1. This appeal has been filed by the claimants in OP(MV) No.321 of 2005 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, claiming enhancement of compensation. The first respondent herein was the third respondent before the tribunal and the additional second respondent herein was the additional fourth respondent before the tribunal.

2. The case of the claimants was that on 22.11.2004, while the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL–2/D 2963, a bus bearing Reg.No.KL-3/J 9723 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the motorcycle, whereby he sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The claimants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹17,00,000/-.

3. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the owner and driver of the offending vehicle respectively, remained ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. The additional fourth respondent is the mother of the deceased. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A10 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of ₹9,14,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the third respondent being the insurer; and in default of payment as above, penal interest @ 9% per annum was also awarded. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants have come up in appeal.

4. During the pendency of the appeal, the mother of the deceased, who was the additional fourth respondent before the tribunal, was impleaded as the additional second respondent herein.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants claims enhancement under the following heads:

                  6.1.    Notional income - The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased,        aged 29 years at the time of the accident, was serving as a Police Constable and was earning ₹8,169/- per month. However, the tribunal has notionally fixed the monthly income at only ₹4,000/- after deducting one-third towards personal expenses. I find no reason to reduce the income of the deceased, who lost his life in the accident. Hence, I am inclined to fix the income at ₹8,169/- as shown in Ext.A10 salary certificate.

                  6.2.    Loss of dependency - Since the monthly income of the deceased is refixed at ₹8,169/-, the compensation towards loss of dependency has to be recalculated. The deceased was a permanent employee aged 29 years at the time of the accident. Hence, following the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)], 50% future prospects can be added to the income now fixed. Thus, after adding 50% of the notional income towards future prospects, the amount would be arrived at ₹12,253.5/- (4084.5 + 8169), which is rounded off to ₹12,254/-. It is seen that the tribunal wrongly adopted the multiplier as “18” instead of “17”. Since the deceased was 29 years old at the time of the accident, I adopt “17” as the multiplier for assessing compensation towards loss of dependency. It is also seen that the tribunal deducted one-third of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased, instead of one- fourth. Since there are four dependents, i.e., the wife, two children and mother, the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses of the deceased is one-fourth and not one-third. Accordingly, applying the above standards and following the judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the appellants will be entitled to get a total compensation of ₹18,74,862/- (12254 x 12 x 17 x 3/4) towards loss of dependency. Since the tribunal has awarded an amount of ₹8,64,000/- towards loss of dependency, there will be an additional amount of ₹10,10,862/- under this head.

                  6.3.    Loss of consortium/loss of love & affection - The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the tribunal awarded only an amount of ₹10,000/- towards loss of consortium, whereas, since there are four legal heirs, they are entitled to get a compensation of ₹40,000/- each, totalling to ₹1,60,000/-. It is further submitted that as per the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), they are also entitled to get 10% enhancement in a span of three years from 2017. Accordingly, the appellants and the additional second respondent are awarded a compensation of ₹48,400/- each towards loss of consortium, totalling to ₹1,93,600/- (48400 x 4). Since the tribunal already awarded an amount of ₹10,000/- under this head, there will be an additional compensation of ₹1,83,600/- towards loss of consortium.

                  6.3.1.  The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer submits that the tribunal awarded ₹10,000/- towards loss of love and affection, which is impermissible and runs against the mandate in Pranay Sethi (supra). I find force in the submission of the learned Standing Counsel. Once compensation is awarded under the head of loss of consortium, no amount shall be awarded towards loss of love and affection as it amounts to duplication of compensation as held in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Somwati and others [2020 (5) KLT      OnLine1198   (SC). Therefore, the compensation of ₹10,000/- awarded by the tribunal towards loss of love and affection is deleted.

                  6.4.    Loss of estate & funeral expenses - The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the tribunal has not awarded compensation towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. It is further submitted that as per the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), the compensation under conventional heads ought to have been ₹15,000/- and further, 10% enhancement has to be given in a span of three years from 2017. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. Thus, following the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), I deem it appropriate to award a compensation of ₹18,150/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses.

7. Though the appellants claimed enhancement of compensation under other heads as well, on a perusal of the records available and the impugned award, I am not inclined to interfere with the same since it appears to be just and reasonable.

8. Since the appeal is of the year 2015, I fix interest on the enhanced compensation @ 7% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization.

9. On a perusal of the impugned award, it is seen that the tribunal awarded penal interest at the rate of 9%, which is not legally sustainable in view of the judgment of the apex court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Keshav Bahadur [2004 (2) SCC 370]. Therefore, the direction of the tribunal awarding penal interest @ 9% per annum is hereby set aside.

10. Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is modified as follows:

                  

                  Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the appellants and the additional 2nd respondent are awarded an additional compensation of ₹12,20,762/- (Rupees twelve lakhs twenty thousand seven hundred and sixty two only) over and above the compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs. The respondent insurer shall deposit the said amount together with interest and costs within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The direction of the tribunal awarding penal interest @ 9% per annum is hereby set aside. The appellants and the additional 2nd respondent shall furnish copies of the PAN Card, AADHAAR Card and bank details before the respondent insurer within a period of one month so as to enable the insurance company to make the deposit as ordered above. In case of failure to furnish details as above, it shall be open for the insurance company to deposit the said amount before the tribunal. Upon such deposit being made, the entire amount shall be disbursed to the appellants and the additional second respondent at the earliest in accordance with law. However, it is made clear that the enhanced compensation will not carry interest for a period of 2030 days in filing the appeal, i.e., during the period from 26.07.2009 to 18.03.2015. As regards the enhanced compensation, the appellants and the additional second respondent shall be entitled to the compensation, on equal proportion.