Page No.# 1/24 GAHC030004212025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : MACApp./12/2025 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Aizawl Through The Branch Manager, Aizawl Branch, R/o Chanmari, Aizawl, Mizoram VERSUS Sh Roliana and Anr. S/o H.Remruatpuia, R/o Venghlun, Thenzawl, Serchhip District, Mizoram 2:Sh Laltanpui Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Lalfakawma Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, Sr.Adv. for R 1 Linked Case : COB(FA)/2/2025 M/S New India Assurance Co. Through the Branch Manager Aizawl Branch R/o Chanmari Aizawl Mizoram VERSUS Sh Roliana and Anr. S/o H.Remruatpuia R/o Venghlun Thenzawl Serchhip District Mizoram Page No.# 2/24 2:Sh Laltanpuia R/o Kanan Veng Thenzawl Serchhip District Mizoram B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN For the Appellant : Mr. Lalfakawma For the Respondent(s) : Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ruth Lalruatfeli. Date on which judgment is reserved : 18.06.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 25.06.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the : N/A operative part of the judgment ? Whether the full judgment has been : Yes pronounced? J UDGMENT & O RDER (CAV) Heard Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. Ruth Lalruatfeli, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This appeal, under Section 173 of the MV Act, is directed against the Judgment & Award, dated 27.09.2024, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Aizawl in MACT Case No. 38/2020. It is to be Page No.# 3/24 noted here that vide the impugned Judgment & Award dated 27.09.2024, the learned Tribunal has directed the appellant herein, i.e., the New India Assurance Company Limited, to pay a sum of Rs. 44,88,360/- being the compensation to the claimant/respondent Nos. 1 & 2, with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition i.e., 11.12.2020. 3. The background facts leading to the filing of the present appeal is briefly stated as under:- “On 04.02.2020, one Taxi (Maruti 800) bearing registration No. MZ-06- 3045 driven by one Zonunmawia of Model Veng, Thenzawl, was proceeding from Khuavangkawn towards Venghlun Junction on World Bank Road, Aizawl to Lunglei, and it had dashed one person namely, H. Remruatpuia (20 years) of Thenzawl at the junction point, at Venghlun while the taxi was turning towards the adjoining road. As a result, H. Remruatpuia, S/o Roliana Hnamte of Venghlun, Thenzawl sustained grievous injuries on his person and he was taken to the Medical Officer, C.H.C Thenzawl for medical examination. Thereafter, he was referred to the Civil Hospital, Aizawl and later on, on 05.02.2020, at about 06:30 am, he succumbed to the injuries at Civil Hospital, Aizawl. The said taxi driver was carefully examined and subjected to blow breath analyzer and calculated 0.0 mm/100 ml. The offending vehicle was insured with the O.P. No. 2, New India Assurance Company Limited (the appellant herein) under Policy No. 53060430090200106202 and it was valid from 27.08.2019 to 26.08.2020. Thereafter, the respondent Page No.# 4/24 herein, as claimant, had filed one claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act against the owner and the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle.” 4. On receipt of notice, the appellant herein, as O.P. No. 2, entered appearance and contested the claim petition by filing written statement. Amongst others, the appellant herein had taken the ground that the claim petition is not maintainable and there is no cause of action and the claim is bad for non-joinder/misjoinder of the necessary parties and the claimants have no locus standi to institute the claim petition and it is also bad for suppression of facts and non-disclosure of truth and on such count, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed. 4.1. It has also taken a stand that on 04.02.2020, the vehicle bearing registration No. MZ-06-3045, had dashed one person namely, H. Remruatpuia who was proceeding from Khuavangkawn towards Venghlun Junction on World Bank Road, Aizawl to Lunglei, at the junction point, at Venghlun, and as a result of which, he succumbed to the injuries on 05.02.2020 and that, the claim petition is filed under Section 166 of the MV Act and as such, the claimant has to establish the driving of the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and that, the Aadhaar card or Voter ID of the claimant, Death Certificate, Insurance Policy, along with the Income Certificate are not enclosed along with the claim Page No.# 5/24 petition and as such, there is doubt regarding the legality and validity of the mandatory documents and that, the Insurance Policy of the accident vehicle was issued for a private vehicle. However, the same was used for commercial purpose and on such count also, the claim petition is not maintainable and that, the driver of the vehicle possessed Driving License No. MZ-0120160077305 and the driver was authorized to drive Light Motor Vehicle-Non-Transport (LMV-NT) only. But, the accident vehicle, which the said driver had driven, was a commercial vehicle (Taxi) and since the driver was not authorized to drive the transport vehicle, the present claim petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. Upon the aforesaid pleadings, the learned Tribunal has framed the following issues:- (1) Whether the present claim petition is maintainable in its present form and style? (2) Whether there was fault on the part of the driver or owner of the accident vehicle? (3) Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation? If so, who is liable to pay and to what extent? 5. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal, taking the evidence of both the parties and also considering the documents exhibited by the concerned parties and also Page No.# 6/24 hearing arguments of learned counsel for both the parties, had passed the impugned judgment and order directing the appellant herein to pay the said amount of compensation with interest at @ Rs. 7% per annum. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant herein, has preferred the present appeal, mainly on the following grounds:- (1) That, perusal of the Insurance Policy issued to the respondent No. 2 bearing registration No. 53060431190200006202, covering the accident vehicle taxi, bearing registration No. MZ-06-3045, having a period of coverage from 27.08.2019 to 26.08.2020, would reveal that the same had been issued for a private vehicle car, whereas the said taxi was a commercial vehicle used for commercial purpose. As such, the learned Tribunal could not have directed the appellant to pay the awarded amount of Rs. 44,55,360/- as the Insurance Policy issued in favour of the respondent No. 2, limit the use of the vehicle for non-commercial purpose and this has been clearly reflected in the Insurance Policy (ext. C-13) under the head "Limitations as to Use" wherein, it is stated that “The policy covers use for any purpose other than: (a) Hire or reward, (b) Organized racing, or (c) Speed testing and that, Smt. Ngurthanzami, who had adduced evidence on behalf of the appellant before the learned Member, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, had stated that para Nos. 2 & 3 of her cross-examination, that the Insurance Policy of the accident vehicle was insured for private vehicle and not for commercial passenger carrying vehicle and the said Page No.# 7/24 witness had also deposed in her cross-examination, at para No. 3, that as per the Insurance portal of the appellant/Insurance Company, the Insurance Policy of the accident vehicle was for private car and not for commercial vehicle. (2) That, perusal of the driving license of Sh. P.C. Zonunmawia, who was the driver of the accident vehicle (taxi), B/R No. MZ-06-3046, would reveal that the holder of the said driving license bearing DL No. MZ-0120160077305 (Ext. C-15) was authorized to drive only “LMV-NT”, whereas, the holder of the said driving license was driving a commercial vehicle, which was involved in the accident on 04.02.2020, which he otherwise as not authorized to drive. And as such there is violation of policy condition by the insured for which the appellant could not have been directed to pay the compensation. 7. It is to be noted here that the claimant also, being aggrieved with the impugned judgment and award, has filed one Cross-Objection, being COB (FA) No. 2 of 2025, for enhancement of the award on the following grounds:- (i) The learned Tribunal, Aizawl was wrong in passing the impugned Judgment and Award, dated 27-09-2024, without perusing the materials available on records and that too without understanding the legislative intention of the relevant Act. (ii) The learned Tribunal had erred in law and facts in passing the said impugned Judgment and Award, dated 27-09-2024, without application of judicial mind. It is stated that the Motor Page No.# 8/24 Vehicle Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation and strict compliance with the civil or criminal procedure code is not essentially required for adjudication of the matter. And that the learned Tribunal, Aizawl has applied 17 as the multiplier, for calculation of the compensation. But, as per Certificate of Baptism (Ext C-3) the deceased Remruatpuia was born on 08-09-2000, vide Regn.No.BCM/B/56 dated 21-12-2014 indicating that he was 20 years old at the time of accident and there was no objection from any corner, and that being so, the applicable multiplier should have been 18, instead of 17. iii) The learned Tribunal had erred in not awarding any amounts towards loss of consortium to parents, i.e. mother and father. And in view of decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance -v- Nanu Ram reported in 2018 (4) TAC 345 (SC), para 8.7, the parents of the deceased are entitled to receive filial compensation. Further, the Supreme Court in the case of Sandhya Rani Debbarma & Ors -v- National Insurance Co Ltd reported in 2016 (4) TAC 165 (SC) at para 13 to 16, has held that loss of love and affection to aged parents is Rs 1,00,000/- while Rs 1,00,000/- is paid for loss of estate. (iv) The Supreme Court has held that it would be appropriate to restrict the deduction for personal expenses to one-third of the monthly income in the following cases : -Fakeerappa & Another -vs- Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory & Ors reported in 2004 (2) TAC 8 (SC); Kanhsingh & Anr -vs- Tukram & Page No.# 9/24 Ors reported in 2015 (11) SCC 343 para 6 to 9 and Magma General Insurance Co Ltd -vs- Nanu Ram reported in 2018 (4) TAC 345 (SC) para 6 to 11. As such, the impugned judgment and award warrants modification. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant: 8. Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the appellant firstly submits that the Insurance Policy was issued in respect of a private vehicle and only third party premium was paid. However, the vehicle was used for commercial purpose and on such count, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle, as the policy condition was violated. 8.1. Secondly, he submits that the driver of the vehicle possessed the license for driving Light Motor Vehicle only. It was not issued for driving the transport vehicle, but the driver had driven the transport vehicle without being authorised and as such, the policy condition was violated and on such count, the appellant is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. Under the given facts and circumstances, he has contended to allow this appeal and to set aside the impugned Judgment & Award. Submission of learned counsel for the respondent:- 9. Per contra, Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, Page No.# 10/24 submits that the appellant insured the vehicle knowing it fully well that the same was being used as a transport vehicle and such a plea is apparent from the cross-examination of the witness of the appellant, (D.W.1) before the learned Tribunal. He also submits that though the driver was authorized to drive Light Motor Vehicle, yet he is also entitled to drive the transport vehicle, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rambha Devi & Others, reported in (2025) 3 SCC 95. 9.1. Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent also submits that the respondents in the appeal, have filed cross-objection basically on two grounds. Firstly, he pointed out that the age of the deceased was determined as 20 years and in that view of the matter, the Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier 18, while assessing the loss of dependency. But, the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier 17, and on such count, the compensation amount has to be modified by applying the multiplier 18. Secondly, he pointed out that while awarding the compensation, the learned Tribunal did not award any sum under the head of ‘Consortium’ and it is well settled that the claimant, being the father of the deceased is entitled to parental consortium and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Page No.# 11/24 Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the claimant is entitled to parental consortium @ Rs. 40,000/- and under such circumstances, he has contented to allow the cross objection. 10. In reply to the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the cross objector and the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in the appeal, Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the appellant and respondent in Cross-Objection submits that the age of the deceased has not been proved and though one Baptisma Certificate was exhibited to show the date of birth of the deceased, the said Certificate is not admissible and as such, the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier while assessing the compensation and therefore, Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the respondent in cross-objection has contented to dismiss the same. Issues, to be addressed by this court:- 11. In view of the rival submissions, so advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties and also in view of the contentions made in the Memo of Appeal and in the Cross Objection, the issued, to be addressed by this court is formulated as under:- (i) Whether the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal suffers from perversity for non-consideration of the factum of violation of policy conditions by the insured:- (a) for using the private (non-transport) vehicle as transport Page No.# 12/24 vehicle? (b) for allowing a driver holding an LMV license to drive a transport vehicle? (ii) Whether the learned Tribunal had incorrectly applied the multiplier in assessing the quantum of compensation while there are materials on record to establish that at the time of accident the age of the deceased was 20 years ? (iii) Whether the learned Tribunal had committed illegality in denying filial consortium to the parent of the deceased, while the legal position in awarding filial consortium is well settled in the case of Pranoy Shethi(supra) ? Consideration and analysis:- 12. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the Memo of Appeal, the grounds mentioned therein, and also the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal and further the record of the learned Tribunal. Issue No.(I):- (a) 13. To address this issue, this Court has carefully gone though impugned Judgment and Award, and it appears that the learned Tribunal has dealt with this issue in paragraph No. 16 of the impugned Judgment and Award, as Page No.# 13/24 under:- “16. The last issue is whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation, if so, who is liable to pay and to what extend? From the evidences and materials on record, it is an accepted fact that the deceased died due to vehicular accident and that the claimant who is the father of the deceased is entitled to compensation. From the evidences materials on records, it is clearly seen that 'The Vehicle' (Martuti-800) B/R No.MZ-06/3045 was validly insured with the O.P. No. 2 New India Assu. Co. Ltd. under policy No. 53060430090200106202 having its validity from 27/08/2019 to 26/08/2020 thereby covering the date of the accident i.e. 04.02.2020 and the said insurance policy was exhibited. As regards to the insurance policy even though the Opposite party has claimed that the vehicle was insured as a Private vehicle and not a commercial vehicle it is evident from the cross examination of their witness Smt. Ngurthanzami who is Senior Assistant at the New India Assurance Co.Ltd. and currently she is posted at Silchar claim hub office. That it is mandatory to produce the Registration certificate and other vehicular documents prior to issuing the Insurance Policy, it can clearly be seen from the documents exhibited that the registration Certificate, Special Plying permit, carriage Permit, Taxi renewal payment receipt clearly shows that the accident vehicle Page No.# 14/24 B/R No. Taxi (Martuti-800) B/R No.MZ-06/3045 was indeed a commercial vehicle and as such I am constrained to hold that the accident vehicle B/R No Taxi (Martuti-800) B/R No.MZ-06/3045 was validly insured with the O.P. No. 2. The driver of the offending vehicle held valid driving license and the driving license was exhibited and as all documents of the vehicle were valid at the time of the accident and all liability of payment of compensation shall be shifted to the O.P No. 2 New India Assu. Co. Ltd. and thus Issue No. 3 is decided in favour of the claimant.” 13.1. The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and for the cross- objector, referring to the cross-examination of the DW-1, submits that knowing it fully well that the vehicle was used as a transport vehicle, the appellant Insurance Company has issued the said policy and now the appellant cannot turn around and taken a plea that the policy was issued for private vehicle and not for transport vehicle (Taxi). 13.2. There appears to be substance in the submission of the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and the cross-objector. In view of the evidence of DW-1, the appellant herein cannot turn around and deny its liability. Indisputably, the appellant herein had issued the policy, Exhibit C-13, only as a private car and not in respect of commercial vehicle (transport). And admittedly Page No.# 15/24 also the vehicle bearing registration No. MZ-06-3045 was registered as a Taxi as per Exhibit C-5 and Exhibit C-6 and Exhibit C-7, which are the tax receipt for payment of taxes for a Taxi to the Government of Mizoram and Exhibit C-8 was issued by the Government of Mizoram for permit in respect of contract carriage under STA Mizoram for MZ-06-3045 and also admittedly, Special Plying Permit for all Mizoram Taxi issued by STA Mizoram, was also issued for MZ-06-3045. Admittedly also it is mandatory to produce the Registration Certificate and other vehicular documents prior to issuing the Insurance Policy. And inspite of clear materials, such as Registration Certificate, Special Plying Permit, Carriage Permit, Taxi renewal payment receipt, which clearly shows that the accident vehicle bearing registration No.MZ-06-3045 (Maruti-800), was indeed a commercial (transport) vehicle, the appellant herein had issued the policy for a private car. Now the appellant cannot be allowed to contend that there was violation of policy condition and consequently to deny liability. 13.3. In view of the aforesaid discussion and finding, it cannot be said that the finding so recorded by the learned Tribunal suffers from any perversity requiring the interference of this Court. Accordingly, the Issue No. (I)(a) above, stands answered. 14. Moving forward to the Issue No. (I)(b), this Court finds that in the case on Page No.# 16/24 Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 117 held that a harmonious interpretation of various sections would lead us to conclude that a person holding an LMV license is equally competent to drive a transport vehicle, provided of course the vehicle’s gross weight does not exceed 7500 kg. The reference to ‘transport vehicle’ in Section 3(1) and other Sections of the Act and Rules should therefore be understood as applying to only those vehicles which fall beyond the scope of the sensu stricto definition, under Section 2 (21). This interpretation would ensure that no provision or word is rendered otiose and the licensing regime remains coherent with the Legislative intent. Such an interpretation would also avoid a illogical outcomes as discussed above. 14.1. Again, in Para No. 119, of the aforesaid decision, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the earliest decision on the issue was in 1999, in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, reported in (1999) 6 SCC 620. The definition of LMV at that time stipulated a weight limit of 6000 kg. The facts in that case was that the appellant who was the holder of an LMV license, owned a Swaraj Mazda Truck weighing 5920 kg, which got damaged in an accident on 26.11.1991. When the insurer refuted the claim, questioning the validity of the LMV driving license, the appellant filed a Page No.# 17/24 complaint before the Consumer Forum. The case travelled to the Supreme Court where a two-Judge Bench of this Court pertinently observed that a holder of the LMV license can drive a transport vehicle, without a specific endorsement and accordingly, compensation was granted to the claimants. 14.2. In view of the proposition, so laid down in the aforementioned decision and in view of the facts and circumstances of the record, this Court finds that the ground No. 2 so raised by the appellant herein is also not legally sustainable. The offending vehicle, in the instant case, is a Maruti 800 vehicle, which was used as a Taxi. Admittedly, the driver of the said vehicle was granted the license of the Light Motor Vehicle. It is nobody’s case that unladen weight the Maruti 800 vehicle bearing registration No. MZ-06-3045, is above 7500 kg. And since the unladen weight of the Maruti vehicle is same as private vehicle and also as a transport vehicle, the said driver is entitled to drive the same, in view of the proposition laid down by a Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited (supra) and also in the case of Ashok Gangadhar Maratha(supra). 14.3. In view of above, the Issue No.(I)(b) has to be answered in negative and accordingly the same stands answered. Page No.# 18/24 15. Now coming to the Issue No. (II), this Court finds that the learned Tribunal, based on the documents placed before it, had arrived at the finding at the relevant point of time, the age of the deceased was 20 years. The learned counsel for the cross-objector and also for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in the appeal, taking this Court to the Death Certificate, issued by the Civil Hospital, Aizawl, which was exhibited before the learned Tribunal as Exhibit-C-17, submits that in the said document also, the age of the deceased was shown as 20 years. He also pointed it out that though, as per learned counsel for the appellant, the Baptisma Certificate is inadmissible to establish the age of the deceased, yet Exhibit-C-17 can be relied upon to ascertain the age of the deceased. This Court finds substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well as for the cross-objector. In absence of any rebuttal evidence, the age of the deceased at the time of the accident has to be assessed as 20 years on the basis of Exhibit C-17 and the Baptisma Certificate. 15.1. And in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (SMT) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the multiplier applicable in the present case is 18. But, the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier 17, which seems to be erroneous in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). Page No.# 19/24 16. Now, moving forward to the last issue, i.e. Issue No.(III), this Court finds that indisputably in the impugned Judgment and Award, the learned Tribunal has not awarded filial consortium herein this case. The law with regard to granting of filial/parental consortium is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Pranay Sethi (supra), wherein it is categorically held that the parents are entitled to parental consortium @ Rs. 40,000/, which shall be increased by 10% in every 3 years. Relevant para in the said case is extracted herein below:- “46. Another aspect which has created confusion pertains to grant of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. In Santosh Devi [Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 421 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 726 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 167] , the two-Judge Bench followed the traditional method and granted Rs 5000 for transportation of the body, Rs 10,000 as funeral expenses and Rs 10,000 as regards the loss of consortium. In Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121: (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770: (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002], the Court granted Rs 5000 under the head of loss of estate, Rs 5000 towards funeral expenses and Rs 10,000 towards loss of consortium. In Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54: (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179: (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817: (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149], the Court granted Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs 25,000 towards funeral expenses. It also granted Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The Court enhanced the same on the principle that a formula Page No.# 20/24 framed to achieve uniformity and consistency on a socio-economic issue has to be contrasted from a legal principle and ought to be periodically revisited as has been held in Santosh Devi [Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 421: (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 726: (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 167]. On the principle of revisit, it fixed different amount on conventional heads. What weighed with the Court is factum of inflation and the price index. It has also been moved by the concept of loss of consortium. We are inclined to think so, for what it states in that regard. We quote: (Rajesh case [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54: (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 :(2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817: (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149], SCC p. 63, para 17) “17. … In legal parlance, “consortium” is the right of the spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate. That non-pecuniary head of damages has not been properly understood by our courts. The loss of companionship, love, care and protection, etc., the spouse is entitled to get, has to be compensated appropriately. The concept of non- pecuniary damage for loss of consortium is one of the major heads of award of compensation in other parts of the world more particularly in the United States of America, Australia, etc. English courts have also recognised the right of a spouse to get compensation even during the period of temporary disablement. By loss of consortium, the courts have made an attempt to compensate the loss of spouse's affection, comfort, solace, companionship, society, assistance, protection, care and sexual Page No.# 21/24 relations during the future years. Unlike the compensation awarded in other countries and other jurisdictions, since the legal heirs are otherwise adequately compensated for the pecuniary loss, it would not be proper to award a major amount under this head. Hence, we are of the view that it would only be just and reasonable that the courts award at least rupees one lakh for loss of consortium.” ………………………….. …………………….. 52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54: (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179: (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817: (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149]. It has granted Rs 25,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] refers to Santosh Devi [Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 421: (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 726: (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 160: (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 167], it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in Page No.# 22/24 many a field has to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. 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. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads. 16.1. Since, in the instant case, filial consortium/parental consortium has not been granted to the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 without assigning any reason, this Court is of the view that the impugned judgment and award, so passed by the learned Tribunal, is illegal and arbitrary and liable to be interfered with by granting filial consortium and accordingly, Issue No. (III) stands answered accordingly. Page No.# 23/24 Conclusion:- 17. In a result, this Court finds no merit in this appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, the cross-objection filed by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, stands allowed. The impugned Judgment and Award, so far it relates to application of multiplier and also in respect of denying compensation under the head of parental consortium, is interfered with. 18. It is to be noted here that the other findings recorded by the learned Tribunal in the impugned Judgment and Award are not challenged in this appeal and cross-objection, and the same has to be accepted as such. The amount of compensation, which the claimant is entitled to, by applying the multiplier 18 and also by adding the parental consortium, in light of the principle laid in the case of Sarala Verma(supra) and Pranoy Shethi(supra) is assessed as under:- 1. Monthly income = Rs.31,200 2. 40% of (1) to be added as future prospect (Rs. 31,200 + Rs. 12,480) = Rs.43,680 3. Compensation after multiplier of 18 = Rs.94,34,880 is applied (Rs. 43,680 x 12 x 18) 4. 50% Deduction being a bachelor = Rs.47,17,440 (as per Apex Court Ruling) 5. Funeral Expenses (with 10% increase after every 3 years) = Rs.16,500 6. Loss of Estate = Rs.16,500 (with 10% increase after every 3 years) Page No.# 24/24 7. Filial consortium = Rs.44,000 Total Compensation Awarded = Rs.47,94,440/- (Rupees Forty Seven Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand Four Hundred and Forty only). 19. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the appellant herein is directed to deposit the abovementioned amount of compensation i.e. Rs.47,94,440/- (Rupees Forty Seven Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand Four Hundred and Forty only), in the manner, provided by the learned Tribunal in para No. 20 of the impugned judgment and award, within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of this judgment and order. 20. Send down the record of the Tribunal forthwith with a copy of this Judgment and Order. JUDGE Comparing Assistant