Sushil Kukreja, J
1. The instant appeal is maintained by the appellant/Shriram General Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as “the appellantâ€), under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short “the Actâ€), against the award dated 02.06.2015, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal-II, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. in MAC Petition No.23-N/2 of 2010, with a prayer to quash and set aside the same.
2. Briefly facts of the case, giving rise to present appeal, are that the claimants/petitioners (respondents No.1 & 2 herein and hereinafter referred to as
the petitioners) filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act before the Tribunal below, whereby they sought compensation to the tune of rupees
five lacs on account of death of Kumari Pooja, who was daughter of petitioner No.1-Rukmi Devi and sister of petitioner No.2-Master Ankur. As per
the petitioners, deceased Kumari Pooja died in a motor accident on 21.07.2009 involving truck bearing registration No.HP-17B-4052, near place
Naligaar in between village Kafota and Tillordhar, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, HP. It was further averred that on 21.07.2009 when the
deceased alongwith Ripu Daman, after attending a fair in village Kafota, reached near Naligaar in between village Kafota and Tillordhar, truck
bearing registration No.HP17B-4052 came from behind and struck against them and pushed them out of the road, due to which, Pooja Kumari
sustained grievous injuries on her person, resulting into her death on the way while she was being taken to the hospital. Thereafter, her postmortem
was conducted at Civil Hospital, Paonta Sahib on 22.07.2009. Ripu Daman also sustained injuries in the said accident.
3. As per the petitioners, the deceased, who was aged about 18 ½ years, was running a tailoring and embroidery stall at her house and was also
selling milk to a tea stall at Tillordhar. She was earning Rs.6,000/- per month from tailoring, weaving and selling of milk. The offending vehicle was
owned by Jai Singh (respondent No.3 herein) and it was insured with Shri Ram General Insurance Company (appellant herein). It was also averred
that the deceased was hale and hearty young girl, hence, the petitioners sought compensation to the tune of rupees five lacs alongwith interest.
4. The appellant/Insurance Company filed reply to the claim petition, wherein preliminary objections that the driver was not holding a valid driving
license, that the vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, that the vehicle was not having a valid permit
and that the petition was filed in collusion with owner and driver of the vehicle were taken. On merits, it was averred that the deceased was
unemployed and she had no income. It was also averred that no accident had taken place in the manner as projected and a false report had been
manipulated in order to get undue compensation and the amount claimed was highly excessive.
5. Respondents No.1 & 2/owner as well as driver of the offending vehicle, in their joint reply to the claim petition, raised preliminary objections of
maintainability and locus standi. On merits, it was specifically denied that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by
its driver (respondent No.2). It was averred that on 21.07.2009, there was a local fair at Kafota and due to heavy rain, the truck was being driven in a
normal speed, however, because of mud/slippery condition of the road and poor visibility, the deceased and injured Ripu Daman themselves fell down
from the gorge and sustained injuries. It was further averred that the truck in question was duly insured with respondent No.3-Shri Ram General
Insurance Company, which was valid from 20.10.2008 to 19.10.2009.
6. The petitioners filed joint rejoinder to the replies filed by respondents No.1 to 3, wherein the averments made in the replies were controverted and
the averments made in the claim petition were reasserted and reiterated.
7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal below framed the following issues on 9. 10.2012:-
“1. Whether on 21.07.2009 at about 7.15 PM near place Naligaar in between village Kafota and Tillodhar, respondent No.2 was driving a truck bearing
registration No.HP-17B-4052 owned by respondent No.1 in rash and negligent manner and struck with the deceased Kumari Pooja and as a result thereof
deceased Kumari Pooja sustained grievous injuries and later on had died, as alleged? OPP
2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP
3. Whether the petitioners have no locus standi to file the present petition? OPR-1&2
4. Whether the vehicle i.e. Truck bearing registration No.HP-17B-4052 was insured with respondent No.3 and liable to indemnify on behalf of respondents No.1
& 2? OPR-1&2
5. Whether the driver of the truck bearing registration No.HP-17B-4052 did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-3
6. Whether the truck bearing registration No.HP-17B-4052 was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy at the time of the
accident? OPR-3
7. Whether the petition has been filed in collusion with respondent Nos.1 & 2? OPR-3
8. Relief.â€
After deciding issues No.1 and 2 in favour of the petitioners, issues No.3 against respondents No.1 & 2, issues No.5 to 7 against respondent No.3 and
issue No.4 in favour of respondents No.1 & 2, the claim petition was allowed and the petitioners were awarded a compensation of Rs.10,35,000/-
alongwith interest and it was held that the liability of respondents No.1 & 2 shall be joint and several, however, respondent No.3 (appellant herein),
being the insurer, was held liable to pay the award amount as indemnifier.
8. Feeling aggrieved/dissatisfied, the appellant/ insurance company preferred the instant appeal against the award dated 02.06.2015 passed by the
learned Tribunal below, with a prayer to set-aside/modify the impugned award.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company contended that the learned Tribunal below has erred in taking the income of the deceased at
Rs.5,000/- per month, which ought not to have been taken at more than 2,700/- per month as per the minimum wages applicable in the State of
Himachal Pradesh at the time of death of the deceased. He further contended that the learned Tribunal below also erred by giving addition of 50% in
the income of the deceased, despite the fact that she was not serving any regular establishment. He also contended that the multiplier was to be
applied on the basis of age of the claimants and not the age of the deceased and the amount of compensation granted on account of loss of estate as
well as for funeral expenses is on higher side.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2 (petitioners/claimants) contended that the Tribunal below has rightly assessed
the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month and the impugned award has been passed by the learned Tribunal below after appreciating the
evidence in its proper perspective.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 and learned counsel for respondents No.3 & 4
and also carefully examined the entire record.
12. Perusal of the record reveals that on 21.07.2009 at about 7.15 PM near place Naligaar in between village Kafota and Tillodhar, respondent No.2
(respondent No. 4 herein) was driving the truck bearing registration No.HP-17B-4052, owned by respondent No.1 (respondent No. 3 herein), in a rash
and negligent manner and struck the same against deceased Kumari Pooja, as a result of which, she sustained grievous injuries and later on had died
while she was being taken to the hospital on the same very day.
13. The award has mainly been challenged on the ground that the learned Tribunal below had erred in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/-
per month, without there being any material on record. In National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, a
Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the compensation has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and
equitability on acceptable legal standard because such determination can never be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect. The aim is to
achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical precision on the basis of materials brought on record in an individual case. Para-55 of the
judgment is reproduced as under:-
“55. Section 168 of the Act deals with the concept of “just compensation†and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness
and equitability on acceptable legal standard because such determination can never be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect. The aim is to achieve
an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical precision on the basis of materials brought on record in an individual case. The conception of “just
compensation†has to be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non-violation of the principle of equitability. In a case of death, the legal
heirs of the claimants cannot expect a windfall. Simultaneously, the compensation granted cannot be an apology for compensation. It cannot be a pittance.
Though the discretion vested in the tribunal is quite wide, yet it is obligatory on the part of the tribunal to be guided by the expression, that is, “just
compensationâ€. The determination has to be on the foundation of evidence brought on record as regards the age and income of the deceased and thereafter the
apposite multiplier to be applied. The formula relating to multiplier has been clearly stated in Sarla Verma (supra) and it has been approved in Reshma Kumari
(supra). The age and income, as stated earlier, have to be established by adducing evidence. The tribunal and the Courts have to bear in mind that the basic
principle lies in pragmatic computation which is in proximity to reality. It is a well accepted norm that money cannot substitute a life lost but an effort has to be
made for grant of just compensation having uniformity of approach. There has to be a balance between the two extremes, that is, a windfall and the pittance, a
bonanza and the modicum. In such an adjudication, the duty of the tribunal and the Courts is difficult and hence, an endeavour has been made by this Court for
standardization which in its ambit includes addition of future prospects on the proven income at present. As far as future prospects are concerned, there has been
standardization keeping in view the principle of certainty, stability and consistency. We approve the principle of “standardization†so that a specific and
certain multiplicand is determined for applying the multiplier on the basis of age.â€
15. Now, the question, which arises for consideration before this Court, is whether the learned Tribunal below had not correctly assessed the monthly
income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance company. The perusal of the record reveals
that petitioner No.1-Rukmi Devi is the mother of deceased Kumari Pooja and petitioner No.2 Master Ankur is her younger brother. At the time of the
accident, the deceased was 19 years of age, as per copy of Pariwar Register Ext.PW-3/C, wherein her date of birth has been recorded as
01.01.1991. As per the petitioners, the deceased was self employed and was running a tailoring and embroidery stall in her house and she was also
selling milk to the tea stall at Tillordhar and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month from tailoring, weaving and selling of milk. However, keeping in view
the fact that the father of the deceased had already expired and she was looking after her entire family and being a hale hearty young girl of 19 years,
the learned Tribunal below had assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs 5,000/-.
16. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in the absence of any documentary evidence on record, the learned Tribunal below ought to have
taken the income of the deceased as per the minimum wages applicable in the State of Himachal Pradesh at the time of death of the deceased.
However, this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is devoid of any force, as in Chandra @ Chanda Chandram vs. Mukesh Kumar
Yadav (2022) 1 SCC 198, it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that minimum wages notification can be a yardstick but at the same
time cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased. It was further held that merely because claimants were unable to produce
documentary evidence to show the monthly income of the deceased, same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while computing
the income of the deceased. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:
“9. ………………….Though the wife of the deceased has categorically deposed as AW-1 that her husband Shivpal was earning Rs.15000/- per month,
same was not considered only on the ground that salary certificate was not filed. The Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased by adopting minimum
wage notified for the skilled labour in the year 2016. In absence of salary certificate the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same time
cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased. In absence of documentary evidence on record some amount of guesswork is required to be done. But
at the same time the guesswork for assessing the income of the deceased should not be totally detached from reality. Merely because claimants were unable to
produce documentary evidence to show the monthly ncome of Shivpal, same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while computing the income.
There is no reason to discard the oral evidence of the wife of the deceased who has deposed that late Shivpal was earning around Rs.15000/-per month.â€
(Emphasis Supplied)
17. It was further laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manusha Sreeku & Others vs. The United India Insurance Company Limited,
AIR 2022 SC 5161, that the Motor Vehicles Act being a social welfare legislation, operates through economic conception in the form of
compensation which renders ways to correct injustice. It is therefore imperative to grant compensation which appears to be just and fair. Hon'ble
Apex Court in para16 has held as under:
“16. While determining compensation under the Act, section 168 of the Act makes it imperative to grant compensation that appears to be just. The Act being a
social welfare legislation operates through economic conception in the form of compensation, which renders way to corrective justice. Compensation acts as a
fulcrum to bring equality between the wrongdoer and the victim, whenever the equality gets disturbed by the wrongdoer’s harm to the victim. It also
endeavors to make good the human suffering to the extent possible and to also save families which have lost their breadwinners from being pushed to vagrancy.
Adequate compensation is considered to be fair and equitable compensation. Courts shoulder the responsibility of deciding adequate compensation on a case-to-
case basis. However, it is imperative for the courts to grant such compensation which has nexus to the actual loss.â€
18. In the case on hand, as per the statement of PW-1 (the mother of the deceased), the deceased was running a tailoring and embroidery stall in her
house and she was also selling milk to the tea stall at Tillordhar. She used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month from tailoring, weaving and selling of milk.
Thus she cannot be considered as a daily wager for the purpose of computation of her income. Since the father of the deceased had already expired
and the deceased was the sole bread winner of the family as her entire family was dependent upon the earning of the deceased, the learned Tribunal
below has rightly taken her notional income in the sum of Rs.5,000/- which appears to be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the instant
case.
19. However,the learned Tribunal below has committed an error by adding 50% of the actual income of the deceased while computing her future
prospects. It has been held in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) 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 59.3 and 59.4 of the said judgment read as follows:-
“59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a
permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the
deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
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.â€
20. In the instant case, at the time of accident, the deceased was self employed and was about 19 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 has to be made
towards future prospects.
21. 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.
22. As far as the multiplier is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amrit Bhanu Shali and others Versus National Insurance Company
Limited and others, (2012) 11 SCC 738, held that the selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of
dependent. Paras 15 & 16 of the judgment reproduced as follows:-
“15. The selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of dependent. There may be a number of dependents of the
deceased whose age may be different and, therefore, the age of dependents has no nexus with the computation of compensation.
16. In the case of Sarla Verma (supra) this Court held that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table of the said judgment which
starts with an operative multiplier of 18. As the age of the deceased at the time of the death was 26 years, the multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied. The
Tribunal taking into consideration the age of the deceased rightly applied the multiplier of 17 but the High Court committed a serious error by not giving the
benefit of multiplier of 17 and brining it down to the multiplier of 13.â€
23. M. Mansoor and another Versus United India Insurance Company Limited and another, (2013) 15 SCC 603 was a case where the
deceased was a bachelor of 24 years of age and the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the selection of the multiplier is based on the age of the
deceased and not the age of the dependants. Para-13 of the judgment reads as under:-
“13. The Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 17 and the High Court determined the multiplier as 12 on the basis of the age of the parents/claimants. This Court
in the decision in Amrit Bhanu Shali & Ors. vs. National Insurance Company Limited & Ors. (2012) 11 SCC 738 held as follows :
“15. The selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of the dependent. There may be a number of dependents of
the deceased whose age may be different and, therefore, the age of the dependents has no nexus with the computation of compensation.â€
24. In Sarla Verma & others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, the Apex Court held 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. Para-42 of the judgment is
reproduced 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.â€
25. In the case on hand, since the deceased was 19 years of age at the time of her death, therefore, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), the appropriate multiplier would be ‘18’ which has rightly been applied by the learned Tribunal.
26. Thus, after fixing the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- and adding 40% of the monthly income towards future prospects, the
amount comes to Rs.7,000/-(5,000+2,000 =7,000). Since the deceased was unmarried at the time of the accident, 50% of the amount has to be
deducted towards her personal expenses. By deducting 50% towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, the amount comes to
Rs.3,500/- per month. By applying the multiplier of ‘18’ as per the settled law, the compensation under the head loss of dependency is re-fixed
as Rs.7,56,000/- (3500 x 12 x 18).
27. In Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others, reported in (2018) 18 Supreme Court Cases
130, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held 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 consortiumâ€, “parental
consortiumâ€, and “filial consortiumâ€. 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 relationâ€.
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 tainingâ€.
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.â€
28. While placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Somwati and Ors,
(2020) 9 SCC 644, the learned counsel representing the petitioners submitted that petitioner No.1 being mother of the deceased is entitled for
consortium @ Rs.40,000/-. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment rendered in case titled Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias
Chuhru Ram and Ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130, which has been also taken note of, in Somwati's case, has laid down that consortium is not limited to
spousal consortium and it also includes parental consortium as well as filial consortium. 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 latest judgment passed in Somwati's case (supra)
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:-
i) Loss of estate: Rs. 15,000
ii) Loss of consortium:
a) Spousal consortium: Rs.40,000
b) Parental consortium: 40,000x3 = Rs. 1,20,000
iii) Funeral Expenses: Rs. 15,000
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.
29. Now coming to the last aspect, i.e., the conventional heads. In the impugned award, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral
expenses, Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss to the estate and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection. However, in view of Pranay
Sethi’s case (supra), the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head “loss of love and affection†could not have been granted by the learned
Tribunal below. The amount under the conventional heads has been standardized by the Hon’ble Apex Court at Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate;
Rs.40,000/- towards loss of ‘filial consortium' and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and the aforesaid figures quantified have to be enhanced
on percentage basis, at the rate of 10%, in a span of every three years. Accordingly, by taking the increase @ 10%, after every three years, under the
conventional heads, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.18,150/- for loss of estate, Rs. 18,150/- as funeral expenses and petitioner No.1, i.e. the mother of
the deceased, is entitled to Rs.48,840/- towards loss of filial consortium. Accordingly, the total amount of compensation is worked out as under:-
Â
Head                                   Amount
 (i) Loss of dependency                    Rs.7,56,000/-
(ii) Funeral expenses                          Rs.18,150/-
(iii) Loss of estate                               Rs.18,150/-
(iv) Filial consortium                          Rs.48,840/- (payable to petitioner No. 1(respondent No. 1 herein).
Total compensation awarded          Rs.8,41,140/-
30. This Court, however, does not see any reason to interfere with the rate of interest awarded on the amount of compensation.
31. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made here-in-above and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the appeal is partly allowed
and the impugned award stands modified. The remaining terms of the impugned award, including the interest component, shall remain the same. The
appeal stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending applications, if any.
