The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's interpretation of the concept of 'loss of consortium' and its application in enhancing the compensation amount for the claimants.

1. The claimants-appellants have challenged the legality of the award dated 13th June 2013, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, MACT, Srirangapatna, whereby for the death of Mr. Anandegowda, the learned Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.11,14,562/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant No.1 happens to be the wife of Mr. Anandegowda (deceased), appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are his sons, and appellant No.4 happens to be his mother. According to the appellants, on 07-01-2012, Mr. Anandegowda left his place of work and reached Baburayanakoppalu. When he was waiting for a bus at the Kirangoor Bus Stand, around 10.30 p.m., a Tempo, bearing Reg. No. KA-12-2508, came from Srirangapattana, in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed against him. Due to the accident, he suffered grievous injuries on his stomach. Immediately he was rushed to K.R. Hospital, and from there he was referred to My sore Cauvery Hospital. On 08-01-2012, around 4.10 p.m., he succumbed to his injuries.

Subsequently, the claimants-appellants Corrected vide Court Order dated 23.10.2017 filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. In order to buttress their case, they examined two witnesses, and submitted twelve documents. On the other hand, the Insurance Company examined a single witness, and submitted three documents. After appreciating the evidence, the learned Tribunal granted the compensation as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this Court.

3. Mr. M. Y. Sreenivasan, the learned counsel for the appellant, has pleaded that despite the fact that the appellant No.1 had lost her husband in mid-life, despite the fact that she has many years to go in the absence of the company of her husband, a meager amount of Rs.10,000/- has been paid for the category of “loss of consortium”. Relying on the case of RAJESH & ORS. VS. RAJBIR SINGH & ORS. [(2013) 9 SCC 544], the learned counsel has pleaded that the compensation should be enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-.

Secondly, even for the category of “transportation of the dead body”, a mere compensation of Rs.10,000/- has been granted. Therefore, even the compensation for the said category should be enhanced by this Court.

Lastly, the learned Tribunal has erred in exonerating the Insurance Company of its liability to pay the compensation amount ostensibly on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a specific endorsement to drive a Maxi-cab. Relying on the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [AIR 2017 SC 3668] the learned counsel has pleaded that in case the driver of the offending vehicle does have a driving license for a light motor vehicle (‘LMV’, for short), the driving license does not require a further specific endorsement for driving a specific kind of vehicle. Therefore, the learned Tribunal is unjustified in exonerating the Insurance Company.

4. On the other hand, Mr. R. Rajagopalan, the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company, has pleaded that the case of RAJESH (supra) cannot be taken as a benchmark for granting Rs.1,00,000/- for “loss of consortium” to the appellant No.1.

Secondly, since the accident had occurred in 2012, a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the category of “transportation of dead body” is a reasonable one. While challenging the above contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has frankly conceded, and in the opinion of this Court rightly so, that the Insurance Company could not have been exonerated, keeping in mind the judgment of MUKUND DEWANGAN (supra).

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award.

6. In the case of RAJESH (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt extensively with the concept of “loss of consortium” as under:

“17. The ratio of a decision of this Court, o