The appellate court has authority to modify awards for excessive claims based on established legal precedents.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) has been filed by the second respondent/insurer in O.P.(MV) No.1681/2017 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the Award dated 02/04/2019. The respondents herein are the claim petitioners in the original petition. In this appeal, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition.

2. According to the claim petitioners, on 14/04/2017 at 08:15 a.m., while the deceased was walking along with his father through the Thiruvankulam-Muvattupuzha road, goods van bearing registration No.KL-29/F-6334 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries to which he succumbed. An amount of ₹20,00,000/- was claimed as compensation under various heads.

3. The second respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the policy, but denying negligence on the part of the first respondent/driver. The age, job, income, amounts claimed etc. were disputed. It was also contended that the amount claimed was exorbitant.

4. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners. No documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents.

5. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the first respondent/driver of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹13,86,000/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the second respondent/insurer has come up in appeal.

6. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court.

7. Heard both sides.

Filial consortium An amount of ₹1,20,000/- is seen awarded by the Tribunal.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the second respondent/insurer that going by the settled precedents, it is only the parents who are entitled to compensation towards loss of filial consortium. However, in this case, the third claim petitioner, who is the brother of the deceased has also been given an amount of ₹40,000/- towards loss of consortium, which is an error committed by the Tribunal, and hence the same needs to be rectified.

7.1. Going by the dictums inMagma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram , (2018) 18 SCC 130: 2018 KHC 6697, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur , AIR 2020 SC 3076 : 2023 KHC 760 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Somwati , 2020 KHC 6530 : (2020) 9 SCC 644, the claim petitioners 1 and 2 who are admittedly the parents of the deceased are entitled to an amount of ₹40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium. The third claim petitioner is the brother of the deceased who going by the aforesaid dictums is not entitled to any compensation towards loss of consortium. Therefore, the amount to which the claim petitioners would be entitled under this head would be ₹80,000/- only.

Love and affection

8. An amount of ₹90,000/-, that is, at the rate of ₹30,000/- each is seen awarded by the Tribunal to the claim petitioners. It is well settled that when the compensation towards loss of consortium is granted, compensation towards love and affection cannot be granted. Therefore, the amount of ₹30,000/- each that has been given to the parents under the head 'loss of love and affection' shal