JUDGMENT Mr. Nawab Singh, J. (Oral):- This claimants’ appeal is directed against the Award dated August 28, 2009 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (for short “the Tribunal”). 2. On November 17, 2004 at about 6:00/6:15 PM, Amar Singh (deceased), aged 35 years, working as a Foreman in a Firm in the name and style “Anand Nishikawa, Lalru” drawing a salary of Rs.6000/- per month was on his way from his workplace to his house on his motorcycle bearing No.HR-02K-2567 followed by another employee Ram Kumar on his motor-cycle. When they reached Kurali road, a truck bearing No.HR-68-1985, driven by Ram Anuj Gupta, came from behind at fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner, struck against the motor-cycle of Amar Singh. Amar Singh suffered multiple injuries and died on the spot. FIR No.127 under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the driver of the truck in Police Station Lalru. Postmortem examination was conducted. The report is Ex.C2. 3. Widow, three minor children and parents of the deceased filed claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal at Patiala. The Tribunal, on the basis of evidence brought on record, that is, the salary certificate (Ex.PW4/A) duly proved by Gopal Dutt, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6000/- per month. After deducting 1/3rd for his personal and living expenses, the dependency was assessed at Rs.4000/- per month. The deceased was 35 years old, so, the Tribunal applied multiplier of 12. By applying the same, Tribunal assessed the amount of compensation at Rs.5,76,000/-. Besides, a sum of Rs.5,000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses. Thus, a total compensation of Rs.5,81,000/- was awarded along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim application till its realization. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the findings of the Tribunal on following three grounds: - (i) That 1/3rd deduction has been wrongly made for personal and living expenses, particularly when the family consisted of widow, three minor children and parents of the deceased. So, deduction should have been 1/4th instead of 1/3rd. (ii) That the multiplier should have been 16 instead of 12 as applied by the Tribunal. (iii) That no compensation has been awarded towards loss of consortium. 5. So, deduction should have been 1/4th instead of 1/3rd. (ii) That the multiplier should have been 16 instead of 12 as applied by the Tribunal. (iii) That no compensation has been awarded towards loss of consortium. 5. The deceased was 35 years old, so in view of judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, [2009(3) Law Herald (SC) 2107 : 2010(1) Law Herald (Acc.) (SC) 65] : 2009(6) SCC 121 and reiterated by a 3-Judge Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Reshma Kumari and others vs. Madan Mohan and another, [2013(2) Law Herald (SC) 1583] ; 2013(2) RCR (Civil) 660, considering size of the family, 1/4th is deducted from the income of the deceased for his personal and living expenses and multiplier of 16 is applied. After deducting 1/4th and applying the multiplier of 16, the amount of loss of dependency comes to Rs.8,64,000/- (6000- 1500=4500x12x16). 6. A Full Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others, [2013(4) Law Herald (SC) 3006 : 2013(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2274 (SC)] : 2013 ACJ 1403, while commenting upon the amount which requires to be awarded for the loss of consortium, held as under: - “The ratio of a decision of this Court on a legal issue is a predecent. But an observation made by this Court, mainly to achieve uniformity and consistency on a socio-economic issue, as contrasted from a legal principle, though a precedent, can be, and in fact ought to be, periodically revisited, as observed in Santosh Devi, 2012 ACJ 1428 (SC). We may, therefore, revisit the practice of awarding compensation under conventional heads: (i) loss of consortium to the spouse; (ii) loss of love, care and guidance to children; and (iii) funeral expenses. It may be noted that the sum of Rs.2500/- to Rs.10000/- under those heads was fixed several decades ago and having regard to inflation factor, the same needs to be increased. In Sarla Verma’s case, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), it was held that compensation for loss of consortium should be in the range of Rs.5000 to Rs.10000/-. In legal parlance, ‘consortium’ is the right of the spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate. In Sarla Verma’s case, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), it was held that compensation for loss of consortium should be in the range of Rs.5000 to Rs.10000/-. In legal parlance, ‘consortium’ is the right of the spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate. That non-pecuniary head of damages has not been properly understood by our courts. The loss of companionship, love, care and protection, etc., which the spouse is entitled to get, has to be compensated appropriately. The concept of nonpecuniary damage for loss of consortium is one of the major heads of award of compensation in other parts of the world, more particularly in the United States of America, Australia, etc. English courts have also recognized the right of a spouse to get compensation even during the period of temporary disablement. By loss of consortium, the courts have made an attempt to compensate the loss of spouse’s affection, comfort, solace, companionship, society, assistance, protection, care and sexual relations during the future years. Unlike the compensation awarded in other countries and other jurisdictions, since the legal heirs are otherwise adequately compensated for the pecuniary loss, it would not be proper to award a major amount under this head. Hence, we are of the view that it would be only be just and reasonable that the courts award at least Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium.” Since the deceased was 35 years old and keeping in view the concept of consortium referred to above, this Court awards an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium to Jaswinder Kaur-widow of Amar Singh (deceased)-appellant No.1. Thus, total compensation of Rs.9,64,000/- (8,64,000+1,00,000) is awarded to the claimants-appellants. 7. The interest shall be paid by the Insurance Company on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of the claim application till the earlier amount was deposited by the Insurance Company under the impugned Award at the same rate of interest, as was awarded by the Tribunal. 8. The appeal is disposed of accordingly in the manner indicated above. ---------0.B.S.0------------ ——————————