MACA.No. 627 of 2016

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN** **FRIDAY ,THE 01ST DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1940** ## **MACA.NO. 627 OF 2016** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN O.P.(M.V.) NO.1769/2001 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA DATED 23-11-2006** ## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS 2 & 3 :** **1 GOPU, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O SUBHAGAN, VELIYIL HOUSE, NORTH ARYAD P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. (FROM KAYAL PARAMBU HOUSE, PALLATHURUTY WARD, ALAPPUZHA). 2 GOKUL (MINOR),AGED 16 YEARS, S/O K.S. SUBHAGAN, REPRESENTED BY HIS NEXT FRIEND AND ELDER BROTHER GOPU (1ST PETITIONER), ELDER BROTHER GOPU (1ST PETITIONER), VELIYIL HOUSE, NORTH ARYAD P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. (FROM KAYAL PARAMBU HOUSE, PALLATHURUTHY WARD, ALAPPUZHA) BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.ARUNKUMAR SRI.P.T.BINDURAJ SRI.P.SHAMMI NAVAS** ## **RESPONDENTS/1ST PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS :** **1 K.S.SUBHAGAN, KAYILPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALLATHURUTHY WARD, ALAPPUZHA-688 009.** **2 V.G. SHIBU, S/O GOPALAN, VELIYIL VEEDU, NORTH ARYAD P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688 538. 3 V.G. SAJIMON, S/O GOPALAN, VELIYIL VEEDU,NORTH ARYAD P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688 538.** **MACA.No. 627 of 2016** **2** **4 THE MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, P.B. NO.74, M.O. WARD, NEAR TOWN HALL, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. BY ADVS. SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.K.K.M SHERIFF** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MACA.No. 627 of 2016** **3** ## **J U D G M E N T** This appeal is preferred against the award in O.P. (M.V.) No.1769 of 2001 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha by the legal representatives of the deceased Rasimol. The deceased sustained injuries in a motor accident at Avalookunnu Post Office road, the legal representative preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.6,53,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh Fifty Three Thousand only). Being aggrieved by that, the legal representatives of the deceased preferred this appeal. 2. It would be relevant and useful to mention the facts leading to the accident. On 02.06.2000 at 3 p.m., the deceased Rasimol was travelling as a pillion rider on KL-04/C-7054 through Alappuzha-Thanneermukkom public road, when they reached at Avalookunnu Post Office, the 1[st] respondent applied sudden brake, as a result the deceased **MACA.No. 627 of 2016** **4** fell down and sustained serious injuries. Immediately she was removed to Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha but while undergoing treatment she died on 07.06.2000. The accident was due to the rash and negligent driving by its rider. The owner and driver were ex parte in the lower court. Insurer admitted the insurance of the vehicle. The 1[st] claimant was examined as PW1 and his documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A6. 3. The deceased was working as a Junior Public Health Nurse at PHC, Thenipalam and was getting an amount of Rs.5,955/- per month. The 1[st] claimant (K.S. Subhagan) was her husband and the 2[nd] and 3[rd] claimants Gopu and Goukul are her children. The deceased was aged 32 years at the time of accident. Just amount was not awarded by the Tribunal. After the death of Rasimol, three Pay commission Reports dated 25.03.2006, 26.02.2011 and 20.01.2016 were implemented. Considerable increase in salary was recommended in the Pay Commission. The future prospects, the hike in the salary was not considered by the Tribunal while awarding compensation. **MACA.No. 627 of 2016** **5** 4. Learned counsel appearing for the insurer contended that the concept of standardization has been finally settled by the Apex Court in **National Insurance Company V. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 622 (SC)].** Therefore, the future increase in the salary in the pay commission cannot be admitted for calculating compensation. When Apex Court adopted a standardized formula for fixing compensation, that decision is applicable to all the cases. Therefore, the Pay Commission Recommendations submitted by the appellant has to be ignored. Moreover, the cause of action had occurred in the year 2000, hence the salary received at the time of accident alone can be considered. ## 5. Apex Court in **National Insurance Company V. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT 622 (SC)]** held as follows: 61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:- (i) The two-Judge Bench in Santhosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary **MACA.No. 627 of 2016** **6** view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench. (ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent. (iii) 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. (iv) 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. (v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced herein before. (vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment. (vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. (viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be **MACA.No. 627 of 2016** **7** Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years 6. In death case, the assessment of compensation is towards pecuniary losses, which is to be suffered by the dependents as a result of the fatal accident. The life expectancy of the deceased and the dependents are the relevant considerations. At the same time, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remaining period of her life, the amount that she would have contributed to the dependents during that period is also to be considered. The chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependents may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that the deceased might have got better job and earned more income after retirement also have to be considered by the Tribunal. The principle of standardization has been discussed by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) as follows: > 57. Sec.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 **MACA.No. 627 of 2016** **8** 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 compensation”. 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 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, three 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. ## 7. In this context, the decision of the Apex Court in ## **Puttamma** v. **Narayana Reddy [2014 (1) KLT 738 (SC)]** ## has to be appreciated. In paragraphs 31, 32, 33 and 34, Apex Court held as follows: 31. In sarla Verma (supra) this Court held that the multiplier should be used in the following manner: “42. We therefore hold that the multiplier is 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 **MACA.No. 627 of 2016** **9** 25 years), reduced by one unit for every fie 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.” This Court laid down the above guidelines to ensure uniformity and consistency in the selection of multiplier while awarding compensation in motor accident claims made under S.166. The application of multiplier fell for consideration recently before threeJudge Bench in **Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr. (2013) (2) KLT 304 (SC)= (2013) 9 SCC (65)** . In the said case this court held: “33. We have already noticed the table prepared in Sarla Verma for the selection of multiplier. The table has been prepared in Sarla Verma having regard to the three decisions of this Court, namely, Susamma Thomas (1994 (1) KLT 67 (SC)=(1994) 2 SCC 176), Trilok Chandra (1996 (2) KLT 218 (SC) and Charlie (2005 (3) KLT 227 (SC) for the claims made under S.166 of the 1988 Act. The Court said that multiplier shown in Column (4) of the table must be used having regard to the age of the deceased. Perhaps the biggest advantage by employing the table prepared in Sarla Verma is that the uniformity and consistency in selection of the multiplier can be achieved. The assessment of extent of dependency depends on examination of the unique situation of the individual case. Valuing the dependency or the multiplicand is to some extent an arithmetical exercise. The multiplicand is normally based on the net annual value of the dependency on the date of the deceased's death. Once the net annual loss (multiplicand) is assessed, taking into account the age of the deceased, such amount is to be multiplied by a 'multiplier' to arrive at the loss of dependency. In Sarla Verma, this Court had endeavoured to simplify the otherwise complex exercise of assessment of loss of dependency and determination of compensation in a claim made under S.166. It has been rightly stated in Sarla Verma that claimants in case of death **MACA.No. 627 of 2016** **10** claim for the purposes of compensation must establish (a) age of the deceased (b) income of the deceased; and (c) the number of dependants. To arrive at the loss of dependency, the Tribunal must consider (I) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deductions to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. We do not think it is necessary for us to revisit the law on the point as we are in full agreement with the view in Sarla Verma. 32. For determination of compensation in motor accident claims under S.166 this Court always followed multiplier method. As there were inconsistencies in selection of multiplier, this Court in Sarla Verma prepared a table for selection of multiplier based on age group of the deceased/victim. Act, 1988 does not envisage application of split multiplier. 33. In K.R. Madhusudhan & Ors. v. Administrative Officer & Anr. (2011 (1) KLT SN 98 (C.No.136) SC = (2011) 4 SCC 689), this Court held as follows: “14. In the appeal which was filed by the appellants before the High Court, the High Court instead of maintaining the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal, reduced the same. In doing so, the High Court had not given any reason. The High Court introduced the concept of split multiplier and departed from the multiplier used by the Tribunal without disclosing any reason therefor. The High Court has also not considered the clear and corroborative evidence about the prospect of future increment of the deceased. When the age of the deceased is between 51 and 55 years the multiplier is 11, which is specified in the 2nd column in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, and the Tribunal has not committed any error by accepting the said multiplier. This Court also fails to appreciate why the High Court chose to apply **MACA.No. 627 of 2016** **11** the multiplier of 6. 15. We are, thus, of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside for it is perverse and clearly contrary to the evidence on record, for having not considered the future prospects of the deceased and also for adopting a split multiplier method.” 34. We, therefore, hold that in absence of any specific reason and evidence on record the Tribunal or the Court should not apply split multiplier in routine course and should apply multiplier as per decision of this Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) as affirmed in the case of Reshma Kumari (supra). ## 8. Apex Court in **K.S.R.T.C. v. Susamma Thomas [1994 (1) KLT 67 (SC)]** it was held that; 7. The assessment of damages to compensate the dependants is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables, e.g., the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependants during that period, the chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependants may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that the deceased might have got better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income altogether. The manner of arriving at the damages is to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his dependants, and to deduct therefrom such part of his income as the deceased was accustomed to spend upon himself, as regards both self-maintenance and pleasure, and to ascertain what part of his net income the deceased was **MACA.No. 627 of 2016** **12** accustomed to spend for the benefit of the dependants. Then that should be capitalized by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of year's purchase. Much of the calculation necessarily remains n the realm of hypothesis “ and in that region arithmetic is a good servant but a bad master” since there are so often many imponderables. In every case, “ it is the over-all picture that matters”, and the court must try to assess as best as it can the loss suffered. 8. There were two methods adopted for determination and for calculation of compensation in fatal accident actions, the first the multiplier mentioned in **Davies case** (Supra) and the second in **Nance v. British Columbia Electric Railway Co. Ltd** (1951 Appeal cases 601). The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last. 9. The considerations generally relevant in the selection of multiplicand and multiplier were adverted to by Lord Diplok in his speech in Mallett's case (1970) AC 166; (1969) 2 All.ER 178 where the deceased was aged 25 and left behind his widow of about the same age and three minor children. On the question of selection of multiplicand Lord Diplock observed. “ The starting point in any estimate of the amount of the “dependency” is the annual value **MACA.No. 627 of 2016** **13** of the material benefits provided for the dependants out of the earnings of the deceased at the date of his death. But,.... there are many factors which might have led to variations up or down in the future. His earnings might have increased and with them the amount provided by his for his dependants. They might have diminished with a recession in trade or he might have had spells of unemployment. As his children grew up and became independent the proportion of his earnings spent on his dependants would have been likely to fall. But in considering the effect to be given in the award of damages to possible variations in the dependency there are two factors to be borne in mind. The first is that the more remote in the future is the anticipated change the less confidence there can be in the chance of its occurring and the smaller the allowance to be made for it in the assessment. The second is that as a matter of the arithmetic of the calculation of present value, the later the change takes place the less will be its effect upon the total award of damages. Thus at interest rates of 4&1/2 percent the present value of an annuity for 20 years, of which the first ten years are at Pounds 100 per annum and the second ten years at Pounds 200 per annum, is about 12 years' purchase of the arithmetical average annuity of Pounds 150 per annum, where as if the first ten years are at Pounds 200 per annum and the second ten years at Pounds 100 per annum the present value is about 14 years' purchase of the arithmetical mean of Pounds 150 per annum. If therefore the chances of variations in the “Dependency” are to be reflected in the multiplicand of which the years' purchase is the multiplier, variations in the dependency which are not expected to take place Until after ten years should have only a relatively small effect in increasing or diminishing the “dependency” used for the purpose of assessing the damages.” **MACA.No. 627 of 2016** **14** ## 9. Apex Court in another decision **Sarla Vema v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802 (SC)]** held that; 13. The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased ( or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed-up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last.” 13. In U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra (1996 (2) KLT 218 (SC) = (1996) 4 SCC 362), this Court, while reiterating the preference to Davies Method followed in Susamma Thomas stated thus: “16. In the method adopted by Viscount Simon in the case of Nance also, first the annual dependency is worked out and then multiplied by the estimated useful life of the deceased. This is generally determined on the basis of longevity. But then, proper discounting on various factors having a bearing on the uncertainties of life, such as, premature death of the deceased or the dependent, remarriage, accelerated payment and increased earning by wise and prudent investments, etc., would become necessary. It was generally felt that discounting on various imponderables made assessment of compensation rather complicated and cumbersome and very often as a rough and ready measure, one-third to one-half of the dependency was reduced, depending on the life-span taken. That is the reason **MACA.No. 627 of 2016** **15** why courts in India as well as England preferred the Davies' formula as being simple and more realistic. However, as observed earlier and as pointed out in Susamma Thomas case, usually English Courts rarely exceed 16 as the multiplier. Courts in India too followed the same pattern till recently when Tribunals/Courts began to use a hybrid method of using Nance method without taking deduction for imponderables.” “15.----- Under the formula advocated by Lord Wright in Davies, the loss has to be ascertained by first determining the monthly income of the deceased, then deducting therefrom the amount spent on the deceased, and thus assessing the loss to the dependents of the deceased. The annual dependency assessed in this manner is then to be multiplied by the use of an appropriate multiplier.” (emphasis supplied). 10. The deceased in this case was a Junior Public Health Nurse and was getting an amount of Rs.5,955/- per month. Her basic monthly salary was Rs.4,290/-. She was aged 32 years at time of accident. After her death, three pay commission recommendations were made in the state of Kerala. The 1[st] one was issued by the Finance Department by order dated G.O.(P) No.145/2006/Fin. Dated 25.03.2006 and the scale of pay of the Junior PH Nurse Gr.II was 6680-10790. The second Pay Commission was implemented by the Finance Department as per G.O.(P) No.85/2011/Fin dated 26.02.2011 in which the scale of pay **MACA.No. 627 of 2016** **16** of the Junior PH Nurse Gr.II was 11620-20240. The third (The 10th) Pay Commission was implemented by the Finance Department as per G.O.(P) No.7/2016/Fin dated 20.01.2016 in which the scale of pay of the Junior PH Nurse Gr.II was 22200-48000. Appellants contended that due to the unforeseen incident, the 2[nd] and 3[rd] appellants lost the service of their mother and they are entitled to get support from their mother. The deceased has 24 years remaining service. She is entitled to get pensionary benefits including DCRG, Gratuity, Commutation of 300 leave at the time of her retirement etc., but those aspects were not considered by the Tribunal. The insurer also contended that there were several unforeseen incidents during her life time i.e, disciplinary proceedings, premature death etc.. Even then, whatever it may be, the settled law in Sussamma Thomas (Supra) up to Pranay Sethi (Supra), the general direction of the Honourable Supreme Court was that the Tribunals have to award just and reasonable compensation to the victims. The only point highlighted by the Honourable Supreme Court in **MACA.No. 627 of 2016** **17** Paragraph 57 of **Pranay Sethi (Supra)** was with regard to the “principle of standardization”. 11. Before implementation of the Pay Commission, the salary was very meagre, but subsequently the service conditions are upgraded due to the commencement of the Pay Commission Reports and the employees are getting good salary. The ground realities were not considered by the Tribunal in this case while awarding compensation. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the insurer contended that these aspects cannot be considered, I cannot fully disagree with the above view. Even though this Court is not fully giving a bonanza award, but bound to award just compensation. The deceased was aged 32 years at the time of death. She had remaining 23 years of service. The maximum multiplier that this Court can take is 16. If the service is higher than the multiplier, it will create loss while fixing the dependency compensation. The present salary of JPHN- Gr.II is 22200-48000 and JPHN-GrI is 26500-56700. Considering the above pay revision increase and the principle of standardization settled in **MACA.No. 627 of 2016** **18** Pranay Sethi (Supra), it is just and reasonable to fix the multiplicand as Rs.10,000/- and 50% is added towards future prospects. There are three dependents hence, 1/3[rd] has to be deducted. Hence, the appellants are entitled to get Rs.19,20,000/- (15,000x12x16x2/3) towards loss of dependancy. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.6,12,000/on that head and the balance is Rs.13,08,000/-. 12. Apex Court in **Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanuram alias Chuhru Ram and others [ 2018 ACJ 2782]** held as follows: The M.A.C.T as well as the High Court have not awarded any compensation with respect to loss of consortium and loss to estate, which are the other conventional heads under which compensation is awarded in the event of death, as recognised by the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC). The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. The court is duty bound and entitled to award 'just compensation', irrespective of whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the claimant. In exercise of our power under Article 142, and in the interests of justice, we deem it appropriate to award an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss to estate to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. A Constitution Bench of this court in Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC), dealt with the various heads under **MACA.No. 627 of 2016** **19** 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 [Rajesh V. Rjbir Singh, 2013 ACJ 1403 (SC)]. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of 'company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation'. [Black's Law Dictionary: 5[th] Edn., 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 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. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationship. Modern jurisdictions the world over have recognised 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 **MACA.No. 627 of 2016** **20** compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation towards loss of love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where the parents have lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial consortium. Parental consortium is awarded to the children who lose their parents in motor vehicles accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count: Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram v. Sohi Ram, 2017 (4) RLW 3368 (raj) and Uttarakhand High Court in Rita Ranan V. Pradeep Kumar, 2014 (3) UC 1687 and Karnataka High Court in Lakshman V. susheela Chand Choudhary, 1996 ACJ 1265 (Karnataka). However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of filial consortium. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under 'loss of consortium' as laid down in Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC). 13. In view of the above decision, the appellants are entitled to get an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for love and affection and Rs.80,000/- for filial consortium. Hence, an additional amount of Rs.90,000/- is awarded for love and **MACA.No. 627 of 2016** **21** affection and Rs.70,000/- is awarded for filial consortium. In addition to that Rs.12,000/- is awarded for Funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- is awarded for Loss of estate. The total enhanced compensation is Rs.14,95,000/(Rupees Fourteen Lakh Ninety Five Thousand only). 14. There was a delay of 2877 days in filing the appeal. Appellants were minors at the time of preferring the claim petition. The 1st appellant attained majority in the year 2011 and the 2nd appellant attained majority in the year 2017. The above appeal was filed in the year 2016. The 2nd and 3rd appellants are entitled to get equal share out of the enhanced compensation. There is a delay in filing the appeal by the 1st appellant and there is no delay in filing the appeal by the 2nd appellant. Considering the delay period of 2877 days, the rate of interest is reduced from 9% to 7% per annum. The appellants are entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.14,95,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakh Ninety Five Thousand only) with 7% interest and proportionate cost in addition to the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal. The 1st **MACA.No. 627 of 2016** **22** respondent father has already received a portion of the award from the lower court, hence further apportionment is not necessary. The insurer is directed to satisfy the award within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which it will carry 12% interest from the date of default. MACA is disposed of as above. ## Sd/- **P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE** NS /True Copy/ P.A. To Judge