IMPORTANT POINTS
The concept of spousal consortium to the surviving spouse; parental consortium to the children of the deceased; and filial consortium to the parents of the deceased child laid down by the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. does not speak anything as to the right of siblings to get compensated under the head loss of consortium-Appellants 3 and 4, who are brothers of the deceased, are not entitled for compensation under the head loss of consortium or loss of earnings.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV) No.408 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punalur, a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation on account of the death of one Jiju K., son of appellants 1 and 2 and brother of appellants 3 and 4 in a motor accident, which occurred on 20.02.2005, while he was riding a motorcycle. At the place of accident, the motorcycle was hit by a bus bearing registration No.KL-01/P-4716, owned by the 1st respondent, driven by the 3rd respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent. In the accident, he sustained fatal injuries, who succumbed to injuries on the date of accident itself. Alleging that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the 3rd respondent driver, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-under various heads.

2. Before the Tribunal, respondents 1 and 3 were absent and they were set ex-parte. The 2nd respondent insurer filed written statement and additional statement admitting the insurance coverage of the offending vehicle, however, denying the negligence alleged against the 3rd respondent driver. The insurer alleged negligence against the deceased. It was also contended that the amount of compensation claimed is exorbitant and that the claimants are not entitled to get any compensation.

3. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the appellants. Both sides have not chosen to adduce any oral evidence.

4. After considering the pleadings and materials on record, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the 3rd respondent driver. Since insurance coverage of the offending vehicle is not in dispute, the insurer was held liable to indemnify the insured. Under various heads, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,34,000/-, together with interest @ 7.5 per annum from the date of petition, till date of deposit, with a cost of Rs.1,000/-. The insurer was directed to satisfy the award amount. Out of the award amount, an amount of Rs.25,000/-each was awarded to 3rd and 4th appellants/3rd and claimants and the balance amount together with interest and cost was awarded to 1st and 2nd appellants, who are the parents of the deceased in equal share.

5. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads, the appellants/ claimants are before this Court in this appeal.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent owner and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent insurer.

7. The issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the appellants/claimants are entitled for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads.

8. In Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121] the Apex Court laid down the principles governing determination of quantum of compensation in the case of death in a motor accident. The Apex Court held that, the compensation awarded does not become 'just compensation' merely because the Tribunal considers it to be just. Just compensation is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit. To have uniformity and consistency, Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by following the well settled steps, namely, ascertaining the multiplicand (annual contribution to the family), the multiplier and calculation of loss of dependency by multiplying the multiplicand by such multip