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. Therefore, the 3rd appellant, who is the sibling of the deceased is not entitled for payment of any compensation under the head loss of consortium or loss of love and affection.

JUDGMENT :

The appellants are the claimants in O.P.(MV)No.1560 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the death of one Shine @ Shiny, daughter of appellants 1 and 2 and sister of the 3rd appellant, in a motor accident which occurred on 13.07.2007, while she was riding a scooter bearing registration No.KL-07/BC-2403 with her brother Sadath as pillion rider. At the place of accident, on seeing a motorcycle overtaking through the left side, the deceased rider turned the scooter to the right side. The scooter accidentally hit on the central median of M.G.Road. The rider and the pillion rider fell down, on the other side of the central median, who were ran over by a bus bearing registration No.KL-07/AQ-1939 owned by the 1st respondent, driven by the 2nd respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. In the accident, both the rider and pillion rider sustained fatal injuries, who died on the spot. Alleging that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the 2nd respondent driver, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal, claiming a total compensation of Rs.6,21,000/-under various heads, which was limited to Rs.5,00,000/-for the purpose of payment of court fee.

2. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent owner and the 2nd respondent driver of the bus remained absent and they were set ex parte. The 3rd respondent insurer filed written statement admitting insurance coverage of the bus involved in the accident; however, denying the negligence alleged against the 2nd respondent driver. The insurer contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the deceased in riding the scooter. At the time of accident, the 2nd respondent driver was not holding a valid driving licence and badge and therefore, the insurer is not liable to indemnify the insured. The insurer contended further that the compensation claimed is highly excessive.

3. The 4th respondent insurer filed written statement admitting insurance coverage of the scooter involved in the accident, however denying the negligence alleged against the deceased, who was riding that scooter. They disputed the liability to pay compensation, by contending that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the 2nd respondent driver of the bus.

4. Before the Tribunal, the claim petition was tried along with connected case. Exts.A1 to A9 were marked and PW1 was examined on the side of the claimants. The respondents have not chosen to adduce any oral or documentary evidence.

5. 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 2nd respondent driver and also on account of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The Tribunal fixed negligence between the 2nd respondent and the deceased in the ratio 50:50. Since the 3rd respondent insurer failed to prove the alleged violation of the conditions of policy, the insurer was held liable to indemnify the insured. Under various heads, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,53,000/-and after deducting 50% based on the finding on the question of contributory negligence, the claimants are found entitled for a sum of Rs.3,26,500/-, together with interest at the rate 8% per annum from the date of petition, i.e., from 30.07.2008, till the date of realisation, with proportionate cost and directed the 3rd respondent insurer to satisfy the award. The amount of compensation was ordered to be apportioned among the claimants, equally.

6. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads and also the finding of the Tribunal on the question of contributory negligence, the appellants/claimants are before this Court in this appeal.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/ claimants and als