Compensation under conventional heads must be consistent and reasonable, and a clear distinction applies to enhancements based on the date of accidents per existing statutory guidelines.

ORDER :

1. The claimants seek enhancement of the award, confined to the conventional heads in consonance with the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC 680. They also rely on the judgment of this Court in Rojalini Nayak and Others vs. Ajit Sahoo and Others , C.A. No. 8502 of 2024.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there were three claimants, the wife and two children, all of whom are entitled to loss of consortium. Even the children are also entitled to loss of filial consortium as has been held in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram and Others , (2018) 18 SCC 130. The Constitution Bench decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) has also permitted the compensation for loss of estate and funeral expenses in case of death in a motor vehicle accident, to be enhanced @ 10% in every three years.

3. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company, however, pointed out that the proposition as laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra), for enhancement @ 10% in every three years can apply only in cases of accidents later to the date of the decision. The standardization can be made applicable to the present case also but, there can be no enhancement @ 10% computed on a three yearly basis, insofar as the accident which occurred as early as in 1998, as is the case herein.

4. We have noticed the specific paragraph from Pranay Sethi (supra) which the cited decision has extracted and we too extract hereunder:

“52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh vs. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54. 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 vs. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 refers to Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2012) 6 SCC 421, 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 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.”

5. Having gone through the said paragraph wherein the Constitution Bench was prompted to provide for an enhancement on passage of time, for compensation under the conventional heads, based on the price index, fall