The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of principles of compensation, deductions against personal expenses, and the concept of consortium as established in relevant judgments to assess 'just compensation' under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT

Anuja Prabhudessai, J. - Considering the narrow controversy involved in the matter, the parties were put to notice that an endeavor would be made to dispose of the appeal finally at the stage of admission. Hence, with consent heard finally.

2. The Appellants herein, who shall be hereinafter referred to as the Claimants, have challenged the judgment and award dated 19/01/2015 passed by the Claims Tribunal, Chandrapur in M.A.C.P. No.112/2006. By the impugned judgment and award, the Claims Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "M.V. Act") and awarded compensation of Rs.6,13,792/- inclusive of compensation under no fault liability, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition i.e. 27/07/2006 till its realization.

3. Learned counsel for the Claimants states that the Tribunal has erred in calculating the compensation on the basis of monthly salary of Rs.4,873/-, when the salary certificate produced by the Claimants, sufficiently proves that the salary of the deceased was Rs.6,495/- per month. He further submits that the Tribunal has also erred in deducting 1/3rd salary towards personal expenses of the deceased when there were four dependents. He has further stated that the Tribunal has not awarded adequate compensation towards future prospects and other conventional heads.

4. I have perused the records and considered the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the Appellants and learned counsel for Respondent No.2. The evidence on record amply proves that Vomesh Tulshiram Walke had expired as a result of the injuries sustained in an accident involving a Bus bearing No.MH-32 B-2300. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the said accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. The Respondents have not challenged the said finding. The only question which falls for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is 'just and reasonable'.

5. It is pertinent to note that the deceased was employed as a Peon in the Revenue Department and was drawing a salary of Rs.6,495/- per month. The Tribunal has deducted Rs.1,625/- from the monthly salary and assumed his annual income as Rs.58,476/-. The Tribunal has not assigned any reasons for such deduction. There has no justification for computing the compensation on the basis of monthly salary of Rs.4,873/-

6. The Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 has approved the multiplier as well as norms laid down in Sarla Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 regarding deductions against personal expenses. The Apex Court has also issued guidelines in addition of income towards future prospects and has further quantified amount of Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium, Rs.15,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate. In Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130, the Apex Court has held that the 'Consortium' is a compendious term which encompasses 'spousal consortium', 'parental consortium' and 'filial consortium'. Spousal consortium is granted to the surviving spouse for loss of 'company, society, co-operation, affection and aid of the other in every conjugal relations. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the pre-mature death as a parent for loss of 'parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training'. 'Filial consortium' is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. The Apex Court has held that the amount of compensation to be awarded for loss of consortium will be governed by the principles by awarding compensation under loss of consortium as laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra).

7. In the