Therefore, the direction for recovery is from the Divisional Manager. 22. Apportionment percentage, as directed in the impugned award, is maintained. However, apportionment should now take into account the enhanced compensation. 23. Both appeals are disposed of on the above terms, without any order for costs. 24. All concerned must act on an authenticated copy of this judgment and order.