Compensation for loss of consortium encompasses spousal and parental elements without separate consideration for loss of love and affection; future income prospects must reflect a 25% increase based on age and dependents.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Vijay Kr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr. Rajesh Kr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and Ms. Shweta Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 09.02.2023 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge-1, Chatra in Motor Accident Claim Case No.07 of 2018 for enhancement of the claim.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the claimants before the learned Tribunal were the wife and three minor children of the deceased. He further submits that the claim case was instituted stating that on 26.06.2016 the deceased Kangresh Bhuiyan was returning from Dobhi to his house at village – Majhgawan on a bus bearing Registration No. BR-2Q-7951. When the bus reached at Nagar at around 6:00 hours, then the electric wire got entangled in the neck of deceased Kangresh Bhuiyan due to which he fell down on the road and got seriously injured. He submits that the deceased was forced to sit on the roof of the bus by the driver and khalasi. The deceased was taken to Hunterganj Hospital from where he was referred to Nagar Medical Hospital but while he was being taken, he died on the way. He submits that on this ground the claim case was filed. He further submits that the learned tribunal has been pleased to allow a total sum of Rs.11,78,800/- and wrongly considered the notional income to the tune of Rs.9,000/- only wherein the deceased was a semi-skilled worker. He submits in view of that the monthly income may kindly be modified. According to him, the loss of consortium has been wrongly allowed to the tune of Rs.40,000/- in a case where the spouse and three minor children are claimants, the future prospect has been wrongly considered as 10% in place of 25% in light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the deduction has also been wrongly made as 1/3^rd in place of 1/4^th and the interest is also not in accordance with law.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company opposes the prayer and submits that the insurance company has already complied and satisfied the award and the entire payment has already been made. She submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order and the learned Court has rightly calculated the quantum. On this ground, she submits that this appeal may kindly be dismissed.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the owner submits that the vehicle in question was insured and the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the award and there is no illegality in the impugned award.

6. It is an admitted position that the death has occurred. From the impugned award, it transpires that the appellants herein were not placed any document to suggest that the deceased was a skilled or unskilled worker and even not the oral evidence has been led on that fact and in view of that the learned Tribunal has calculated the income on notional basis and in that view of the matter so far the income is concerned there is no illegality in the award, as such the contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellants are not being accepted by this Court. The age of the deceased was said to be 42 years in light of the postmortem report and in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC 680 the future prospect for the age between 40 to 50 years it should be 25% and in that