V. H. BHAIRAVIA, J. ( 1 ) IN the present appeal, the appellant has brought in challenge the judgment and award dated 8th February, 1983 passed by Motor Accident Claims tribunal (Main) Junagadh in M. A. C. Petition Nos. 304/81 and 305/81 where by the petitioners of both the petitions were awarded sum of Rs. 87,000 as compensation with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 6% from the date of application till realisation under the common award. ( 2 ) THE unfortunate accident has taken place on 29th May, 1981 at about 9. 30 a. m. on Junagadh Veraval Highway at the sign-board of village Shantipara. Deceased karman @ Kama Rama aged about 38 years along with his wife Ashbai Kama, aged about 35 years, had just alighted from a bus and were proceeding towards their village when from the opposite side came another bus and crushed them both. Unfortunate couple died on the spot due to injuries sustained by them. Claimant No. 1 is mother of deceased Kama Rama and Claimant Nos. 2 to 5 are the children of deceased couple. Claimants claimed compensation amount of Rs. 60,000 in respect of deceased Karman rama while claimants claimed Rs. 50,000 as compensation in the case of death of ashbai Kama in two separate claim petitions. Claimants in all claimed Rs. 1,10,000 by way of compensation from the opponents. However, as the both the claim petition had arisen out of one accident and claimants in both the petitions were same, both petition were heard together and by composite order, the learned Tribunal awarded sum of Rs. 87,000 as compensation to the claimants for deaths of both the persons. ( 3 ) IN this appeal, the short point involved and vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company is whether the claimants are entitled to the compensation under the head pain, shock and sufferings as has been awarded by the learned Tribunal in this case. Mr. M. D. Pandya, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company further submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,000 under the head of pain, shock and sufferings and further Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses which the claimants are not entitled to receive. Mr. M. D. Pandya, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company further submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,000 under the head of pain, shock and sufferings and further Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses which the claimants are not entitled to receive. The learned counsel further submitted that evidence reveals that both victims died on the spot and, therefore, the claimants arc not entitled to receive any amount of compensation under the head pain, shock and sufferings. The learned counsel has submitted that this issue has been dealt with by this court in the judgment in the case of Union Co-operative insurance Society Ltd. vs. Bhartiben, wd/o Hasmukhlal Narmadashankar and Ors. , reported in 19 G. L. R. 820. Learned counsel has further submitted that this issue is squarely covered by the above-reffered judgment and, therefore, claimants are not entitled to the compensation amount of Rs. 10,000 as has been awarded by the learned tribunal under the head pain, shock and sufferings. ( 4 ) IN the case of Union Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd. (supra), in para - 20, this Court has observed as under :"the law at one time was that there could not be damages for nervous shock. However, this view has been abandoned since long. For last several years it is well settled that damages can be given for nervous shock caused by the sight of an accident, at any rate to a close relative. (See : llinz vs. Berry, (1970) All England Law Reports 1074 at P. 1075 ). The fundamental principles underlying the award of damages in respect of the tort of negligence must, however, govern an action for compensation for menial or nervous shock. The first of such principles is that such damage must be attributable to the breach by the defendant of some duty owing to the plaintiff; damnum sine injuria (See : Hay ( or Bourhill) vs. Young, 1943 appeal Cases 92 at Page 106 per Lord Wright In case of negligence, the duty is to take reasonable care against harm which a reasonable man would foresee as likely. Therefore, there is no liability for damage which was not of a foreseeable type within the scope of the duty of care. Foreseeability is now the sole test of whether damages are recovrable in ngligence ( See halsburys Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Vol. XII Para 1138 ). Therefore, there is no liability for damage which was not of a foreseeable type within the scope of the duty of care. Foreseeability is now the sole test of whether damages are recovrable in ngligence ( See halsburys Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Vol. XII Para 1138 ). It is obvious, therefore, that the test of liability for shock is foreseeability of injury by shock ( see obsevations of Denning L. J. in King vs. Phillips (1953) I. Q. B. 429, at page 441 cited with approval by Viscount Simonds in overseas Tankship ( U. K.) vs. Marts Dock and Engineering Co. (1961) a. C. 388 at 425-426 ). The second principle is that no damages are awardable for grief or sorrow caused by death of a close relative because, in any event, such death would have caused much sorrow and mouring. The court must draw a line between mental anguish and suffering, for which damages are not recoverable and nervous shock, that is to say, any recognisable psychiatric illness which mainfests itself on account of one having witnessed the accident, for which damages are recoverable. In other words, to claim damges on account of mental shock and suffering, there must be positive evidence showing that there is something more than mere sorrow or grief or mourning, and that additional or extra element has taken the form of any recognizable psychiatric illness which is attributable, and really wholly attributable, to the misfortune of having actually witnessed the accident. " ( 5 ) IN the instant case also, deceased couple was crushed by ST Bus and they died on the spot. There was, therefore, no question of pain, shock and suffering as the death caused due to accident was instantaneous. In our view, therefore, in view of the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment, the claimants are not entitled to the compensation under the head pain, shock and sufferings. In our view, therefore, amount of Rs. 10,000 awarded to the claimants under the head pain, shock and sufferings, requires to be reduced or deducted from the total amount of compensation awarded to the claimants. ( 6 ) IT has been submitted by Mr. M. D. Pandya, learned counsel for the appellant insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal has also erred in awarding Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses which the claimants are not entitled to recover under any head. ( 6 ) IT has been submitted by Mr. M. D. Pandya, learned counsel for the appellant insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal has also erred in awarding Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses which the claimants are not entitled to recover under any head. He submitted that such expenditure is bound to inccur in future even in the event of natural death and the claimants are required to discharge their social and religious obligations. In court opinion, the claimants are not entitled to the said amount of Rs. 2,000 awarded for funeral expenses and this amount also requires to be deducted from the total amount of compensation. In our view, therefore, the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding Rs. 12,000/- (Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 2,000/-) under the head Pain, shock and sufferings and Fuernal Expenses respectively and said amount of Rs. 12,000/- is required to be deducted from the total amount of compensation awarded to the claimants and award requires to be modified to that extent. ( 7 ) APPEAL is partly allowed. It is held that amount of Rs. 12,000/- awarded by the tribunal under the head of pain, shock and sufferings (Rs. 10,000) and Funeral expenses (Rs. 2,000) is not legal and proper and requires to be deducted from the total amount of compensation of Rs. 87,000 awarded by the Tribunal and said amount is ordered to be deducted accordingly. Respondents are directed to repay said amount of rs. 12,000 within eight weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this order with 6% interest. Award stands modified to the aforesaid extent. Decree to be drawn accordingly. No order as to costs. .