C.T. Ravikumar, J.

This appeal is preferred by the legal heirs of one James Joseph who lost his life in a motor vehicle accident, on being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation granted by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam as per the judgment and award in O.P.(M.V.)No.1684/2011. The unfortunate incident occurred on 20.12.2009. On that fateful day at about 10.30 a.m. Sri. James Joseph was walking through Changanacherry - Vazhoor Road and when he reached near Madukkummoodu a motor vehicle bearing registration No.KL-33/A 5821 came from east and knocked him down. On sustaining severe injuries he was taken to Pushpagiri Medical College Hospital, Thiruvalla. While undergoing treatment he died on 11.03.2010. He was then aged 64 years. It is in the said circumstances that the appellants who are his widow and children filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking a total compensation of Rs.10 lakhs. No oral evidence was adduced by both sides before the Tribunal. On the side of the appellants they got marked Exts.A1 to A6 and no documentary evidence was also adduced by the respondents. The Tribunal evaluated the evidence on record and the rival contentions and passed the impugned judgment awarding a compensation of Rs.3,59,000/- with interest at the rate of 8.5% per annum from the date of petition (27.12.2011) till realization. The captioned appeal has been preferred seeking enhancement of the quantum of compensation assessed and awarded thereunder.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the third respondent Insurance Company.

3. In view of the absence of dispute regarding the accident, the insurance coverage of the aforementioned offending vehicle at the relevant point of time and also the cause of the accident as the rash and negligent driving by the first respondent a decision is called for only on the question of entitlement of the appellants for enhanced compensation. Though the said question appears to be less complicative and usually depends mainly on certain amount of guess work the case on hand carries a point of law to be resolved.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants mounted challenge against the judgment virtually under four heads. It is contended that the Tribunal granted only a paltry amount of Rs.7,000/- towards loss of consortium and it invites an upward modification in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh [2013 (3) KLT 89 (SC)]. The same decision is also relied on to contend that the amount of Rs.4,000/- granted towards funeral expenses is inadequate. It is the contention of the learned counsel that in the light of the decision in Rajesh's case (supra) the first appellant is entitled to get a minimum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and towards funeral expenses the appellants are entitled to get a minimum of Rs.25,000/-. The further contention is that though the accident occurred on 20.12.2009 James Joseph succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident only on 11.3.2010 and still, no amount was granted towards pain and sufferings. Lastly, it is contended that the Tribunal wrongly deducted an amount of Rs.5,01,927/- (534593- 32666) covered by Ext.A6 series of bills on the ground that the appellants got reimbursed Rs.5,01,927/- incurred in connection with the treatment expenses under a mediclaim policy. It is contended that as the appellant got the said amount of Rs.5,01,927/- reimbursed on the strength of another contract with another Insurance Company the said amount was not deductible. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the appellants relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Patricia Jean Mahajan & Ors. [2002 ACJ 1441], and a Full Bench decision of Madhya Pradesh in Kashiram Mathur & Ors. v. Sardar Rajendra Singh & Anr. [1983 ACJ 152].

5. Per contra, the learne