JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this First Appeal, the appellant has challenged the common award dated 12.08.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Vadodara in MACP No.1675 of 2001 passed below Exhibit-160.

2. Heard learned advocate Ms. Archana P. Patel for the appellants and learned advocate Mr. Yogi K. Gadhia for the respondent No.3 i.e. Insurance Company.

3. Since the award is challenged on the ground that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is not in accordance with latest law of the land, and therefore, some amount awarded by the Tribunal is awarded less than what the appellants are entitled to, and therefore, the present appeal is preferred.

4. It is the case of the claimants that the injured/deceased were traveling in S.T. Bus No.GJ-18-V-4968. Its scheduled route was via Vadodara-Dabhoi. Thus, S.T. Bus was proceeding towards Dabhoi. As soon as the S.T. Bus reached near the place of accident i.e. between Village Palaswada and Village Bhilapur, at that time, the opponent No.1 came from opposite direction by way of driving the Motor Truck No.GJ-16-U-8958. The Truck was in excessive and uncontrollable speed. Manner of driving was rash and negligent. The Truck intruded into the wrong side of the road. Therefore, it collided with the oncoming S.T. Bus. As a result of which, this unfortunate accident has occurred. Therefore, the claimants have sought compensation from all the opponents.

5. The opponents before the Tribunal filed the written statements, have denied all the facts and averments made in the Claim Petitions, and contended that the accident had occurred due to sole negligence of the rival opponents. However, the learned Tribunal decided the claims and found that the claimants/deceased sustained bodily injury due to rash and negligence on the part of the driver involved in the accident that the claimants are entitled for the compensation considering the fact this appeal is preferred by the claimants for enhancement of the aforesaid findings are not under challenge, and therefore, the appeal is required to be decided only by examining quantum of amount awarded by the Tribunal.

6. On examination of the evidence the tribunal held that the claimants are entitled to get the following amount of compensation:-

7. Learned advocate Ms. Archana Patel appearing for the appellants while canvassing the case for enhancement of the awarded amount, however, could not point out any material to that effect that the amount of Rs.9,39,372/- awarded by the Tribunal towards future loss of dependency benefits has been awarded by the Tribunal is error of law, and hence, she submitted that apart from future loss, quantum of funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate are as per the settled proposition of law, and therefore, this aspects are examined by this Court by way of this appeal.

8. By relying upon the judgment in the case of National Insurance Company v. Pranay Shetty reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, she submitted that funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively, however, in the judgment of Pranay Shetty (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an amount of Rs.15,000/- should be awarded towards funeral expenses and loss of estate, therefore, aforesaid amount is required to be modified by enhancing the amount of award towards funeral expenses to the tune of Rs.15,000/- under each head. She further submitted that for the purpose of loss of consortium, learned advocate Ms. Patel submitted that as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Megma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram alia Chuhru Ram r