JUDGMENT :

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

1. Heard Sri Zafar Aziz, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ravindra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 8.

2. As per service report dated 07.05.2019, service upon respondent No. 9 is sufficient, but nobody appears on her behalf.

3. This appeal has been filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "the Act, 1988”) challenging the judgment and award dated 31.07.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 05, Barabanki (in short "the Tribunal") in Claim Petition No. 29/2013 in Re Smt. Renu and others Vs. Smt. Meena Dixit.

4. The claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 8 filed claim petition, claiming compensation against the owner of the offending vehicle/opposite party No. 9 and the Insurance Company-the appellant, on account of death of Ayodhya Prasad Yadav, their predecessor, in the accident dated 05.10.2012 caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Maruti Car No. U.P.32-CQ-0456.

5. After contest, the Tribunal vide judgment and award dated 31.07.2018 allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation amount of Rs. 42, 05,038/- in total, with interest @ 7 % thereon from the date of filing of the claim petition up to the date of payment.

6. The Tribunal recorded finding that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, being driven by its driver. The offending vehicle, at the time of accident had valid and effective documents and was insured with the appellant herein. The driver at the time of accident, was having valid and effective driving licence. Accordingly, the compensation, as mentioned above, was awarded in favour of the claimants.

7. The appeal was filed challenging the award on different grounds, but at the time of arguments Sri Zafar Aziz, learned counsel for the appellant confines the challenge to the quantum of compensation awarded and that too without challenging the findings of the Tribunal on the age and income of the deceased. The multiplier as applied by the Tribunal has also not been challenged.

8. The only submission of Sri Zafar Aziz is that the Tribunal erred in making one- fifth (1/5th) deduction towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, which should have been one-fourth (1/4th); and the amount of Rs. 15,000/- under the head of “loss of love and affection” could not have been awarded at all, as in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (4) TAC 673 (SC) : (2017) 16 SCC 680, any such head, for grant of compensation is not mentioned. The compensation could be awarded under the conventional heads of “loss of consortium”, “loss of estate” and “funeral expenses” and the amount under those heads could only be awarded.

9. Sri Ravindra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the claimant-respondents submits that the deduction of one- fifth (1/5th) towards personal and living expenses of the deceased is perfectly justified, which is as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), as there are 8 dependant family members of the deceased.

10. Sri Ravindra Pratap Singh further submits that the amount of Rs. 15,000/- has been rightly awarded, under the head of “loss of love and affection”, as the amount of compensation under the head of “loss of consortium” has not been awarded to all the claimants but to only one claimant as the amount under the head of “loss of consortium” is only 40,000/-. The amount of Rs. 15,000/- awarded under the head of “loss of love and affection” is in fact also for “loss of consortium” to the claimants. He submits that all the claimants would be entitled for compensation for loss of consortium @ 40,000/- per head and considering this aspect, the award of Rs. 15,000/- though mentioned under the head of “loss of love and affection”