MACA Nos. 1782 of 2011, 2749 of 2012 and 2759 of 2012 (In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam)

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA** **TUESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1944** **MACA NO. 1782 OF 2011** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.M.V.NO. 558/2007 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA** ## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** 1 JAISA DAVIS, W/O DAVIS, CHALLISSERY HOUSE, KATTOOR-CHELAKKARA ROAD, KATOOR VILLAGE, P.O. MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2 JITHIN DAVIS, MINOR, S/O DAVIS, CHALLISSERY HOUSE, KATTOOR-CHELAKKARA ROAD, KATOOR VILLAGE P.O, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, REP.BY HIS MOTHER JALSA DAVIS. 3 ROSE MOL DAVIS, MINOR AGED 6 MONTHS, D/O DAVIS, CHALISSERY HOUSE, KATTOOR-CHELAKKARA ROAD, KATOOR VILLAGE P.O, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, REP.BY HIS MOTHER JALSA DAVIS. 4 ROSY, CHALLISSERY HOUSE, (DIED) KATTOOR-CHELAKKARA ROAD, KATOOR VILLAGE P.O, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** 1 AJAYAKUMAR, S/O RAGHAVAN NAIR, IRIKKALIL HOUSE, VETTUKAD P.O., THRISSUR. 2 BYJU, S/O. MANI, PUTHAN POTTA HOUSE, VARIKURAMBU DESOM,KOODALLUR P.O, THALLIMANNU, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. (CORRECTED) THRISSUR. 4 JOJI JOSE, S/O JOSE, CHIRAYATH CHUKKIRI HOUSE, MACA.Nos. 1782 of 2011, 2749 of 2012 and 2759 of 2012 ## 2 NADATHARA, THRISSUR. 5 SIJI JOSE, D/O JOSE, CHIRAYATH CHUKKIRI HOUSE, NADATHARA, THRISSUR-680 751. 6 C.A.VINCENT, CHALISSERY HOUSE, KATTOOR, THRISSUR-680 702. 7 C.A.FRANCIS, CHALISSERY HOUSE, KATTOOR, THRISSUR-680 702. 8 ANNIE FRANCIS, W/O C.A.JAMES, CHALISSERY HOSUE, KATOOR-680 702. 9 RUBY JAMES, S/O C.A.JAMES, CHALISSERY HOUSE, KATOOR-680 702. 10 ANTONY JAMES, S/O C.A.JAMES, CHALISSERY HOUSE, KATTOOR-680 702. 11 PHILOMINA PAUL, KANAMKUDAM HOUSE, VELAYANAD, THRISSUR-680 662. 12 LISSY DAVIS, UKKEN HOUSE, EDAKULAM, THRISSUR-680 668. (LEGAL HEIRS OF THE 4TH APPELLANT ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL.RESPONDENT 4 TO 12 IN THE APPEAL AS PER ORDER DATED 08.04.2022 IN I.A.NO.1/2022 IN MACA NO.1782/2011) THE NAME OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT INSURANCE COMPANY IS CORRECTED AS NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., THRISSUR AS PER ORDER DATED 24.10.2014 IN I.A.NO.3167/2014 IN MACA NO.1782/2011 BY ADVS. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN No Advocate SMT.P.A.REZIYA SRI.P.G.SURESH SMT P.A REZIYA - R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.12.2022, ALONG WITH MACA.2749/2012, 2759/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA.Nos. 1782 of 2011, 2749 of 2012 and 2759 of 2012 3 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA** **TUESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1944 MACA NO. 2749 OF 2012** **UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 558/2007 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 06.05.2011.** ## **APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT:** AJAYAKUMAR, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. RAGHAVAN NAIR, IRIKKALIL HOUSE, P.O. VETTUKADU, PUTHOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 014, (THE REGISTERED OWNER OF THE MINI LORRY) BY ADVS. SRI.P.G.SURESH SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.RAJAN VISHNURAJ SMT.V.RENUKA SMT.K.VIDYA ## **- RESPONDENTS/RESPONDNTS PETITIONERS:** 1 BAIJU M. S/O. MURI, PUTHANOTTA HOUSE, VARIKURAMBU DESOM, P.O. KOODALLUR, THALLIMANNU, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 686 595 (DRIVER OF MINI LORRY KL.11.K.7346) 2 THE MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THRISSUR - 680 001. (INSURER OF MINI LORRY KL 11 K 7346) 3 JALSA DAVIS, NOW 44 YEARS, W/O. DAVIS, CHALISSERY HOUSE, P.O. KATTOOR, KATTOOR VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, WIFE OF DECEASED DAVIS. 4 JITHIN DAVIS NOW ARED 17 YEARS MINOR, S/O. DAVIS, CHALISSERY HOUSE, P.O. KATTOOR, KATTOOR VILLAGE, MACA.Nos. 1782 of 2011, 2749 of 2012 and 2759 of 2012 4 DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, (SON OF DECEASED DAVIS). 5 ROSEMOL DAVIS,AGED 9 YEARS, MINOR, D/O. CHALISSERY HOUSE, P.O. KATTOOR, KATTOOR VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, (DAUGHTER OF DECEASED DAVIS). 6 ROSSY NOW AGED 87 YEARS, M/O. LATE DAVIS, CHALISSERY HUOSE, P.O. KATTOOR, KATTOOR VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 702 (MOTHER OF DECEASED DAVIS) BY ADVS. SMT.DAISY A.PHILIPOSE SMT.P.A.REZIYA SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.JAI GEORGE SMT.P.A.REZIYA SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.12.2022, ALONG WITH MACA.1782/2011 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA.Nos. 1782 of 2011, 2749 of 2012 and 2759 of 2012 5 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA** **TUESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1944 MACA NO. 2759 OF 2012** **UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 118/2007 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 06.05.2011.** ## **APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT:** AJAYAKUMAR, AGED 30 YEARS S/O RAGHAVAN NAIR, IRIKKALIL HOUSE, P.O, VETTUKADU, PUTHOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680014. (THE REGISTERED OWNER OF THE MINI LORRY) BY ADVS. SRI.P.G.SURESH SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.RAJAN VISHNURAJ SMT.V.RENUKA SMT.K.VIDYA ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT 2 & 3 AND PETITIONERS:** 1 BAIJU.M. S/O MANI, PUTHANPOTTA HOUSE, MARIKULAMBU, P.O, KOODULLUR, THALLIMANNU, PALAKKD DISTRICT 686595 (DRIVER OF MINI LORRY KL 11. K. 7346) 2 THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, THRISSUR-68001 (INSURER OF MINI LORRY KL 11 K 7346) 3 OMANA, AGED 50 YEARS W/O APUL, KANAMKUDAM HOUSE, P.O, VELLANGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680662 (WIFE OF DECEASED PAUL) 4 DHANYA, AGED 31 YEARS D/O PAUL, KANAMKUDAM HOUSE, P.O, VELLANGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680662 (DAUGHTER OF DECEASED PAUL) 5 SOUMYA NOW AGED 29 YEARS, MACA.Nos. 1782 of 2011, 2749 of 2012 and 2759 of 2012 **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** D/O PAUL, KANAMKUDAM HOUSE, P.O, VELLANGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680662 (DAUGHTER OF DECEASED PAUL) 6 THRESSIA NOW AGED 29 YEARS, W/O THOMAS, KANAMKUDAM HOUSE, P.O, VELLANGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680662 (MOTHER OF DECEASED PAUL) BY ADVS. SMT.DAISY A.PHILIPOSE SMT.P.A.REZIYA SMT.P.A.REZIYA THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.12.2022, ALONG WITH MACA.1782/2011 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA.Nos. 1782 of 2011, 2749 of 2012 and 2759 of 2012 7 ## **COMMON JUDGMENT** M.A.C.A Nos.1782/2011 and 2749/2012 have been filed against the award passed in O.P.M.V No.558/2007 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Iringalakuda by the appellants/claimants as well as 1[st] respondent. M.A.C.A. No.2759/2012 has been filed against the award passed in O.P.M.V.No.118/2007 by the 1st respondent/owner of the offending vehicle. The claim petition has been filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (In short the Act) out of the death of Davis (herein after be referred as deceased) in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 27.12.2006 at about 2.45 p.m., while the deceased was riding a motor cycle bearing Registration No.KL-08-S-5055 along with a pillion rider who was the deceased in O.P.M.V.No.118/2007, through Ambaloor-Mannuthi Bypass NH-47 and when reached at Marathakkara, a mini lorry bearing Registration No.KL-11-K-7346 driven by the 2nd respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the motor cycle in which the deceased was travelling, thereby resulting in fatal injuries to him and succumbed to the injuries on the same day. 2. Before the Tribunal, respondents 1 and 2 remained exparte and the 3[rd] respondent filed written statement admitting the policy coverage with respect to the offending vehicle. Additional statements also filed by the 3rd respondent contending that the petition is not MACA.Nos. 1782 of 2011, 2749 of 2012 and 2759 of 2012 **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** maintainable because this case was charged under Section 304 instead of 279 & 304(A) of IPC. Both cases were jointly tried and Exts.A1 to A12 were marked from the side of the claimants 3. On evaluating the pleadings as well as documents produced, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the 2[nd] respondent, the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,96,750/- in O.P.M.V No.558/2007 under various heads together with interest at the rate of 7% per annum. 4. The Tribunal found that since the case was charged under Section 304 of IPC, the 3rd respondent is not liable to indemnify the owner and driver of the offending vehicle and hence, 3rd respondent was allowed to realise the amount from the 1st respondent. 5. The owners of the offending vehicles filed M.A.C.A.Nos.2759/2012 and M.A.C.A.No.2749/2012 against the pay and recovery direction in the award in O.P.M.V.Nos.118/2007 and 558/2007. Since all these appeals arose out of a common award, all appeals were heard together and a common judgment was passed. Pending the proceedings, 4[th] appellant died and her legal heirs were impleaded as additional respondent Nos. 4 to 12. 6. According to the learned counsel for the appellant in M.A.C.A.Nos.2759/2012 and 2749/2012, the order of pay and recovery MACA.Nos. 1782 of 2011, 2749 of 2012 and 2759 of 2012 **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** of the Tribunal is illegal and unsustainable since the rashness and negligence was on the part of the 2nd respondent. He would also contend that the case was charged under Section 304 of IPC, alone is not sufficient to order pay and recovery. 7. The learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent on the other hand contended that there was no contest from 1st and 2nd respondents before the Tribunal. They did not file any written statement since the case was charged under Section 304 of IPC **.** The Standing Counsel also supports the pay and recovery ordered by the Tribunal. 8. On going through the award passed by the Tribunal, it seen that in Issue No.1, the Tribunal found that the case of the petitioner that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the 2nd respondent is probabilised by Ext.A1 FIR and Ext.A2 charge sheet and he has no explanation for the charge. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence of the 2nd respondent. Though as per Ext.A2, police charge sheeted 2nd respondent under Section 304 of IPC, narration of the charge is that the 2nd respondent inspite of seeing the motor cycle, tried to overtake another lorry, knowing that during that process, it will hit against the motor cycle and will result in the death of motor cyclist. 9. Hence on going through the narration of police charge, there are materials to infer that the accident happened due to the rash and MACA.Nos. 1782 of 2011, 2749 of 2012 and 2759 of 2012 10 negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Narration of the occurrence as per police charge seems to be in consonance with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the 2nd respondent. The said finding of the Tribunal is not further challenged. In such circumstances whether the Tribunal is justified in ordering pay and recovery is the next question to be resolved. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent (hereinafter be referred as owner of the offending vehicle) relies on **Minu Rout and Another v. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra and Others** [2013 KHC 4701]. As per the above decision, the liability of the insurer arose out of a motor accident on account of rashness and negligence which have already been found against the 2[nd] respondent. As per Sections 147 and 149 of the Act, since 3[rd] respondent could not establish any violation of policy conditions, to exonerate their liability, the pay and recovery order made by the Tribunal is not sustainable in law and is liable to be interfered with and is here by set aside. 10. Next is with respect to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. According to the learned counsel, claimant was a licensed Electrical-wireman and his license has been produced as Ext.A12 which would show that the certificate has been issued to him on 29.06.1992. Ext.A12 has been marked without objection. It would prove the occupation of deceased as Electrical-wireman under K.S.E.B. MACA.Nos. 1782 of 2011, 2749 of 2012 and 2759 of 2012 **==> picture [14 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** The monthly income claimed by the claimant was Rs.7,500/-, the Tribunal took the monthly income as Rs.2,000/- which according to him is very low. In **Chameli Devi and Others v. Jivrail Mian and Others** [2019 KHC 5352], in an accident occurred in the year 2001 and the deceased was a Carpenter, his monthly income has been taken as Rs.5,000/-. The learned counsel also brought my attention the Judgment of the learned Single Judge in **Appu and Anothers v. M.K.Mini and Others** [MACA No.1950/2010] dated 1[st] July, 2021. The learned Single Judge of this Court took the monthly income of a Truck Driver as Rs.4,000/- in an accident occurred in the year 1999. Hence, according to the learned counsel, Rs.7,500/- claimed in this case is reasonable and it must be accepted. The claimant in this case produced Ext.A12 which would show that he is a licenced electricalwireman under K.S.E.B. Accident was on 27.12.2006. So, I find it just and proper to take the monthly income of the claimant **as Rs.6,500/-** 11. In Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)] the Apex Court laid down the guidelines for determination of quantum of compensation in case of death in motor accident following the principles in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Trilok Chandra & Ors. [1996 (2) KLT 218 (SC) : (1996) 4 SCC 362] as well as the principles laid down in the General Manger, Kerala State Road Transports Corporation v. Susamma MACA.Nos. 1782 of 2011, 2749 of 2012 and 2759 of 2012 **==> picture [14 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Thomas [(1994 (1) KLT 67 (SC) : (1994) 2 SCC 176]. It has been held there in that compensation awarded should be just compensation and that the compensation awarded does not become 'just compensation' merely because the Tribunal considers it to be just. The assessment of compensation though involve certain hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be objective and justice and justness emanate from equality in treatment, consistency and thoroughness in adjudication and fairness and uniformity in decision making process and the decisions. Though it is not possible to have a mathematical precision or identical awards in assessing compensation, same or similar facts should lead to awards in the same range. 12. In National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)] a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court dealt with the concept of 'just compensation' and held that 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. 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 concept of “just compensation” has to be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non-violation of the principle of equitability. It is also emphasized that the compensation should not be a windfall nor be a MACA.Nos. 1782 of 2011, 2749 of 2012 and 2759 of 2012 13 pittance. 13. In Sarla Verma's case the Apex Court made a rule of addition of 50% of actual salary in view of the imponderables and uncertainties towards future prospects where the deceased has permanent job and was below 40 years and the said addition was limited to 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 – 50 years and further it was prescribed that there should be no addition where the age of deceased is more than 50 years. 14. In Pranay Sethi's case, the Constitution Bench laid down that in case of self employed persons or persons with fixed salary there should be addition of 10% in between the age group of 50 – 60 years and an addition of 25% between the age group of 40 - 50 and 40% where deceased was below 40 years and it is also held that the established income also provided as the income minus tax component in the case of salaried persons. 15. In the present case, the deceased was 45 years old at the time of accident. So claimants are entitled for 25% enhancement towards future prospects. The monthly income of the deceased already taken as Rs.6,500/-. Total monthly earning would be Rs.8,125/(6,500+1,625(25% of 6,500)). 16. On the question of deduction towards personal expenses in Sarla Verma's case, the Apex Court held that personal and living MACA.Nos. 1782 of 2011, 2749 of 2012 and 2759 of 2012 **==> picture [14 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** expenses of the deceased should be deducted from the monthly income to calculate the contribution to the dependants. When deceased is a bachelor and claimants are parents, normally 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Where number of dependent family members is between 2 and 3, the deduction towards dependant family members is 1/3 and where number of dependant family members is between 4 and 6 the deduction would be ¼ and it would be 1/5 when the number of family members exceeds six and that is followed in Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr. [(2013) 9 SCC 65) as made out in the facts and circumstances of the case. 17. In Reshma Kumari's case, in paragraph No.38 it has been provided that one must bear in mind that the proportion of a man's net earnings that he saves or spends exclusively for the maintenance of others does not form part of his living expenses but what he spends exclusively on himself does. The percentage of deduction on account of personal and living expenses may vary with reference to the number of dependant members in the family and the personal living expenses of the deceased need not exactly correspond to the number of dependants. 18. In Kirti & Another v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [2021 2 SCC 166], it has been held that subsequent death of the Dependant of the MACA.Nos. 1782 of 2011, 2749 of 2012 and 2759 of 2012 15 deceased ought not to be a reason for reduction of motor accident compensation and claims and legal liabilities crystalise at the time of accident and the changes post thereto ought not to ordinarily affect pending proceedings. In this case, 4[th] appellant died pending this appeal. (Her legal heirs were impleaded as additional respondents 4 to 12.) Hence deduction towards personal and living expenses can be taken as ¼. Hence contribution to the family would be Rs.6,094/(8,125-2,031(8,125x1/4)).The proper multiplier to be applied as held in **Sarla Verma(smt) v. Delhi Transport Corporation Anr. (2009 6 SCC** **121)** approved by the Constitution Bench in **National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors (2017 (4) KLT 662)** is '14'. So the annual dependency would be 6,094x14x12=10,23,792/-. From that, the amount already awarded by the Tribunal to be deducted, the balance would **Rs.7,83,792/-** (10,23,792-2,40,000). 19. The next contention of the learned counsel is with regard to the enhancement of the conventional heads as per the directions in Pranay Sethi's case followed by Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018 (18) SCC 130) In that decision, the Apex court has held that Rs.15,000/- to be awarded under the head loss of estate. Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. 20. The learned counsel would contend that the Apex Court has MACA.Nos. 1782 of 2011, 2749 of 2012 and 2759 of 2012 **==> picture [14 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** also held that the above amounts should be revisited on percentage basis in every three years and enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. The learned counsel would contend that the judgment in Pranay Sethi's case was on 31.10.2017. So three years have elapsed. So the appellants are entitled for 10% enhancement on the said amounts. So according to him, the amounts to be awarded under the above heads should be Rs.16,500/- each under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses and Rs.44,000/- each towards loss of consortium. 21. In this context, Rasmita Biswal & Ors. v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. [CDJ 2021 SC 1024] is to be taken note of. That was a case in which the accident occurred on 09.05.2013 and the judgment of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in MACA No.965/2016 was dated 07.03.2018. In that decision, under the conventional heads, following the principles in Pranay Sethi's case, the claimants were found to be entitled for 10% enhancement of Rs.16,500/- towards the loss of estate and Rs.44,000/- towards spousal consortium. Following that principles, a learned Single Judge of this Court in MACA No.1290/2011 dated 10.12.2021 granted 10% escalation on conventional heads irrespective of the date of accident. In Pranay Sethi's case while fixing 10% escalation in every three years, no reference was made with respect to the date of accident also. So I am of MACA.Nos. 1782 of 2011, 2749 of 2012 and 2759 of 2012 **==> picture [14 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** the considered view that claimants are entitled for 10% increase on conventional heads. 22. Next is with regard to the consortium to be awarded, the law laid down by the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co.'s case is relevant to be taken note of. In that decision, the Apex Court while dealing with consortium in legal parlance it has been classified into 'spousal consortium', 'parental consortium' and 'filial consortium'. The spousal consortium is described as rights pertaining to the relationship of husband – wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of “company, society, co-operation, affection and aid of the other in every conjugal relation”. (Black's Law Dictionary (5[th] ed. 1979). 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”. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of 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 life time. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit. Detailed description regarding filial consortium has also been made therein. It states that filial consortium is the right of parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. In case where a parent has lost their minor MACA.Nos. 1782 of 2011, 2749 of 2012 and 2759 of 2012 18 child or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial consortium. 23. In the present case, appellants/claimants are entitled to get Rs.44,000/- each towards filial, parental and spousal consortium, amounting to **Rs.1,76,000/** -(44,000x4). Once compensation is awarded under consortium, claimants are not entitled to get any compensation towards love and affection. (See **New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Somwati and Others** [2020 9 SCC 644]). So amount of Rs.20,000/awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of love and affection and Rs.5,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering have to be deducted. Deduction also to be made of Rs.4,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium already awarded by the Tribunal. 24. So under the conventional heads, claimants are entitled to get Rs.2,09,000/-. (1,76,000+33,000(16,500+16,500). From that, the amount already awarded by the Tribunal to be deducted that is 20,000+4,000+15,000+5,000=44,000, 2,09,000-44,000= **Rs.1,65,000/-.** 25. So in total the claimants are entitled to get total enhanced compensation of Rs.9,48,792/(7,83,792+1,65,000) rounded to **Rs.9,48,800/-.** 26. In the result, the appellants No. 1 to 3 are allowed to realize enhanced compensation of **Rs.9,48,800/-** (Nine lakhs forty eight MACA.Nos. 1782 of 2011, 2749 of 2012 and 2759 of 2012 19 thousand eight hundred) which will carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition, till realization. The enhanced compensation shall be apportioned among the appellants 1 to 3 in the ratio of 50:25:25. The 3[rd] respondent shall satisfy the additional compensation granted in this appeal, together with interest, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Pay and recovery ordered by the Tribunal in O.P.M.V Nos.588/2007 and 118/2007 are set aside. Hence the amount awarded by the Tribunal is also liable to be paid by the 3[rd] respondent, insurer. 27. The disbursement of the amount to the appellants shall be in terms of the directives issued by this Court in Circular No.3 of 2019 dated 06.09.2019 and clarified further in Official Memorandum No.D162475/2016 dated 07.11.2019. Appellants/claimants No.1 to 3 shall provide their Bank Account details (attested copy of the relevant page of the Bank Passbook having details of the Bank Account Number and IFSC Code of the branch) before the Tribunal, with copy to the standing counsel for the insurer, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. In the result, all appeal stands allowed. Parties shall bear their respective costs. **Sd/-** rps/ **M.R.ANITHA, JUDGE**