The Court determined compensation adjustments based on judicial precedents, ensuring non-duplication in claims under various heads.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the third respondent/insurance company in O.P (MV) No.1444 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The respondents herein are the petitioners before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimants, on 26.12.2006 at about 06.15 pm, while the deceased was walking along side the Kinnasherri - Kunnathukavu road, a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-10-Y- 5478 driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the deceased. As a result of the accident, the deceased had sustained serious injuries and later succumbed to the injuries. The claimants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹5,00,000/-.

3. The first respondent/owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte before the tribunal. The second respondent/driver filed a written statement contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and that the vehicle was duly insured with the third respondent. The 3^rd respondent/insurer filed a written statement admitting the validity of the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed.

Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A3 and Exts.B1 and B2 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹5,55,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs against the 3^rd respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the insurance company has come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant.

5. The learned standing counsel for the appellant/insurance company challenges under the following heads :

Compensation for loss of estate :-The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that the tribunal has granted an amount of ₹25,000/- as compensation towards loss of estate and going by the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), the compensation under the conventional heads ought to have been fixed at ₹15,000/- each. Thus, following the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), there will be a deduction of ₹10,000/-

towards loss of estate.

Compensation for funeral expenses :- The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that the tribunal has granted an amount of ₹25,000/- as compensation towards funeral expenses and going by the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), the compensation under the conventional heads ought to have been fixed at ₹15,000/- each. Thus, following the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), there will be a deduction of ₹10,000/- towards funeral expenses.

Loss of consortium/loss of love and affection & mental agony :- The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the tribunal has not granted any compensation towards loss of consortium. Following the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants are entitled to get a total compensation of ₹2,40,000/- (40,000 x 6) under the head loss of consortium. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to get a total compensation of ₹2,40,000/-

under the head, loss of consortium.

On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the tribunal has granted an amount of ₹1,50,000/- under the head mental agony. Since compensation is awarded under the head loss of consortium, I find that no amount shall be awarded under the head mental agony. Accordingly, I delete ₹1,50,000/- awarded by the tribunal under the head mental agony.

The learned standing counsel appearing for the i