IMPORTANT POINT
The Tribunal shall not adjourn the proceedings of execution petition, on mere on the reason of pendency of an appeal or on an oral submission that an order for the stay of execution of the award has been made by the appellate court.
Once compensation under the head Loss of consortium is awarded then the claimants are not entitled for further compensation under the head loss love and affection.

JUDGMENT :

These appeals arise out of the award dated 31.10.2017 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta in O.P(MV).No.190 of 2012. M.A.C.A.No.3234 of 2019 is filed by the claimants and M.A.C.A.No.1309 of 2018 is filed by the additional 3rd respondent insurer in that claim petition. Since common issues are raised, these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. The parties are referred to in this judgment, as they appear in M.A.C.A.No.3234 of 2019.

2. M.A.C.A.No.3234 of 2019 :- The appellants are the claimants in O.P.(MV)No.190 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the death of one Anoop N.Nampoothiry, son of the 1st appellant and brother of the 2nd appellant, in a motor accident which occurred on 30.08.2009, while he was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-27/A-1249. At the place of accident, the motorcycle was hit by a Toyota Innova car bearing registration No.KL-30/7003 driven by the 1st respondent, owned by the 2nd respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. In the accident, he sustained fatal injuries, who succumbed to the injuries at the place of accident itself. Alleging that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car by the 1st respondent driver, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal, claiming a total compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- under various heads.

2.1. Before the Tribunal, respondents 1 and 2 did not file any written statement. The 3rd respondent insurer filed written statement admitting insurance coverage of the car involved in the accident; however denying negligence alleged against the 1st respondent driver. The insurer alleged contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The insurer disputed the age, monthly income, etc. stated in the claim petition. The insurer contended that the compensation claimed is exorbitant.

2.2. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A56 were marked on the side of the claimants. Both sides have not chosen to adduce any oral evidence.

2.3. 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 car by the 1st respondent driver. Since insurance coverage of the said vehicle was not in dispute, the 3rd respondent insurer was held liable to indemnify the insured. Under various heads, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.21,33,000/-and directed the 3rd respondent insurer to satisfy the award, together with interest at the rate 9% per annum from the date of petition, i.e., from 29.02.2012, till realisation, with proportionate cost.

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

3. M.A.C.A.No.1309 of 2018:-The additional 3rd respondent insurer in O.P.(MV)No.190 of 2012 has filed this appeal, by contending that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is on the higher side.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent insurer (the appellant in M.A.C.A.No.1309 of 2018).

5. The issue that arises for consideration in these appeals is as to whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads represents just and reasonable compensation.

6. 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 circumsta