Heard Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel

appearing for the respondent No. 3.

2. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is presented against the Judgment and Award dated 22.06.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, (FTC) No. 3, Kamrup (M), at Guwahati in MAC Case No. 132/2013 for enhancement of the awarded compensation of Rs. 5,89,000/- together with interest at 6% per

annum.

Page 2

3. The brief facts of the case are that the widow of the deceased, along with her two sons, namely, Raju Deka and Kaju Deka, aged about 20 years and 19 years respectively, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation on account of the death of the deceased, Lt. Bani Deka, who was the husband of the claimant No.1 and

father of claimant Nos.2 and 3, in a road traffic accident.

4. Upon consideration of the evidence and materials available on record, the learned Tribunal determined the

compensation under the following heads: i) Lost of dependency : Rs. 5,04,000/-

(Rs. 36,000/-x14)

ii) Funeral expenses : Rs. 25,000/- iii) Loss of consortium : Rs. 50,000/- iv) Loss of estate : Rs. 10,000/-

Total : Rs. 5,89,000/-

5. The specific case of the appellants is that, notwithstanding the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, no amount towards future prospects was assessed or awarded by the learned Tribunal. It is further contended that the compensation towards loss of consortium was also not determined in accordance with the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra). Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal

has been preferred.

Page 3

6. Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), submits that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is not in conformity with the principles laid down therein. He submits that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the future prospects of the deceased and awarded only Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium, instead of the amount permissible under the applicable principles. It is further submitted that the monthly income of the deceased was assessed at Rs.4,500/- despite evidence on record establishing his monthly income at Rs.5,000/-. Learned counsel also submits that the amount awarded towards loss of estate, i.e.

Rs.10,000/-, is also liable to be enhanced.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants accordingly submits that, upon taking into consideration the future prospects of the deceased, the appropriate amount towards loss of consortium and loss of estate, the compensation payable to the appellants

deserves to be enhanced to Rs.9,78,000/-.

8. Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, in his usual fairness, concedes that the learned Tribunal erred in not awarding compensation towards future prospects and in not determining the compensation under the head of loss of consortium in accordance with the principles

laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra).

9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

Page 4

10. The Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) has, while laying down the principles governing the determination of

compensation, held as follows:

“59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-

59.1. The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than

what has been held by another coordinate Bench.

59.2. As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, th