The court applied legal precedents to modify the amounts awarded for loss of love and affection and funeral expenses, ensuring consistency with established legal principles.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. Timble, learned counsel for the Appellant. Mr. Pavithran appears for respondent Nos.1, 1(a), and 1(b)-Claimants, and Mr. Bhobe appears for respondent No.3-Owner.

2. In this case, there is some issue about service on respondent No.2-driver of the insured vehicle involved in the accident. However, Mr. Timble rightly points out that since the main issue involved in this appeal is about the quantum of compensation, failure of service on respondent No.2 will not be material.

3. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 30.06.2015 in Claim Petition No.3/2012 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal sitting at Ponda.

4. The tribunal has awarded total compensation of ?23,62,872/-to the claimants with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition.

5. Mr. Timble submits that there was no evidence, in this case, to sustain the finding that the deceased Deepak Narvekar was drawing a monthly salary of KD-140 (Kuwait Dinar). He submits that in the absence of proper legal evidence, the tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased at ?16,000/- per month.

6. Mr. Timble submits that the award of ?1,00,000/- each to the claimants towards loss of love and affection is contrary to the law laid down in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. He submits that at the most an amount of ?40,000/-each could have been awarded towards loss of consortium. Mr. Timble submits that the award of ?50,000/- towards funeral expenses is also contrary to the law laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra) and the amount not exceeding ?15,000/- could have been awarded.

7. Mr. Pavithran defends the impugned award based on the reasoning reflected therein. He submits that the tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at only KD-100 instead of KD-140. He submits that there is no award towards loss of estate. He, therefore, submits that this appeal should be dismissed.

8. The rival contentions now fall for determination.

9. On the aspect of the salary of the deceased, the claimants have examined Rupesh Palyekar (AW6). He was working for Kuwait Resources House from October 2008 till January 2014 as MWR/Coordinator in Kuwait. He has deposed that he knew the deceased Deepak Narvekar who was working for the same establishment for the period between October 2008 and May 2011. He has deposed that Deepak Narvekar was drawing a basic monthly salary of KD 140. No dent was made to this deposition in the course of the cross-examination.

10. The claimants have also examined Umesh Amerkar (AW7) who also deposed in the same terms as AW6.

11. The certificate and contract of employment has also been produced on record. The certificate was marked 'X' for identification because the author of such certificate could not be examined. However, the tribunal has held that AW1, AW6, and AW7 were cross-examined on the said certificate, and therefore, to a certain extent, this certificate stands proved.

12. The tribunal has, on evaluation of evidence on record taken the salary of the deceased at KD 100 per month even though the certificate and the testimony of two witnesses suggested that the same was KD 140 per month. The tribunal has reasoned that some amount of exaggeration on the part of the witnesses cannot be ruled out.

13. Considering the evidence on record and its evaluation by the tribunal, no case is made out to reduce the deceased determined income. Therefore, the compensation of ?20,37,872/- towards dependency determined by the tribunal by taking the deceased income at KD 100 is upheld.

14. Mr. Timble is however justified in submitting that an amount of ?1,00,000/- could not have been awarded towards love and affection having regard to the law laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra). The amount of ?40,000/- each could have been awarded and such amount is now substituted in the impugned award.

15. Similarly, the award of ?50,000/- towards funeral expenses is also not consistent with the law la