1. Admit. Respondents waive service. By consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties matter is heard finally.

2. This appeal is directed against the order and judgment dated 31st January, 2012 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai allowing the application of the respondents filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1987 partly and directing the owner and the insurer to jointly or severally to pass amount of Rs.3,12,000/-alongwith interest at the rate of 9.25% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realisation to the respondents. The appellants who was insurer have impugned only part of the order passed by the Tribunal i.e. Rs.50,000/-awarded by the Tribunal for 'pain and suffering'.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the compensation of Rs.50,000/-awarded by the Tribunal could not have been awarded in case of accident resulting in death but can be awarded only to the person himself who met with fatal accident and suffers pain.

4. The next submission of the learned counsel is that the Tribunal could not have awarded interest at the rate of 9.25% per annum but could award at the rate of 7.5% per annum.

5. In support of the first submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (SMT) and another vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 2 SCC (Cri.) 1002 and in particular paragraph 19. It is submitted that the Supreme Court has categorically held that where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of 5000 to 10000 should be added under the head of loss of consortium but no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased. Paragraph 19 of the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (SMT) and another (supra) reads thus:-

19. To have uniformity and consistency, Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following well settled steps:

Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependant family, constitutes the multiplicand.

Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased.

Step 3 (Actual calculation) The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the 'loss of dependency' to the family.

Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- may be added as loss of estate. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of 5,000/- to 10,000/- should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased.

The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also added.

6. Learned counsel submits that though Supreme Court in case of R.K. Malik and another vs. Kiran Pal and another (2009) 14 SCC 1 has held that the court has power to award non pecuniary loss which includes compensation for pain and suffering the said judgment is distinguishable with the facts of this case on the ground that the Supreme Court in the said judgment was