SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. PRABHA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-the insurer of the motor vehicle involved in the accident, is aggrieved of the quantum of compensation awarded vide impugned judgment-Award dated 03.07.2013, passed by MACT-II, South. In view of the fact that the challenge is restricted to the quantum of compensation, advertence to the other factual conspectus to maintain the claim petition by the claimants-respondent nos.1 to 6, is not called for.

(2.) It is a death case and the compensation has come to be awarded to the claimants-respondent nos.1 to 6 being the widow, children and the parents of the deceased Amlesh Yadav, who was 28 years of age and employed as a Field Officer with the Competent Service and stated to be getting Rs.15,000/- per month. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation under the various heads, as under:

(3.) During the course of hearing, Mr. Nandwani, ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant does not extend challenge to the compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency in the sum of Rs.29,83,500/-. In his submissions, as per the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in 'National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors' 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1270, the Supreme Court has prescribed non-pecuniary compensation under three heads i.e. loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses and the figures prescribed there-against are of Rs.40,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- only, and, that, it does not prescribe any compensation under the head of loss of love and affection. In his submissions therefore, the compensation under the head of funeral expenses, was required to be reduced from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. Let it be so. When the appellant seeks to apply the scales of compensation prescribed under Pranay Sethi's case (supra), the compensation under the other two heads is bound to be increased and in consonance therewith, the compensation under the head of loss of consortium would be enhanced to Rs.40,000/- and loss of estate to Rs.15,000/-, respectively. In the given conspectus of the facts and the law, one cannot then ignore the fact that the compensation under the head of loss of consortium is not to be restricted only to spouse. At the time of his death, the deceased has left behind three small children besides the widow and the parents. In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram, 2018 SCC Online SC 1546, the Supreme Court, taking note of Pranay Sethi's case, has noted that consortium is a compendious term which encompasses spousal consortium, parental consortium and filial consortium. It is so observed, as under: