The court clarified that awards for 'loss of love and affection' and 'filial consortium' must adhere to established legal principles, affirming that emotional damages not substantiated by precedent can be invalidated.

JUDGMENT :

C.S.SUDHA, J.

This appeal under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (the Act) has been filed by the 3^rd respondent/insurer in O.P. (MV) No.104/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 31/08/2019. The respondents herein are claimants 1 & 2 and respondents 1 & 2 respectively in the petition. In this appeal, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition.

2. The claimants/petitioners are the parents of the deceased. According to the claimants, on 19/10/2015 at about 2:30 a.m. the deceased was travelling in a jeep bearing registration No.KL-11-P-2071 along with some other friends. When the Jeep reached at B.P.Angadi, Bypass road, a lorry bearing registration No.KL-55-B-8476 driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner and in great speed collided with the jeep as a result of which the deceased sustained grievous injuries to which he succumbed. The incident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1^st respondent/driver of the lorry. Hence, the claimants/petitioners claimed a sum of Rs.97,00,000/- as compensation under various heads.

3. The 1^st respondent/driver and the 2nd respondent/owner remained ex parte.

4. The 3^rd respondent/insurance company filed written statement. The rashness and negligence of the lorry driver was denied. The occupation, income etc. of the deceased were disputed. It was also contended that the claim made was excessive and exorbitant.

5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A14 were marked on the side of the claimants/petitioners. No documentary evidence was produced by the respondents.

6. The Tribunal on a consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the 1^st respondent/driver of the lorry resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of Rs.24,38,000/- together with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the 3^rd respondent/insurer has come up in appeal.

7. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court.

8. Heard both sides.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submitted that the Tribunal went wrong in granting 'loss of filial consortium' as well as compensation for 'loss of love and affection' and hence the Award is liable to be interfered with. In the light of the dictum in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram , (2018) 18 SCC 130 : 2018 KHC 6697 , United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur , AIR 2020 SC 3076 : 2023 KHC 760 and The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Somwati , 2020 (9) SCC 644 : 2020 KHC 6530 the grant of compensation under the head 'loss of love and affection' and 'loss of consortium' is apparently incorrect and therefore the compensation that is awarded under the head 'loss of love and affection' will have to be set aside. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company, the 1^st petitioner is also entitled to loss of filial consortium of Rs.40,000/-. As per the dictum in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi , 2017 (5) KHC 350 : 2017 (16) SCC 680 the amount awarded under the head loss of consortium is liable to be increased by 10% every three years. The Tribunal has not granted any amount towards consortium for the 1^st