Compensation must adhere to established precedents regarding conventional heads, with love and affection encompassed in loss of consortium, and accurately quantify loss of estate, as per Supreme Court rulings.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J. The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award dated 30.11.2003 passed in MACT No. 328/2012 by the Court of learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "Impugned Award").

2. By way of the impugned Award dated 30.11.2003 the learned Tribunal Awarded a compensation of Rs.22,55,832/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 09.07.2012 till realization and held that the Insurance Company is liable for payment of the awarded compensation to the claimants.

3. Ms. Prerna Mehta learned counsel for the Appellant restricted her arguments with regard to reduction of quantum of compensation on two heads i.e. deduction of Rs.1,00,000/- towards `Love and Affection' and deduction of Rs.1,00,000/- towards `Loss of Consortium'. Learned counsel for the Appellant further contended that in terms of the dicta of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported as 2017 AIR (SC) 5157, the learned Tribunal erred in granting compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards `Love and Affection' and further erred in granting compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head `Loss of Consortium' and the same is to be calculated @ Rs.40,000/- per legal heir.

4. Mr. S.N. Parashar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/claimants fairly accepted that in terms of the dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), grant of compensation under the head `Love and Affection' has to be deducted from the total amount of compensation Awarded by the learned Tribunal, however, the grant of compensation under the head `Loss of Consortium' is fixed @ Rs.40,000/- with an increase of 10% after a period of 3 years. Learned counsel further contended that in terms of Pranay Sethi (supra), compensation under the head `Loss of Estate' is required to be provided to the respondents/claimants, which has not been considered by the learned Tribunal.

5. In rebuttal, Ms. Prerna Mehta, learned counsel for the Appellant contended that the compensation for `Loss of Estate' has been merged by the learned Tribunal while granting compensation under the head `Funeral Expenses' and as such no separate compensation is to be awarded under the head `Loss of Estate'.

6. The arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties are purely legal and based on the law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), which has held as under:

"54. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh. It has granted Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.1,00,000/- 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 refers to Santosh Devi, 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 u