Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Kumari Thankam & Amritha Vijayan & C. Krishnamma (Legal Representatives of the Deceased)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.** **WEDNESDAY, THE 31[ST] DAY OF JULY 2024 / 9TH SRAVANA, 1946** **MACA NO. 1056 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 27.04.2017 IN OP(MV) NO.319 OF 2011 OF ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-IV, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:** **RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED THRISSUR NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL- CLAIMS MANAGER,REGIONAL OFFICE, KOCHI-682 020.** **BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW** ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:** - **1 *KUMARI THANKAM W/O.LATE VIAYAKUMAR, THUNDATHIL KADAYARA PUTHEN VEEDU, ARUMANOOR, POOVAR P.O, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, PIN- 695 525.** - **2 *AMRITHA VIJAYAN D/O.LATE VIAYAKUMAR, THUNDATHIL KADAYARA PUTHEN VEEDU,ARUMANOOR, POOVAR P.O, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, PIN-695 525.** - **3 C. KRISHNAMMA - (DIED) W/O. LATE P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR,THUNDATHIL KADAYARA PUTHEN VEEDU,ARUMANOOR, POOVAR P.O, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, PIN- 695 525 . * LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES RECORDED ( IT IS RECORDED THAT THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ARE THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED 3RD RESPONDENT AS PER THE ORDER DATED 06/08/2021 IN THE MEMO DATED 30/03/2021 IN MACA 1056/2018 )** **BY ADVS. THUSHARA JAMES M.S.AMAL DHARSAN** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD** **ON 15.07.2024, THE COURT ON 31.07.204 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** M.A.C.A.No.1056/2018 2 ## **JUDGMENT** _Dated this the 31st day of July, 2024_ This appeal arises from an Award dated 27.04.2017 in O.P. (MV) No.319 of 2011 on the files of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -IV, Thiruvananthapuram. Appellant Insurance Company was the 3[rd] respondent in the said O.P.(M.V.). Respondents 1 to 3 herein were the petitioners in the O.P.(M.V.). They were the wife, daughter and mother respectively of P.Vijayakumar who died in the accident. The 3[rd] respondent mother died during the pendency of the M.A.C.A. and the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents were recorded as the legal representatives of the deceased 3[rd] respondent. ## **Facts in Brief:** 2. Deceased P.Vijayakumar, aged 49 years, at the time of his death, was a document writer and drama artist by avocation. On 26.03.2010, at about 05.30 P.M., while he was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-01/AJ-4286 from Kovalam to Balaramapuram, a tourist bus bearing Reg.No.KL- M.A.C.A.No.1056/2018 3 45/4748 driven by the 2[nd] respondent in the O.P.(M.V.) came from the opposite direction and collided against the motorcycle. Vijayakumar was thrown out on to the road and he sustained injuries. He underwent treatment from 26.03.2010 to 06.04.2010 at Ananthapuri Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, and succumbed to injuries on 06.04.2010. His wife, daughter and mother filed the above OP (MV) seeking a compensation of Rs.47,00,000/- alleging that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the tourist bus which was owned by the 1[st] respondent and driven by the 2[nd] respondent in the O.P.(M.V). The appellant herein, viz., the insurer of the tourist bus was arrayed as the 3[rd] respondent in the O.P.(M.V). ## **Proceedings before the Tribunal:** 3. The owner-cum-insured and the driver, viz., the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents in the O.P.(M.V.) remained _ex parte_ before the Tribunal. The appellant Insurance Company filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy of the tourist bus as valid and subsisting during the relevant time. Appellant, however, contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle on which the deceased was a pillion rider. M.A.C.A.No.1056/2018 4 Appellant also challenged the amount of compensation sought under various heads and sought dismissal of the O.P.(M.V). The Tribunal framed three charges and the parties went to trial on the same. No oral evidence was adduced by either side. Respondents marked Exts.A1 to A22 documents while no documents were marked from the side of the appellant Insurance Company. ## **Award of the Tribunal:** 4. The Tribunal vide Award dated 27.04.2017 held that the respondents are allowed to realize an amount of Rs.25,32,400/with interest @ 9% with proportionate cost from the appellant. The said Award is challenged by the appellant in this M.A.C.A. 5. Heard Sri.Mathews Jacob, learned Senior Advocate instructed by Sri.P.Jacob Mathew, learned counsel appearing for the appellant - Insurance Company and Sri.Amal Darshan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. ## **Appellant’s contentions in brief :** - ●Tribunal overlooked the contention of contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle on which deceased - P.Vijayakumar was the pillion rider. It ought to have fixed some contributory negligence on the said driver. M.A.C.A.No.1056/2018 5 - ●The Tribunal erred in arriving at the notional monthly income as Rs.15,000/-. The documents produced to prove the occupation and the monthly income of the deceased were unreliable. - ●Ext.A18 statement of the account does not reveal the monthly salary payment. It only shows that the deceased used to deposit an amount of not less than Rs.15,000/- regularly in the Bank. - ●The Tribunal erred in not deducting any amounts towards income tax after taking Rs.19,500/- as monthly income. - ●Tribunal erred in awarding an amount of Rs.20,000/- under the head of pain and suffering as compensation under the said head can be granted only in the case of injury and not in cases of death [( **United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others** (2020 SCC Online SC 410] . - ●Amounts granted by the Tribunal under the heads funeral expenses,loss of consortium and loss of love and affection are against the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and** M.A.C.A.No.1056/2018 6 **others** [(2017) 16 SCC 680]. - ●The Tribunal erred in taking 30% future prospects for the deceased whereas it should have taken at 25% as per the Supreme Court decision in **Pranay Sethi** (supra). - ●The Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.1,00,000/- each for loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. Grant of said sums militate against the dictum of the Supreme Court in **Pranay Sethi** (supra). - ●The interest allowed by the Tribunal at 9% is excessive. Reliance was placed on the dictum in **Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited v. S.Rajapriya and others** [(2005) 6 SCC 236] and **Dharampal and others v. U.P.State Road Transport Corporation** [(2008) 12 SCC 208]. ## **Respondents' contentions in brief :** - ●Notional income has been correctly computed by the Tribunal and the same does not merit any interference. - ●Exts.A10 Scriber’s license, A18 Bank account statement, A19 copy of the deed, A21 copy of the Registration Certificate etc. would evidence that the income earned by the deceased was Rs.41,000/- per M.A.C.A.No.1056/2018 7 month. - ●Grant of compensation for pain and suffering is not prohibited in death cases, post the decision in **United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others** [2020 SCC Online SC 410]. Judgments of this Court in **Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vijayamma** (2023 KHC 9382) and **Mable and others v. Lenoy Sebastian and others** (2024 KHC OnLine 112) vouchsafe for this proposition. Hence Rs.20,000/- granted by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering cannot be termed as illegal or unsustainable. ## **Discussions and findings** : 6. As regards the contention of the appellant that since the accident was a head on collision, the Tribunal ought to have found that there was negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle on which deceased was a pillion rider, no evidence has been put forth to substantiate negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. In **New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal** [2011 (3) KLT 648], it has been held as follows: _“.. the quality of negligence which a claimant is_ M.A.C.A.No.1056/2018 8 _to establish in proceedings under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is certainly inferior. We cannot afford to forget or ignore that we are living in the post Section 140/163 A era and insistence on proof of negligence must be realistically understood. Culpable negligence need not be proved. It is enough if the court is satisfied about the existence of negligence. The Rule in Rylands v. Fletcher (1861-1873 All.E.RI.) will certainly apply. The doctrine of res ipsa locquitur will also apply. Consequently, a Tribunal should not ritualistically insist on oral evidence to prove negligence. It is sufficient that negligence on the part of the driver or owner is established from the totality of circumstances._ _But as a general rule it can safely be accepted that production of the police charge sheet is prima facie sufficient evidence of negligence for the purpose of a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. A system cannot feed itself on a regular diet of distrust of the police. Prima facie, charge sheet filed by a police officer after due investigation can be accepted as evidence of negligence against the indictee. If any one of the parties do not accept such charge sheet, the burden must be on such party to adduce oral evidence.”_ Following the above dictum, the finding of the Tribunal based on Exts.A1 charge and A5 FIR that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tourist bus is valid and does not call for any interference. 7. As regards the monthly salary of the deceased, respondents in the O.P.(M.V.) had claimed it to be Rs.41,000/based on Exts.A10 Scriber’s licence, A11 Stamp Vendor licence, M.A.C.A.No.1056/2018 9 A14 Certificate issued by the KSFE, A18 extract of the account statement of the deceased and A19 copy of the register showing the registration of documents affected by the deceased. To prove additional income, the respondents had also relied on Exts.A13 letter from All India Radio/Doordarshan to show that he was an actor and a performer and A15 Certificate to show that he was a drama artist at the Swadeshabhimani Group, Thiruvananthapuram. The Tribunal had, after a detailed consideration of the said documents, concluded that the same are not sufficient to prove that the deceased was earning a fixed salary of Rs.41,000/- per month. The Tribunal thereafter proceeded to fix the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month basing on the very same documents. The said course adopted by the Tribunal to arrive at the notional income is not legally valid or tenable. As per the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.** [(2011) 13 SCC 236], it is deemed fair and reasonable to recompute and fix the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/-. 8. The Tribunal has in the Award fixed future prospects at 30%. Supreme court has regarding ‘future prospects’ held in M.A.C.A.No.1056/2018 10 ## **Pranay Sethi** [(2017) 16 SCC 680] as follows: _“59.Having bestowed our anxious consideration, we are disposed to think when we accept the principle of standardization, there is really no rationale not to apply the said principle to the self-employed or a person who is on a fixed salary. To follow the doctrine of actual income at the time of death and not to add any amount with regard to future prospects to the income for the purpose of determination of multiplicand would be unjust. The determination of income while computing compensation has to include future prospects so that the method will come within the ambit and sweep of just compensation as postulated under Section 168 of the Act. In case of a deceased who had held a permanent job with inbuilt grant of annual increment, there is an acceptable certainty. But to state that the legal representatives of a deceased who was on a fixed salary would not be entitled to the benefit of future prospects for the purpose of computation of compensation would be inapposite. It is because the criterion of distinction between the two in that event would be certainty on the one hand and staticness on the other. One may perceive that the comparative measure is certainty on the one hand and uncertainty on the other but such a perception is fallacious. It is because the price rise does affect a self-employed person; and that apart there is always an incessant effort to enhance one’s income for sustenance. The purchasing capacity of a salaried person on permanent job when increases because of grant of increments and pay revision or for some other change in service conditions, there is always a competing attitude in the private sector to enhance the salary to get better efficiency from the employees. Similarly, a person who is self-employed is bound to garner his resources and raise his charges/fees so that he can live with same facilities. To have the_ M.A.C.A.No.1056/2018 11 _perception that he is likely to remain static and his income to remain stagnant is contrary to the fundamental concept of human attitude which always intends to live with dynamism and move and change with the time. Though it may seem appropriate that there cannot be certainty in addition of future prospects to the existing income, unlike in the case of a person having a permanent job, yet the said perception does not really deserve acceptance. We are inclined to think that there can be some degree of difference as regards the percentage that is meant for or applied to in respect of the legal representatives who claim on behalf of the deceased who had a permanent job than a person who is self-employed or on a fixed salary. But not to apply the principle of standardization on the foundation of perceived lack of certainty would tantamount to remaining oblivious to the marrows of ground reality. And, therefore, degree-test is imperative. Unless the degree-test is applied and left to the parties to adduce evidence to establish, it would be unfair and inequitable. The degree-test has to have the inbuilt concept of 46 percentage. Taking into consideration the cumulative factors, namely, passage of time, the changing society, escalation of price, the change in price index, the human attitude to follow a particular pattern of life, etc., an addition of 40% of the established income of the deceased towards future prospects and where the deceased was below 40 years an addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years would be reasonable.”_ There is hence merit in the contention of the learned counsel that the Tribunal erred in adding future prospects at 30%. Thus following the dictum reproduced above, loss towards future prospects is refixed at 25%. M.A.C.A.No.1056/2018 12 9. The compensation for loss of dependency has to be re-computed based on the annual income and future prospects arrived at 25% (12,000 x 25/100 = 15,000) while retaining the multiplier at 13 and deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses (15,000 - 15,000 x 1/3 = 10,000). Thus the amount under the head of loss of dependency is recalculated at Rs.15,60,000/- [10,000 x 12 x 13]. 10. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- each under the head’ loss of consortium’ and under the head ‘loss of love and affection’. There is a merit in the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that compensation would not lie under the said two heads simultaneously and it will have to be confined to either of them. In **Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and others** [(2018) 18 SCC 130], the Supreme Court interpreted “consortium” to be a compendious term, which encompasses spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as 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. In **Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others** [2020 SCC Online SC 410], the M.A.C.A.No.1056/2018 13 ## Supreme Court held that : _“The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims, or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has 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.”_ The Supreme Court then proceeded to consider the practice of awarding both loss of consortium and loss of love and affection and held as follows: _“The amount to be awarded for loss consortium will be as per the amount fixed in Pranay Sethi (supra). At this stage, we consider it necessary to provide uniformity with respect to the grant of consortium, and loss of love and affection. Several Tribunals and High Courts have been awarding compensation for both loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), has recognized only three conventional heads under which compensation can be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses._ _In Magma General (supra), this Court gave a comprehensive interpretation to consortium to include spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial consortium._ _Loss of love and affection is comprehended in loss of consortium. The Tribunals and High Courts are directed to award compensation for loss of_ M.A.C.A.No.1056/2018 14 _consortium, which is a legitimate conventional head. There is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head.”_ In view of the above dictum, when compensation is awarded under the head loss of consortium, no separate compensation can be awarded under the head ‘loss of love and affection'. Accordingly, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of love and affection is to be deducted from the total compensation awarded. 11. As regards the compensation for 'loss of consortium', Supreme Court in **Pranay Sethi** (supra) has held as follows: _“It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years.”_ ## Accordingly, taking note that the deceased is survived by his wife, daughter and mother, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the M.A.C.A.No.1056/2018 15 Tribunal under the head loss of consortium is re-fixed at Rs.1,20,000/- (40,000 x 3 = 12,000/-). 12. As regards funeral expenses, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.25,000/-. Following the dictum in **Pranay Sethi** (supra) referring to funeral expenses reproduced above, the same is re-fixed at Rs.15,000/-. ## **Compensation for pain and suffering in death cases:** 13. There is substantial divergence of opinion between the counsel appearing for both sides regarding the compensation awarded under the head ‘pain and suffering’. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant Insurance Company contends that in a case of death, no compensation can be awarded towards pain and suffering and that the said head is to be limited to injury cases. He buttresses the said contention pointing to the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in **Sarla Verma and others** **v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another** (AIR 2009 SC 3104), wherein it had been held as follows: “ _But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased.”_ M.A.C.A.No.1056/2018 16 This observation was subsequently referred to again by the Supreme Court in **Satinder Kaur’s** (supra) case. This contention of the learned Senior Advocate is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel appearing for respondents, on more than one ground. He submits that except for the above reproduced observation of the Supreme Court in both **Sarla Verma** and **Satinder Kaur** (supra), there is no independent discussion as to the grant of compensation under the said head in the said judgments presumably for the reason that it was not a contentious issue in the said cases. Learned counsel further submits that the said observation does not lay down any new law with regard to payment of compensation under the head of ‘pain and suffering’ and seeks to substantiate the said contention by pointing to the judgment of this Court in **Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vijayamma** (supra) wherein the question was considered in detail and it was concluded as follows: _“In Satinder Kaur, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in death cases, compensation can be awarded under the heads loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses alone. It was held that no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased. However, there is no detailed enquiry in the judgment as to whether the pain and_ M.A.C.A.No.1056/2018 17 _sufferings of the deceased from the time of the accident till the time of his death is to be compensated as an addition to his estate. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satinder Kaur (supra) did not specifically state that no amount should be paid for pain and suffering of the deceased, I am of the opinion that going by the decisions referred above, there is justification for the claim made by the claimants.”_ 14. The learned counsel also refers to a subsequent judgment of this Court in **Mable and others v. Lenoy Sebastian and others** (supra) which considered the same question concerning grant of compensation for pain and suffering in death cases and the learned Judge, after a detailed discussion on various facets of the question, opined as follows: _“It is true that there are certain observations in Satinder Kaur and Sarla Varma restricting the right to claim compensation for pain and suffering. However, all the observations made therein were pertaining to the pain and suffering and mental agony suffered by the relatives of the deceased consequent to the death of such deceased, and those observations were not pertaining to the pain and sufferings of the deceased himself. The crucial aspect to be noticed is that the right of the injured to claim compensation for his pain and suffering due to the injuries sustained in the accident has accrued to him the moment the accident occurred and the injuries sustained. Thereupon, it has become a vested right of the injured. Therefore, by virtue of the statutory stipulations contained in the provisions of the Kerala Torts (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1976, the right to sue for the said compensation would survive upon the legal heirs of the injured died at a later point of time and, they can pursue the said claim. Even though in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), the compensation under the_ M.A.C.A.No.1056/2018 18 _head of pain and suffering is not mentioned, in the light of the statutory provisions in the Kerala Torts (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, and the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Urmila Shukla’s case (supra), nothing would preclude this court from granting compensation under the said head.”_ ## The learned Judge had thereafter taking note of **Vijayamma** 's case ## (supra) concluded that: _“In the said decision also, this Court specifically arrived at the conclusion that compensation for pain and suffering of the deceased can be claimed by the legal heirs. This Court rendered the said decision after referring to Satinder Kaur (Supra). I completely agree with the legal proposition made by this Court in the aforesaid decision. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid observations, I am of the view that the amount awarded by the tribunal towards pain and suffering is not to be interfered with. This is particularly because it is evident from the records that the death of the deceased was after 8 months of the accident, and he was under treatment till such time. The right to sue for compensation for pain and suffering became a vested right upon the deceased immediately upon sustaining the injuries. The said right to sue is survived to the relatives of the deceased on his death. In such circumstances, the challenge raised by the insurance company against the said head is hereby rejected.”_ Basing on the said decisions rendered by this Court in **Vijayamma** and **Mable** s' cases (supra), the learned counsel for cross objectioners submits that the dictum in **Sarla Verma** and **Satinder Kaur** s' cases (supra) does not preclude payment of compensation under the head ‘pain and suffering’ in death cases. He also points M.A.C.A.No.1056/2018 19 to the subsequent precedent of the Supreme Court in **Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirzaand and others v. Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service** [(2013) 16 SCC 719] and **Pushkar Mehra v. Brij Mohan Kushwaha and others** [(2015) 12 SCC 688]. 15. In the light of the above legal position, I concur with the dictum in **Vijayamma** 's case (supra) that since the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Satinder Kaur** 's case (supra) did not specifically state that no amount should be paid for pain and suffering of the deceased, compensation under the head pain and suffering can be justifiably claimed by the legal heirs. I note that in **Mable** 's case (supra) the learned Judge had after concurring with the view in **Vijayamma** 's case (supra) had also taken note of the fact that the death of the deceased in that case was after 8 months of the accident and that he was under treatment till such time. However, in the case at hand, Gopalan had succumbed to death on his way to the hospital from the site of the accident and there was no interregnum between the injury and death. Still pain from the fatal injuries caused in the accident would have been invariably suffered by him. This aspect has been considered by this Court in **Jyni and** M.A.C.A.No.1056/2018 20 ## **others v. Raphel P.T. and others** [2016 (2) KHC 870], wherein it has been held as follows: “ _Death in an accident is generally the result of violent impact on the body resulting in serious injuries causing severe pain. The magnitude of the ordeal may vary from case to case depending upon the nature of injuries sustained. In cases of instantaneous deaths also pain and suffering is invariably present, as in the case of survival for hours or days. In cases of instantaneous death as well as cases where the deceased was unconscious between the time of accident and the time of his death, some notional amount is payable under the head pain and suffering. A slightly higher amount can be awarded under this head, if the death is not instantaneous. Therefore, a conventional amount in the range of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.15,000/- could be awarded under the head pain and suffering in such cases. In the instant case, the deceased succumbed to injuries on the date of accident itself. In such circumstances, Rs.10,000/awarded by the Tribunal under the head pain and suffering represents just and reasonable compensation, which requires no enhancement in this appeal.”_ Accordingly, the Award of an amount of Rs.25,000/- by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering cannot, in the facts and circumstances of the case, be termed as unsustainable and the same is retained. 16. In the light of the discussion as above, the appeal is disposed of, modifying the compensation granted under the relevant heads of the Award as mentioned below:  Notional monthly income of the deceased is reduced from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.12,000/-. M.A.C.A.No.1056/2018 21 - Compensation for love and affection is deleted and compensation for loss of consortium (for the three legal heirs) is fixed at Rs.1,20,000/- (40,000 x 3 = 1,20,000). - Compensation for funeral expenses is reduced to Rs.15,000/-. - Compensation for loss of dependency is re-fixed at Rs.15,60,000/-. ## **Conclusion:** 17. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of the pleadings, materials on record and the settled law as per the precedents cited above, I conclude that compensation granted under the Award is to be modified and re-calculated as per the table below: |Sl.<br>No.|Head of Claim|Amount<br>awarded by the<br>Tribunal (Rs.)|Amount<br>modified and<br>recalculated by<br>this Court (Rs.)| |---|---|---|---| |1|Transport to hospital|1000|1000| |2|Damage to clothing & other<br>personal articles|1000|1000| |3|Funeral expenses|25000|15000| |4|Medical expenses|240000|240000| |5|Bystander's expenses|2400|2400| |6|Pain and sufferings|20000|20000| |7|Loss of consortium|25000|120000| |8|Loss of dependency|2028000|1560000| |9|Loss of love and affection|75000|---| |10|Loss of estate|15000|15000| |Total||25,32,400/-|19,74,400/-| M.A.C.A.No.1056/2018 22 18. The Award of the Tribunal is Rs.19,74,400/- under the respective heads as tabulated above. Amounts granted under other heads in the Award remain unaltered. Respondents in the M.A.C.A. will be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the amount re-fixed in this appeal. The appellant shall deposit before the Tribunal amounts payable as per the Award, less the amounts already deposited, if any, within a month from the date of this judgment. The Tribunal shall disburse the enhanced compensation with interest and cost to the respondents in accordance with law. M.A.C.A. stands disposed of as above. Sd/- **SYAM KUMAR.V.M. JUDGE** csl