JUDGMENT :

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 10.03.2021 passed in the claim petition filed under Sections 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaithal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) whereby the claimants were granted compensation to the tune of Rs.24,78,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, on account of death of Ravi in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 05.11.2018 and the appellant-Insurance Company was held liable to pay compensation to the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 05.11.2018, Ravi (since deceased) along with his real elder brother were engaged in masonry work at village Chochra, Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal. At about 6 P.M, when they reached near Dera Sardaraon Wala, a tractor was going ahead of them but all of sudden, the driver stopped his tractor trolley in the center of the road for replying on his mobile phone, due to which he fell on the road, suffered injuries on his body. He was taken to Cygnus Hospital, Kaithal, where doctor declared him dead. FIR No. 598 dated 06.11.2018 was registered against respondent No. 1 under Sections 283/304-A of IPC.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, the respondents appeared and filed their separate replies denying the factum of accident/compensation.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether Ravi Kumar son of Roshan Lal had died in a road- side accident, which was caused by the respondent No. I on 05.11.2018, at about 06:00 PM, within the area of P.S.Pundri. by driving the vehicle No. HR-08Q-5073, in a negligent manner? OPP

2. If issue No. 1 is proved in the affirmative, whether the claimants are entitled to some compensation amount; if so. what should be the quantum and who has to pay it, out of the respondents? OPP

3. Whether the respondent No. I was not holding a valid and effective Driving Licence at the time of accident? OPR

4. Whether the vehicle in question was being driven in contravention of provisions under M.V.Act and the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy Contract? OPR

5. Relief.”

5. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, learned Tribunal has awarded compensation to the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Hence the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant–Insurance Company submits that the deceased, Ravi, had himself contributed to the occurrence of the accident. He further contends that the deceased failed to maintain a safe distance of approximately 10–15 feet from the vehicle ahead, thereby violating basic road safety norms and traffic regulations. On this premise, it is argued that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence and, therefore, the liability could not have been fastened entirely upon the offending vehicle.

7. He further contends that the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is excessive and not in consonance with the evidence available on record. The income of the deceased has been assessed on the higher side without any reliable documentary evidence or material substantiating such determination.

8. Learned counsel further submits that learned Tribunal has committed an error in law by awarding compensation separately under the heads of “loss of consortium” as well as “loss of love and affection.” He has placed reliance upon the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017) 16 SCC 680] to contend that compensation under the head of “loss of love and affection” is not permissible, and the claimants are entitled only to compensation under the conventional head of “loss of consortium.”

9. On the strength of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel prays that the present appeal be allowed and the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal be