1. ( 2026:HHC:34787 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO No.38 of 2021 a/w C.O. No.7 of 2022 Reserved on :- 03.08.2026 Decided on : 18.08.2026 Uploaded on :- 18.08.2026 United India Insurance Company Limited …Appellant Versus Veena Devi and Ors. …..Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the Appellant : Mr. P.S. Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 5/Cross Objectors. None for respondents No.6 and 7. _________________________________________________________ Virender Singh, Judge The above titled appeal, as well as, cross objections, are being decided, by the common judgment, as both have been filed against the award dated 06.01.2021, passed by the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), in MAC Petition No.06 of 2016, titled as Veena Devi and others versus Manmohan Singh and others. 2. ( 2026:HHC:34787 ) 2. By virtue of award dated 06.01.2021, the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition, preferred by respondents No.1 to 5/cross objectors and a sum of Rs.14,81,200/- has been awarded to respondents No.1 to 4, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing the petition, till its realization. 3. 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. 4. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal/cross objections, before this Court, as borne out from the record, may be summed up, as under:- 4.1. Claimants-being widow, minor daughters, mother and father of Pradeep Sharma, have filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, seeking compensation, on account of death of Pradeep Sharma, in a road side accident, involving vehicle No.PB19F-9525, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’), owned by respondent No.1, being driven by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3. 3. ( 2026:HHC:34787 ) 4.2. According to the claimants, the accident in question involving the offending vehicle had taken place, near Dharapur bye-pass, Police Station, Tanda, District Hoshiarpur on 02.03.2015 at about 1.00 AM. According to them, respondent No.2, had parked the offending vehicle, on the side of the road, without using parking lights and on account of the wrong parking of the vehicle, Pradeep Sharma could not notice the same and collided with the stationary vehicle, due to which, he sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Information regarding the accident was given to the police, where FIR No.48, dated 03.03.2015, under Sections 283, 304-A and 427 of IPC, was registered against respondent No.2. 4.3. It is their further case that Pradeep Sharma (deceased) was driving vehicle No.PB-02AN-9528. The claimants have pleaded about their bright past and bleak future. 4.4. Since, the accident in question has solely been attributed to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.2, as such, a prayer has been made to allow the claim petition. 4. ( 2026:HHC:34787 ) 5. When put to notice, only respondent No.3, has contested the claim petition, by filing reply, whereas, respondents No.1 and 2 have not opted to put appearance and contest the claim petition, as such, they were proceeded against ex-parte. 5.1. Respondent No.3, in the petition, has taken the preliminary objections, that the claim petition is not maintainable; the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license; the offending vehicle was not road worthy, but, was being permitted to ply, in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy; and that the petitioners have not approached the Court with clean hands and have suppressed the material facts. 5.2. On merits, the contents of the claim petition have mainly been denied for want of knowledge. It has also been pleaded that neither the petitioners, nor respondents No.1 and 2 have informed respondent No.3 to supply the particulars of vehicle, as well as, the insurance policy. 5. ( 2026:HHC:34787 ) 6. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal, vide order dated 29.11.2019:- (1) Whether the deceased had died in a motor vehicle accident involving the vehicles bearing registration No.PB-02AN-9528 and PB-19F-9525? OPP. (2) Whether the accident had taken place due to the negligence of respondent No.2? OPP. (3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount? OPP. (4) Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR-3. (5) Whether the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No.PB-19F-9525 was not having a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident? OPR-3. (6) Whether the vehicle bearing registration No.PB-19F-9525 was not roadworthy at the time of the accident and plied without route permit, if so, its effect? OPR-3. (7) Whether the accident had taken place due to the negligence of the deceased, if so, its effect? OPR-3. (8). Relief. 7. Thereafter, the parties to the lis were directed to adduce evidence. After closure of the evidence, the 6. ( 2026:HHC:34787 ) learned Tribunal has decided the claim petition, by awarding the amount, as referred to above. However, the liability to pay the entire awarded amount has been fastened upon the Insurance Company. 8. Feeling aggrieved from the said award, Insurance Company has filed the present appeal, before this Court. 9. The Insurance Company has assailed the award, on the ground, that the Insurance Company had moved the application, before the learned Tribunal, under Order 11, Rule 14 of CPC, which has wrongly been dismissed, by the learned Tribunal. As the requisite documents have not been supplied to the Insurance Company, as such, they could not discharge the burden to prove/disprove the validity of the driving license. 10. The award has also been assailed, on the ground, that the learned Tribunal has not given the recovery rights, as the liability is to be fastened, solely on the owner of the vehicle, as there is basic and fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 7. ( 2026:HHC:34787 ) 11. The findings have also been assailed, on the ground, that the requisite documents were not produced/supplied by respondents No.1 and 2, nor the driving license was available on the criminal file. 12. The findings have further been assailed, on the ground, that once, the Insurance Company has taken the plea that the vehicle in question was being permitted to ply in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, then, respondents No.1 and 2 are bound to produce/supply the particulars of same to the Insurance Company. 13. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. P.S. Chandel, Advocate, appearing for the Insurance Company has prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed, while dismissing the claim petition, or in the alternative, it has been argued that the Insurance Company, may kindly be exonerated from indemnifying the owner and the entire liability be fastened upon respondents No.1 and 2, jointly and severally. 14. In this case, the claimants have filed cross objections, which have been registered, as Cross 8. ( 2026:HHC:34787 ) Objections No.7 of 2022. By way of the cross objections, a prayer has been made to enhance the amount of compensation. According to the cross objectors, ‘just compensation’ has not been awarded, in this case. As per the stand of the cross-objectors, the learned Tribunal has wrongly taken the income of deceased as Rs.7,000/- per month, whereas, according to the cross objectors, the same has been prove to be Rs.15,000/- per month and Rs.200/- per day, as diet money. 15. The cross objectors have also sought conventional charges and a prayer has been made to enhance the amount of compensation, so that the same could fall within the definition of ‘just compensation.’ 16. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. P.M. Negi, Advocate, appearing for respondents No.1 to 5/cross objectors, has prayed that the cross objections may kindly be allowed and appeal preferred by the Insurance Company may kindly be dismissed and the awarded amount may kindly be enhanced. 17. Since the award passed by the learned Tribunal, has been assailed, by the Insurance Company, as well as, 9. ( 2026:HHC:34787 ) by the claimants, as such, the evidence, so adduced, before the learned Tribunal is required to be discussed, so that the contentions raised by the parties to the lis could be met. 18. After framing of the issues, petitioner No.1, Veena Devi, appeared in the witness box and deposed, as per the stand taken in the claim petition, that her husband was driver by profession and he was working with Naresh Kumar. He used to drive his truck. The owner used to give him Rs.15,000/- per month and Rs.200/- per day, as diet money. 19. In the cross examination, she has admitted that she is having no documentary evidence to prove the earnings of her husband, as Rs.15,000/-. She has not witnessed the accident. She has feigned her ignorance about the fact that her husband got struck his truck, with the stationary offending vehicle. However, she has denied that the accident in question had taken place, due to rash and negligent driving of her husband. She has also feigned her ignorance about the fact that the FIR has been 10. ( 2026:HHC:34787 ) registered, against her husband, qua rash and negligent driving. 20. Apart from this, the petitioners have also examined owner of the truck, upon which, the deceased was employed, as driver, as PW-2. According to him, he has engaged Pradeep Kumar, as driver in vehicle No.PB- 02AN-9528 and he used to pay Rs.15,000/- per month and Rs.200/-per day, as diet money. The accident had taken place on 02.03.2015 in the night. The vehicle owned by this witness, was being driven by Pradeep Kumar from Pathankot to Jalandhar and the another vehicle was parked, on the road and lights of the indicators were not on, due to which, the vehicle driven by Pradeep Kumar and owned by this witness, hit against the said truck and resultantly, Pradeep Kumar died. Thereafter, FIR was registered with Police Station Tanda against respondent No.2 and the said case is still pending adjudication, in the Court at Dasua. When, Pradeep Kumar was engaged, as driver, this witness had checked his driving license. 11. ( 2026:HHC:34787 ) 21. PW-2, Naresh Kumar, has also admitted that the accident had not taken place in his presence. Driving license of Pradeep Kumar was issued by Licensing Authority from Sarkaghat. This witness is having no document, qua engagement of Pradeep Kumar, as driver and payment of wages to him. He has denied that the accident in question had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of Pradeep Kumar. 22. PW-3, Shakuntala Devi, Panchayat Secretary has proved the copies of the Parivar register Ex.PW-3/A and Ex.PW-3/B, according to which, the date of birth of Pradeep Kumar is 13.01.1979. 23. To rebut this evidence, Insurance Company has examined RW-1, D.P. Dassi, Administrative Officer, who has deposed that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.3 and proved the copy of the Insurance Company, as Ex.RW-1/A. The information regarding the accident was neither given to the company by driver, nor by the owner. The company came to know about the accident only when, the summons of the claim petition were received. The request was made to the owner and 12. ( 2026:HHC:34787 ) driver to provide the vehicle papers, but, they have not supplied the same, till date. 24. According to him, the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver himself, as he has struck the offending vehicle against the stationary truck. This witness has stated that neither he was present on the spot, nor, visited the spot. He has also admitted that the company has not verified the documents. He has put forward the plea that since, the documents have not been supplied, as such, the company could not verify the same. 25. So far as the documentary evidence is concerned, Ex.PW-3/A and Ex.PW-3/B are the copies of the Parivar register, Ex.RW-1/A, is the copy of insurance policy, Ex.P1 is the copy of the postmortem report and Ex.P2 is the copy of the FIR. 26. In the present case, Insurance Company was impleaded, as respondent No.3 on 18.07.2019. The issues were framed on 29.11.2019, evidence of the petitioners was closed on 26.02.2020 and after availing number of opportunities, respondent No.3, moved application under 13. ( 2026:HHC:34787 ) Order 11, Rule 14 of CPC on 18.11.2020. The said application has been dismissed, by the learned Tribunal on the basis of the decision of this Court, in Cholamandlam General Insurance Company versus Jamna Devi I.L.R.2015 (5) H.P. 207 and thereafter, respondent No.3, examined RW-1 and closed its evidence on 08.12.2020. 27. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company could not satisfy the judicial conscience of this Court, as, when, respondents No.1 and 2, were already ex-parte, there was no valid reason for moving the application, under Order 11, Rule 14 of CPC. The Insurance Company has made no efforts to summon respondents No.1 and 2, as its witnesses or to compel them to produce the relevant documents. The onus was upon the Insurance Company to prove issues No.4 to 7. The Insurance Company has not adduced any evidence to prove those issues. Its failure to examine respondents No.1 and 2, who could have been the most material witnesses in support of its defence, with regard to the 14. ( 2026:HHC:34787 ) fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, is fatal for its case. 28. It has vehemently been argued by Mr. P.S. Chandel, Advocate, appearing for the Insurance Company that the initial onus was on respondents No.1 and 2 to produce the documents and to probablize that there was no violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The above arguments hold no water, as issues were framed, in the presence of the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company and they were given ample opportunities to adduce evidence. Despite this, they failed to do so. 29. The evidence of RW-1, is too short to prove the defence, set up by the Insurance Company, as, this witness, merely stated in a bald manner, that they had demanded the requisite papers from the owner and driver. There is no document on record to demonstrate that any such demand was made by the Insurance Company from driver and owner of the offending vehicle. Moreover, whatsoever, this witness has deposed about the manner, in which, the accident in question had taken place, is not 15. ( 2026:HHC:34787 ) liable to be taken into consideration, since, he was not present on the spot. His testimoney, therefore, does not satisfy the requirement of Section 60 of the Evidence Act, (Section 55 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). When, a positive duty has been cast upon the Insurance Company to prove/probablize its defence, then, it cannot take advantage of the default committed by respondents No.1 and 2, in not appearing before the Court. 30. In view of the above facts, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence, on record, and rightly held the Insurance Company liable to pay the amount of compensation. 31. At the cost of repetition, in the absence of any effort made by the Insurance Company to obtain the relevant documents, either before filing the written statement, or by summoning respondents No.1 and 2, as its witnesses, no benefit can be derived by the Insurance Company from the mere non appearance or non- production of the documents, by the said respondents. 16. ( 2026:HHC:34787 ) 32. Consequently, the appeal of the Insurance Company is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. 33. In the present case, claimants have also filed the cross objections, with a prayer to enhance the amount of compensation. Those cross objections are mainly filed, on the ground, that the learned Tribunal has wrongly taken the income of Pradeep Kumar, as Rs.7,000/- per month. 34. By examining PW-1 and PW-2, the claimants have made an effort to establish their stand that Pradeep Kumar was engaged, as a driver, by PW-2, on his truck and he used to pay Rs.15,000/- as salary and Rs.200/- per day, as diet money. Neither of these witnesses produced any documentary evidence, in support of their claim. In such circumstances, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of Pradeep Kumar, as Rs.7,000/-per month. However, the learned Tribunal has not granted any addition, towards future prospects of Pradeep Kumar. 17. ( 2026:HHC:34787 ) 35. The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited versus Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Case 680, has mandated that some addition is required to be given, on account of future prospects, for all the categories of persons, irrespective of whether they are in permanent employment, self employed or in fixed salary, depending upon their age. Relevant paragraphs 52, 59.3, 59.4, 59.5, 59.7, 59.8 are reproduced as under:- “52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh. It has granted Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/- 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 refers to Santosh Devi, 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 many a field have 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 18. ( 2026:HHC:34787 ) 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. xxx xxx xxx 59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. 59.5. For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore. 59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment. 59.7. The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. 59.8 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 aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.” 36. As such, the claimants are entitled to the benefit of future prospects. 19. ( 2026:HHC:34787 ) 37. As per the statement of PW-3, the date of birth of Pradeep Kumar is 13.01.1979 and the accident in question had taken place on 02.03.2015. The learned Tribunal has erroneously taken the age of Pradeep Kumar, as 32 years, on the basis of postmortem report, Ext. P1, whereas, according to the witness examined by the claimants themselves, date of birth is Pradeep Kumar is 13.01.1979. His age is, thus, proved to be 36 years. 38. Considering the said age, the appropriate multiplier, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma versus Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, is ‘15’, whereas, the learned Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 16. To that extent, the findings of the learned Tribunal are required to be interfered with. 39. In view of the decision in Pranay Sethi’s case, 40% is required to be added, in the monthly income of Pradeep Kumar, on account of future prospects. Thus, his incomes comes to Rs.7,000/-+40% (Rs.2800/-)=Rs.9800/- per month. Keeping in view of number of claimants, the 20. ( 2026:HHC:34787 ) learned Tribunal has rightly deducted ¼ towards his personal expenses, had Pradeep Kumar, been alive. Thus, his contribution towards his family comes to Rs.9800- Rs.2450=Rs.7350/-. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.7350/- x12x15=Rs.13,23,000/- under the head loss of contribution. 40. In view of the above, the total amount of compensation, which petitioners No.1 to 4 are entitled to, is adjudicated as under:- 1.Loss of contribution =Rs.13,23,000/- 2.Loss of estate = Rs.15,000/- 3.Funeral expenses = Rs.15,000/- 4.Loss of consortium=Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x 4) Total= Rs.15,13,000/-(Rs.13,23,000/-+ Rs.15,000/-+Rs.15,000/- +Rs.1,60,000/-) 41. The learned Tribunal, in the present case, has awarded the compensation only to petitioners No.1 to 4 and has wrongly held that the petitioner No.5, being father is not entitled for compensation, as, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited 21. ( 2026:HHC:34787 ) vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, has held that all the claimants are entitled for compensation under the head ‘loss of consortium’, in which, the scope of consortium has been expanded. Relevant paragraphs 21 to 24, are reproduced as under:- “21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Seth(supra) dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is Loss of Consortium. In legal parlance,“consortium” is a compendious term which encompasses ‘spousal consortium’, ‘parental consortium’, and ‘filial consortium’.The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse. 21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of “company society, corporation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation. 21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline guidance and training. 21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit. 22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions worldover have recognized that the value of a child’s consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child. 23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parents has lost their minor 22. ( 2026:HHC:34787 ) child, or unmarried son of daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial consortium. Parental consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A fe High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of filial consortium. 24. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under “ loss of consortium”. As laid down in Pranay Sethi. In the preset case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and sister of the deceased, as amount of Rs.40,000/- each for loss of filial consortium.” 42. Similar view has again been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sameem Begum and others versus K. Venkat Swamy and another, 2026 INSC 864, Relevant paragraphs 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5.1, of the judgment, are reproduced, as under:- “5.2. In Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Another5, where the question answered was whether a brother of the deceased killed in a motor vehicle accident could be able to claim compensation. The Court observed that the “legal representative” ordinarily means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person or a person on 5 (1987) 3 SCC 234 whom the estate devolves on the death of an individual. Every legal representative who suffers on account of the death of a person because of a motor vehicle accident has a remedy for realisation of compensation to be paid under different heads. 5.3. In other words, when all such persons covered within the expression “legal representative” are entitled to maintain the compensation petition and seek compensation for loss of life of the victim of a motor accident, by virtue of that very principle and in view of the concept of consortium, it is one of the heads of compensation which becomes payable in motor accident claim cases. 5.4. The head of “consortium” is part of the conventional sum to be awarded as part of the compensation. The conventional amount has been provided in the Second Schedule of the Act which was enacted in 1994 as found to be defective as observed by this Court in U.P. State Road Transport 23. ( 2026:HHC:34787 ) Corporation and Others vs. Trilok Chandra and Others6 and in Puttamma and Others vs. K.L. 6 (1996) 4 SCC 362 Narayana Reddy and Another7 observing that the Second Schedule has become redundant, irrational and unworkable due to changed scenario including the present cost of living and the current rate of inflation as well as increased life expectancy. 5.5.1. The ‘spousal consortium’ normally refers to the rights pertaining to relationship of a husband and wife which allow compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of company, society, cooperation, affection and aid of the other in the conjugal relations. The consortium amount which is granted to the child is called ‘parental consortium’ to be paid on the premature death of a parent. It is in the nature of compensation for parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training which would have been available to the child had a parent been alive. The concept of ‘filial consortium’ is the right of parents to be compensated when there is accidental death of a child, for, parents would suffer shock and agony on loss of child during their lifetime. The filial consortium reflects the inbuilt love, affection and bond prevalent in the family for the children.” (self emphasis supplied) 43. Judging the facts and circumstances of the present case, in light of both these decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, petitioner No.5, being father of Pradeep Kumar is also held entitled for compensation, to the tune of Rs.40,000/- under the head ‘loss of consortium’, along with petitioners No.1 to 4. 44. Thus, the claimants are held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.15,13,000/-+ Rs.40,000/-=Rs. 15,53,000/-. 45. Thus, the cross objections, so filed by the petitioners, are allowed and the amount of compensation 24. ( 2026:HHC:34787 ) is enhanced from Rs.14,81,200/- to Rs.15,53,000/- along with interest @7.5%, per annum, keeping in view the prevailing rate of interest of nationalized banks. 46. The award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified, in the above terms. 47. Memo of costs be prepared. 48. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. 49. Record be sent back. (Virender Singh) Judge August 18, 2026 (subhash)