The court clarified the principles for awarding compensation under the heads of loss of consortium, future prospects, and general damages in motor accident cases.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep Mehta, J. - The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant claimants herein being aggrieved of the judgment-cum-award dated 01.12.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nathdwara in MAC Case No.130/2005, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants seeking damages pursuant to the death of Smt. Sayari, wife of the appellant-claimant No.1 and mother of the appellant claimant No.2 in a road accident was partly accepted and they were awarded a total sum of Rs.1,43,000/- as damages. The appeal has been preferred seeking enhancement in the quantum of damages awarded to the appellants.

2. While deciding the claim case, the Tribunal held the owner of the offending vehicle, namely, Nandlal and the insurance company, i.e. the New India Assurance Company Limited, jointly and severally responsible to satisfy the award. Since the findings of the Tribunal regarding the entitlement of the claimants to damages and regarding the liability of the insurance company and the owner of the truck to bear the damages jointly and severally have not been challenged, the same have attained finality.

3. The appellants have sought enhancement in the damages on numerous counts. However, during the course of arguments, Mr. Rishabh Shrimali, learned counsel representing the appellants, urged that the deceased was a 47 years old lady. The claimants gave evidence establishing the fact that she was earning a sum of Rs.4000/- per month by rearing cattle and selling milk as well as by doing labour job. The Tribunal wrongly omitted to award any compensation to the claimants towards general damages, rise in income by future prospects as well loss of consortium. Mr. Shrimali relied upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors.,2018 4 MACD(SC) 273 and urged that the Tribunal was under an obligation to award compensation to both the claimants under the head of loss of consortium as well.

4. Mr. Sanjeev Johari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellants' counsel. He submitted that the claimants did not lead plausible evidence to establish the income of the deceased. He did not dispute the age of the deceased, which as per the ration card (Ex.A/2) was 47 years. However, as per Mr. Johari, since in the five Judges Bench decision in the case of [ National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680 ], no criterion has been approved regarding the award of compensation under the head of loss of consortium, the appellant cannot claim any enhancement on that count.

5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at bar and gone through the material available on record.

6. The evidence of the appellant-claimant Pratap examined as A.W.1 and the averments made in the pleading of the claim petition regarding the income of the deceased are contrary to each other. Whilst in the claim petition, the claimants mentioned that the deceased used to do the job of rearing cattle and selling milk etc. and that she also used to do labour jobs, whereby she used to earn Rs.2000/- per month under each head. On the contrary, upon being examined as A.W.1, the claimant Pratap alleged that his wife used to do the job of selling milk, by which she used to earn Rs.5000/- per month. However, in his evidence, there is no assertion regarding the deceased being indulged in labour job as well. No other evidence was led to prove the income of the deceased. Thus, I have no hesitation in holding that the income of the deceased has to be fixed at Rs.2000/- per month.

7. The contention advanced by Mr. Shrimali that both the appellants would be entitled for damages under the head of loss of consortium is justifiable. In the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court approv