Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. vs Sh. Kalyan Singh & Ors.

Virender Singh, Judge

The above titled appeals are being decided by a common judgment, as the appellantShriram General Insurance Company Ltd., has filed these appeals, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’), against the awards, dated 30.06.2017, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims TribunalII, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), in MAC Petition No. 149N/2 of 2013/12, titled as ‘Kalyan Singh & Ors. Versus Mohd. Saleem & Ors.’, as well as, MAC Petition No. 150N/2 of 2013/12, titled as ‘Rehano Devi & Ors. Versus Mohd. Saleem & Ors.’, arising out of the accident, involving truck No. HP17A8427, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’), which has occurred on 27.04.2012 near Dhab Pipli, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the accident in question’).

By way of the above awards, the learned Tribunal has allowed the above titled claim petitions, by awarding a sum of Rs. 10,97,000/ along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition, till the final realization of the amount, by fastening the ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the Insurance Company, in MAC Petition No. 149N/2 of 2013/12, titled as ‘Kalyan Singh & Ors. Versus Mohd. Saleem & Ors.’ and while allowing the MAC Petition No. 150 N/2 of 2013/12, titled as ‘Rehano Devi & Ors. Versus Mohd. Saleem & Ors.’, has awarded a sum of Rs. 19,71,000/ along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition, till the final realization of the amount, by fastening the ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the Insurance Company.

For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present lis, are, hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, as were, referred to, by the learned Tribunal.

Necessary facts, for the just adjudication of the above titled appeals, are being borrowed from FAO (MVA) No. 439 of 2017, titled as “Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Kalyan Singh & Ors.”, which has been filed by the Insurance Company, against the award dated 30.06.2017, passed in MAC Petition No. 149N/2 of 2013/12, by treating the said case as the lead case.

The above titled claim petition has been filed by the petitioners, under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, seeking compensation, on account of death of Sh. Kapil, son of petitioners No. 1 & 2 and brother of petitioners No. 3 to 5, aged about 19 years, at the time of his death, in the accident in question. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No. 1, being driven by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3.

When put to notice, the claim petition has been contested by the respondents.

Thus, the respondents have prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition.

From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal on 11.04.2013:

Thereafter, the parties to the lis were directed to adduce evidence.

After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the learned Tribunal has allowed the petitions, as referred to above, by fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation, as referred above.

Feeling aggrieved from the said award, the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle has preferred the appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act, challenging the award mainly on the ground, that the learned Tribunal has wrongly decided issue No. 3 against the Insurance Company, as it is the case of the petitioners that Kapil was traveling in the offending vehicle, whereas RW3 (owner) has categorically stated that neither Kapil was employed as labourer, nor he was his employee.

Similarly, according to the Insurance Company, the learned Tribunal has not considered the evidence of investigating officer, when he appeared in the witness box as RW5, who has stated that in the offending vehicle, 9 to 10 persons were traveling.

Heavily relying upon the document Ext. RW3/C, Registration Certificate of the offending vehicle, the prayer to exonerate the Insurance Company has been made on the ground that the vehicle in question is a goods vehicle and meant to carry goods and not the passenger, but, as per the FIR, deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle. In this regard, the appellant has relied upon the document Ext. PW1/D.

The award has also been assailed on the ground that the sine qua non for seeking the amount of compensation, i.e. rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2, has not been proved in this case, as, according to the settled principle of law, FIR is not a substantial piece of evidence and is not per se admissible in evidence.

In addition to this, the quantum of compensation has also been assailed by pleading that the same is on the higher side, as learned Tribunal has wrongly taken the income of deceased as Rs. 6,000/ per month, that too, without any document. In this regard, the appellant has sought the deduction of the amount on the ground that at the relevant time, the minimum wages in the State of Himachal Pradesh were Rs. 2,400/ per month qua the unskilled worker.

The addition of 50%, which has been given by the learned Tribunal, has also been assailed, on the ground that, as per the settled proposition of law 50% addition has wrongly been given. Wrong multiplier is stated to have been applied and rate of interest has also been challenged.

On the basis of grounds of appeal, Sh. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, has prayed that the appeals may kindly be allowed by exonerating the Insurance Company from indemnifying the owner, along with interest, as it has been proved that respondent No. 1 permitted to ply the offending vehicle in violation of the fundamental breach of the insurance policy.

Per contra, Mr. Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 7/claimants has supported the award passed by the learned Tribunal and prayed that the amount of compensation may kindly be enhanced in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Pranay Sethi & Others, (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680, so that the same could fall within the definition of ‘just compensation’.

Similarly, Mr. Sarthak Mehta, Advocate, appearing for owner and driver, has supported the awards and prayed that the learned Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence by fastening the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the Insurance Company and the said award, according to the learned counsel appearing for the owner and driver, does not require any interference, by this Court.

In order to decide the above appeals, it would be just and appropriate for this Court to discuss the evidence, so adduced by the parties to the lis, before the learned Tribunal.

After framing of the issues, petitioner No. 1 Kalyan Singh, filed his duly sworn affidavit, in his examinationinchief, as Ext. PW1/A, which is based upon the averments, as made in the claim petition. In addition to this, he has produced the death certificate of Kapil Ext. PW1/B, copy of parivar register Ext. PW1/C, copy of jamabandi Ext. PW1/D, copy of FIR Ext. PW1/E and copy of postmortem report Ext. PW1/F.

In the crossexamination, PW1 has stated that the accident in question had not taken place in his presence, as such, he has shown his ignorance about the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. He has denied the suggestion that Kapil was not working as labourer with respondent No. 1.

In the crossexamination by learned counsel for the Insurance Company, he has admitted that deceased was unmarried. He has admitted that on 27^th/28^th April, Bishu fair was at Sataun. This person received the information regarding the accident on the next day. He has denied that in the said accident, 10 to 12 persons suffered injuries. He has denied that the deceased, along with his companion, had taken lift in the offending vehicle.

The petitioners have examined one Tapender Singh as PW2, who has filed his affidavit Ext. PW2/A, in which, he has stated that on 27.04.2012, he had gone to visit fair at Sataun and after visiting the fair, he was on his way to his village on foot. Kapil was working as labourer in the offending vehicle, which was driven by respondent No. 2. When, the offending vehicle, reached near village Dhab Pipli, then, the driver could not control the offending vehicle. Consequently, the same fell down into the gorge, due to which, Kapil and Gulab Singh sustained injuries. Lastly, he has stated that the accident in question had taken place due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.

In the crossexamination by learned counsel for the Insurance Company, he has categorically deposed that at the time of accident, only two persons were there in the offending vehicle. The accident in question had taken place about 100 meters away from this person. This person has not reported the matter to the police, however, within 1520 minutes, number of persons gathered there.

To rebut this evidence, the respondents examined RW1 Ms. Vandana, Clerk RTO Office Nahan, who has proved the route permit Ext. RW1/A and Ext. RW1/B.

RW2 R.S. Bedi, proved the screen report of the offending vehicle Ext. RW2/A. The fitness certificate was valid up to 22.08.2014.

RW3 Mohd. Saleem, who is the owner of the vehicle, appeared in the witness box and deposed that he is owner of the offending vehicle. The insurance was valid w.e.f. 16.03.2012 to 15.03.2013. He deposed that respondent No. 2 was employed as driver and he proved his driving license as Ext. RW3/B, registration certificate of the offending vehicle Ext. RW3/C, route permit Ext. RW1/A. According to him, neither Kapil nor Gulab Singh were working as labourer with him and according to him at the time of accident, they were pedestrian, on the road and due to the failure of the braking system, the passersby were being caught in the offending vehicle. He has admitted that in the accident, Gulab Singh and Kapil sustained fatal injuries, but, denied that Kapil was working as labourer over the offending vehicle.

In the crossexamination by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, he has stated that at the time of accident, except the driver, no other person was there in the offending vehicle. Death of two persons in the accident has also been admitted. According to him, Bishu fair was on the day of accident.

RW4 Sadhu Ram, who is the driver of the offending vehicle, also deposed on the similar lines, by stating that the accident in question had taken place due to the failure of the braking system. He deposed that he was the only person, who was in the offending vehicle, and Kapil and Gulab Singh were not in the offending vehicle. He proved his license Ext. RW3/B. The FIR qua the accident in question was registered against this witness.

RW5 SI Kanwar Singh, has investigated the case FIR No. 148/2012 and as per his investigation, it was found that in the offending vehicle, there were 9 to 10 persons traveling. They were returning back after visiting the Bishu fair. He has proved the MLCs of injured as Ext. RW5/A to Ext. RW5/I. In the accident Gulab Singh, Kapil and Gorakh Bahadur had sustained the fatal injuries. The persons, who died in the accident were also traveling in the offending vehicle. Tapender Singh was never associated in the investigation, nor cited as prosecution witness. This witness has not witnessed the accident in question. He has feigned his ignorance that the persons, who sustained injuries/died, were pedestrian. He further deposed that he has no personal knowledge about the case in question. He has admitted that in the mechanical report, the cause of accident is failure of the braking system.

So far as the documentary evidence is concerned, Ext. PW1/B is the death certificate of Kapil, Ext. PW1/C is copy of parivar register, Ext. PW1/D is copy of jamabandi, Ext. PW1/E is copy of FIR and Ext. PW1/F is the copy of postmortem report. Whereas, Ext. RW1/A is the Goods/ Contract Carriage Permit, Ext. RW1/B is the extract of register, Ext. RW2/A is screen report of the offending vehicle, Ext. RW3/A is the copy of insurance policy, Ext. RW3/B is the copy of driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle, Ext. RW3/C is the copy of RC. Ext. RX is the copy of chargesheet, Ext. R2 is certificatecum policy schedule, Ext. PW5/A to Ext. PW5/I are the copies of MLCs.

This is the entire evidence.

In this case, the learned Tribunal has fastened the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the Insurance Company, being insurer of the offending vehicle. These findings have been assailed by the Insurance Company, by way of present appeal.

The learned Tribunal while deciding issue No. 3, in the present case, held that the deceased persons, along with some other persons, were walking on the road, when, the rolling truck crushed them under the same. These findings have been assailed by the Insurance Company, by highlighting the fact that the petitioners, in the present case, have taken the plea that deceased Kapil was working as labourer with the offending vehicle, in the claim petition. The Insurance Company has taken the plea that Kapil was not working as labourer with the offending vehicle and according to the owner, Kapil was walking on the road and suddenly due to the failure of the braking system of the offending vehicle, they came in contact with the offending vehicle and sustained multiple injuries.

The Insurance Company had taken a different stand, as according to the petitioners their son was traveling in the offending vehicle as a labourer, whereas, according to the Insurance Company, the deceased was traveling as a gratuitous passenger. Owner and driver have discarded the said version by pleading that Kapil was not employed as labourer. As such, as per the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, only one conclusion can be drawn that Kapil was gratuitous passenger. All these facts, have been pleaded to demonstrate that Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation, as there is fundamental breach of insurance policy, by carrying the deceased persons, in the offending vehicle, as gratuitous passengers.

Admittedly, the petitioners have pleaded that Kapil was employed as labourer by respondent No. 1, in the offending vehicle. Similar stand has been taken by them, in para 23 of the claim petition. Out of the petitioners, petitioner No. 1 Kalyan Singh, appeared as PW1 and filed his affidavit as Ext. PW1/A, in which, he reiterated the fact that his son was traveling in the offending vehicle, as labourer on 27.04.2012 and the offending vehicle was driven by Sadhu Ramrespondent No. 2, in a rash and negligent manner and the vehicle went off the road. Consequently, his son Kapil and Gulab Singh sustained injuries and died on the spot. But whatsoever he has deposed is not liable to be taken into consideration, as he has admitted in the cross examination by learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2, that the accident in question had not taken place in his presence.

Similarly, in the crossexamination by learned counsel for respondent No. 3, he has also admitted that at the time of accident, he was not at the spot and their village is about 8 to 10 km away from Sataun. This witness has received the information regarding the accident on the next day. Meaning thereby, the evidence of PW1 is not admissible in evidence, on account of the fact that the same does not fall within the definition of direct evidence, as per Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 {(Sec. 55 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA 2023)}, which is reproduced, as under:

When, PW1 has not seen the accident, then, whatsoever he has deposed about the manner, in which, the accident had taken place cannot be taken as gospel truth. Moreover, the proceedings under the M.V. Act, deciding the amount of compensation, cannot be equated with adversarial litigation and as such, strict rules of pleadings are not applicable.

PW1 has not disclosed the source of information, on the basis of which, he has deposed that his son was traveling in the offending vehicle, as labourer. As such, the assertion of PW1 qua the fact that Kapil was traveling in the offending vehicle, as labourer, cannot be accepted as gospel truth.

So far as the evidence of PW2 Tapender Singh is concerned, he is not a summoned witness and as per the deposition of PW2, he has appeared in the witness box at the instance of PW1. Moreover, whatsoever PW2 Tapender Singh, has deposed regarding the accident in question, the same is liable to be ignored, as he has deposed that he has seen the accident at a distance of about 100 meters. Merely, on account of allegedly witnessing the accident from a distance of about 100 meters, whatsoever, he has deposed, it cannot be accepted as gospel truth.

The copy of FIR is Ext. PW1/E, which has been lodged at the instance of one Sunil Kumar son Sh. Kalyan Singh. Although, PW2 has given the names of those persons, who were allegedly traveling in the offending vehicle, but, the person, who had lodged the FIR, has neither been examined by the petitioners, nor by the respondents. As such, the contents of the FIR do not require much reliance to draw an inference that Kapil was traveling in the offending vehicle, as a labourer. The statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C., is not recorded on oath.

Admittedly, the petitioner was not the eye witness. PW2 has seen the alleged accident from about 100 meters, as such, no reliance can be placed upon his testimony. Moreover, the author of the FIR has not been examined. In such situation, only one person is left, whose evidence can be taken into consideration to ascertain the fact, whether the deceased Kapil was traveling in the vehicle as labourer, or he has sustained injuries, while walking on the road, when he came in contact with the offending vehicle, along with Gulab Singh, is driver of the offending vehicle (respondent No. 2). Respondents No. 1 and 2, have taken the specific plea, in their reply, that at the time of accident Kapil and Gulab Singh, were on foot and were walking and due to the failure of the braking system in the offending vehicle, they came in contact with offending vehicle and sustained fatal injuries. It seems that the Insurance Company has taken the plea with regard to traveling of Kapil and Gulab Singh in the offending vehicle as gratuitous/ unauthorized passengers, on the basis of the stand, as taken by the petitioners in the claim petition.

Admittedly, the accident in question has not been witnessed by the person, who has signed the reply on behalf of respondent No. 3. As such, the said stand can be said to be based upon the averments as made in the claim petition, which, admittedly has not been made by a person, who has witnessed the accident in question. In such situation, the statement of RW4 Sadhu Ram, who admittedly was driving the offending vehicle, can be said to be most important piece of evidence, to determine the manner, in which, the accident in question had taken place. This witness has categorically stated that at the time of accident, he was all alone in the vehicle, and due to the failure of the braking system, Kapil and Gulab Singh, came in contact, as they were walking on the road. In the crossexamination by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this witness has denied the suggestion that Kapil was traveling in the vehicle as labourer. Even, in the crossexamination by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, he has denied that at the time of accident, above persons were traveling in the offending vehicle. When the person, who was in the exclusive control of the offending vehicle, has denied each and every suggestion, which was put to him by the petitioners, as well as, the Insurance Company, then, his version qua the accident is liable to be taken into consideration to conclude the manner, in which, the accident in question had taken place.

At the cost of repetition, stand as taken by the petitioners qua the fact that deceased Kapil was traveling in the vehicle as labourer and sustained fatal injuries, is not liable to be taken into consideration, as admittedly, none of the petitioners had witnessed the accident in question.

So far as the evidence of RW5, is concerned, admittedly, he has not seen the accident in question, as such, his statement cannot be taken as gospel truth. The best evidence, which the Insurance Company can adduce to prove its stand qua the fact that the persons, who had died or sustained injuries were traveling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passengers, is the injured persons, whose MLCs have been produced by RW5 as Ext. RW5/A to Ext. RW5/I. As none of the injured has been examined by the Insurance Company, in this case, as such, the Insurance Company has miserably failed to prove the fact that the deceased persons were traveling in the offending vehicle, what to talk about their status as labourers or gratuitous passengers.

Consequently, the contention of Insurance Company to prove the fundamental breach of insurance policy is not liable to be taken into consideration and the same is rejected, accordingly.

The award has also been assailed on the ground that sine qua non for seeking the amount of compensation, under Section 166 of M.V. Act, i.e. rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, has not been proved by the petitioners is concerned, the factum of accident has not been denied by respondents No. 1 and 2. They have taken the plea that due to the sudden failure of the braking system, the driver could not control the offending vehicle and the same rolled down into the gorge, causing the injuries to the persons, who were on the road, including deceased persons.

As stated above, the only person, who was present at the time of accident, is driver of the offending vehicle. Once, the Insurance Company itself has produced the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., arising out of the accident in question, then, the Insurance Company is estopped from taking the defence that accident in question had not taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. In the report, under Section 173 Cr.P.C., Ext. RX, allegations of rash and negligent driving against the driver of the offending vehicle have specifically been mentioned. The submission of chargesheet against respondent No. 2 is prima facie proof of rash and negligent driving against respondent No. 2.

In view of the discussion made above, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the learned Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability to pay the amount of compensation on the Insurance Company. The said findings do not require any interference.

The Insurance Company has also assailed the awards, on the ground of quantum of compensation. As such, both the cases are now taken separately in order to ascertain as to whether the amount of compensation, which has been awarded to the petitioners, falls within the definition of ‘just compensation’.

It is no longer res integra that the Court/Tribunal, while deciding the claim petitions, should make an endeavor that the amount of compensation, to be awarded, falls within the definition of ‘just compensation’.

The provisions of M.V. Act are beneficial piece of Legislation and the proceedings under the M.V. Act for deciding the claim petition are summary in nature, where the liability of the tortfeasor is to be fixed on the preponderance of probabilities.

In order to ascertain the fact whether the ‘just compensation’ has been awarded or not, firstly FAO (MVA) No. 439 of 2017, is being taken up for adjudicating the said issue.

The learned Tribunal, in the present case, has taken the income of deceased Kapil, during his life time as Rs. 6,000/ per month. The accident in question had taken place in the year 2012 and to the considered opinion of this Court, the said findings do not require any interference, by this Court. However, the learned Tribunal has wrongly given 50% increase in the earnings of Kapil, on account of his future prospects, had he not been expired due to the fatal injuries sustained in the accident in question.

In view of the the decision in “National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Pranay Sethi & Others, (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680”, 40% amount is liable to be added, on account of future prospects. Relevant paragraphs 59 to 59.8 are reproduced, as under:

Thus, 40% amount is liable to be added, on account of future prospects, as deceased Kapil was working in unorganized sector and his age has been proved as 19 years. Thus, his contribution towards his family comes to Rs. 6000 + 40% (2400) = Rs. 8400/ per month.

Admittedly, he was bachelor, as such 50% amount, from his income, is liable to be deducted, on account of his personal expenses, had he been alive. Thus, deducting 50% out of the income of the deceased, on account of his personal expenses, his contribution towards his family, thus, comes to Rs. 8400/ Rs. 4200/ = Rs. 4200/ per month.

The learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of ‘18’, which is appropriate multiplier to be applied in the present case, in view of the law laid down in “Sarla Verma Vs Delhi Transport Corportation, 2009 (6) SCC 121”. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4200/ x 12 x 18 = Rs. 9,07,200/.

The learned Tribunal has fallen into error by granting a sum of Rs. 25,000/ under funeral expenses, Rs. 50,000/ each to petitioners No. 1 and 2, on account of loss of love and affection. The said findings are not sustainable in the eyes of law, in view of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra).

Under the conventional heads, as per the dictate of Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), the petitioners are also held entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,000/; Rs. 15,000/; and Rs. 40,000/ respectively, under the heads: ‘loss of estate’, ‘funeral expenses’, and ‘loss of consortium’.

In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Magma General Insurance Company Limited versus Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others, reported in (2018) 18 Supreme Court Cases 130, all the petitioners are held entitled to compensation under the head ‘loss of consortium’. The relevant paras 21 to 24 of the judgment, are reproduced, as under:

Thus, the entitlement of the petitioners, is adjudicated, as under:

The entitlement of the petitioners with a view to grant just compensation, thus, comes to Rs. 11,37,200/.

The learned Tribunal has awarded the rate of interest to the petitioners at the rate of 7.5% per annum, which has rightly been awarded by the learned Tribunal.

The amount of compensation is apportioned, as under:

Petitioner No. 1 : 30%;

Petitioner No. 2 : 40%; and

Petitioners No. 3 to 5 : Remaining 10% each.

Viewed thus, the amount of compensation is liable to be enhanced. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed and the amount of compensation in FAO No. 439 of 2017, is enhanced from Rs. 10,97,000/ to Rs. 11,37,200/, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The ultimate liablity to pay the amount of compensation is on the Insurance Company, being insurer of the offending vehicle.

The learned Tribunal has taken the monthly earnings of deceased Gulab Singh, as Rs. 6000/ per month, which does not require any interference. However, the learned Tribunal has fallen into error by giving the addition of 50%, on account of future prospects of Gulab Singh, had he been alive. In view of Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), the same is required to be made at the rate of 40%. Thus, his income comes to Rs. 6000/ + 40% (Rs. 2400/) = Rs. 8400/.

Keeping in view the number of claimants, the learned Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/5th amount, on account of personal expenses of Gulab Singh, had he been alive. Thus, his contribution comes to Rs. 8400/ minus 1/5th (Rs. 1680/) = Rs. 6,720/ per month.

The age of deceased Gulab Singh was 38 years, at the time of accident. The learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of ‘15’, which is appropriate multiplier to be applied in the present case, in view of the law laid down in Sarla Verma case (supra). Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 6,720/ x 12 x 15 = Rs. 12,09,600/.

The learned Tribunal has fallen into error by granting a sum of Rs. 25,000/ under funeral expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/ each to all the children, on account of loss of love and affection. Apart from it, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,00,000/ as consortium to petitioner No. 1 and Rs. 50,000/ to petitioner No. 7, on account of loss of love and affection. The said findings are not sustainable in the eyes of law, in view of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra).

Under the conventional heads, as per the dictate of Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), the petitioners are also held entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,000/; Rs. 15,000/; and Rs. 40,000/ respectively, under the heads: ‘loss of estate’, ‘funeral expenses’, and ‘loss of consortium’.

In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram’s case (supra), all the petitioners are held entitled to compensation under the head ‘loss of consortium’.

Thus, the entitlement of the petitioners, is adjudicated, as under:

The entitlement of the petitioners with a view to grant just compensation, thus, comes to Rs. 15,19,600/.

The learned Tribunal has awarded the rate of interest to the petitioners at the rate of 7.5% per annum, which has rightly been awarded by the learned Tribunal.

The amount of compensation is apportioned, as under:

Petitioner No. 1 : 40%;

Petitioner No. 2 to 7 : Remaining 10% each.

Viewed thus, the amount of compensation is liable to be reduced. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed and the amount of compensation in FAO No. 422 of 2017, is reduced from Rs. 19,71,000/ to Rs. 15,19,600/, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The ultimate liablity to pay the amount of compensation is on the Insurance Company, being insurer of the offending vehicle.

Parties are left to bear their own costs.

Memo of costs be prepared accordingly.

Record be sent back.

Copy of the judgment, be placed on record, in the connected appeal.