Judgment : 1. Heard Mr. Kantak, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Afonso, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 5. None present on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 4, though duly served after admission. In view of order dated 17.11.2011, appeal stands dismissed against respondent no. 6 for want of prosecution. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 19.03.2008, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa, Margao (M.A.C.T., for short), in Claim Petition No. 294/2005. 3. The appellant was respondent no. 2 in the said petition. The respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 were the applicants and respondents no. 4, 5 and 6 were respondents no. 3, 4 and 1 respectively in the said claim petition. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said claim petition. 4. The applicants had filed the said claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M. V. Act, for short) for grant of total compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- on account of death of the husband of applicant no. 1 and father of the applicants no. 2 and 3. The name of the deceased was Surendra Data Pagui alias Surendra Data Namshikar. 5. Case of the applicants, in short, was as follows:- On 22.07.2005, the deceased who was driver-cum-salesman working for respondent no. 3 since June, 2003, as usual, loaded the vehicle Canter Swaraj Mazda, bearing registration no. GA-02/U-6092, belonging to the respondent no. 3 and insured with respondent no. 4, with the sales items and proceeded from Canacona Industrial Estate to Vasco-da-Gama. When he reached Upasnagar, Birla, a KRTC bus bearing registration no. KA-28/F-1107, belonging to the respondent no. 2 and driven by respondent no. 1 in rash and negligent manner gave dash to the said canter causing serious injuries to him and one another person travelling with him. As a result of the said accident, the deceased died on 30.07.2005 at Goa Medical College, Bambolim. The accident took place entirely due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1. The deceased was 40 years old working as driver-cum-salesman for respondent no. 3 and was earning monthly income of Rs. 5,500/-. 6. The respondents no. As a result of the said accident, the deceased died on 30.07.2005 at Goa Medical College, Bambolim. The accident took place entirely due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1. The deceased was 40 years old working as driver-cum-salesman for respondent no. 3 and was earning monthly income of Rs. 5,500/-. 6. The respondents no. 1 and 2 filed written statement denying the case of the applicants and stated that the deceased was driving the Canter Swaraj Mazda carelessly, without looking at the traffic from opposite direction and at a fast speed and in rash and negligent manner. They pleaded that the said canter came in the direction of bus and though respondent no. 1 tried to avoid the dash, however he could not, and the said canter dashed against the bus. They stated that the KRTC bus was driven slowly and by observing all the Rules on the road. 7. Respondents no. 3 and 4 also denied the case of the applicants. They stated that the applicants did not have any cause of action against them, since the accident had taken place entirely because of rash and negligent driving of KRTC bus, driven by the respondent no. 1, and there was no negligence on the part of the deceased. 8. Accordingly, the learned M.A.C.T. framed issues as per the rival contentions of the parties. The applicants examined applicant no. 1, Smt. Neelima Pagui as AW-1; Shri Dashrath Rashalkar as AW-2; Shri Mohammed Altaf Kadar as AW-3; Shri Abdul Salam as AW-4; Dr. Madhu Ghodkirekar as AW-5 and Shri Subhash Talekar as AW-6. The respondents no. 1 and 2 examined the respondent no. 1, Shri Dharmaraj Tadalagi as RW-1; Shri Vithal Dhondappa Mane as RW-2 and Shri Sakaram Sitaram Kalse as RW-3. 9. Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned M.A.C.T. held that the accident had taken place entirely due to the fault of the driver of KRTC bus and that there was no contributory negligence or otherwise on the part of the deceased. The learned M.A.C.T. held that age of the deceased was 40 years and he was earning monthly income of Rs.5,500/-. Thus, applying the multiplier of 15 and deducting 1/3rd from the total, the learned M.A.C.T. held that the loss of dependency to which the applicants were entitled was Rs.6,60,000/-. The learned M.A.C.T. held that age of the deceased was 40 years and he was earning monthly income of Rs.5,500/-. Thus, applying the multiplier of 15 and deducting 1/3rd from the total, the learned M.A.C.T. held that the loss of dependency to which the applicants were entitled was Rs.6,60,000/-. Further an amount of Rs.20,000/- has been awarded by the learned M.A.C.T. towards promotion and future prospects, and an amount of Rs.5,000/-to the applicant no. 1 towards consortium, she being the wife of the deceased. An amount of Rs.5,000/-has been awarded to the applicants towards loss of estate as well as, towards loss of love and affection; an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and an amount of Rs.1,000/-towards transport charges. The total amount of compensation to which the applicants have been held to be entitled is Rs6,93,000/-. Accordingly, since an amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid to the applicants under section 140 of the M.V. Act, the claim petition was partly allowed, thereby awarding additional compensation of Rs.6,43,000/-to the applicants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of final payment. The respondent no. 2, aggrieved by the said judgment and award, has filed the present appeal. 10. Mr. Kantak, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2 submitted that the accident had occurred due to the fault of the deceased. He pointed out that AW-1, the wife of deceased was not an eye witness. He submitted that AW-2 was examined by the applicants as eye witness, but compared with the evidence of RW-1, the driver of the KRTC bus, RW-2 and RW-3, who were the passengers of the said bus, it was clear beyond doubt that AW-2 was not reliable and the accident had taken place due to the fault of deceased himself. He submitted that the testimony of RW-1, RW-2 and RW-3 corroborated with the panchanama and the sketch. He submitted that the evidence on record revealed that the deceased showed side-lights, but suddenly changed his direction and went straight and therefore, the accident occurred. In the alternative, the learned Counsel submitted that the learned M.A.C.T. wrongly held that this could not be said to be a case of contributory negligence. He submitted that the evidence on record revealed that the deceased showed side-lights, but suddenly changed his direction and went straight and therefore, the accident occurred. In the alternative, the learned Counsel submitted that the learned M.A.C.T. wrongly held that this could not be said to be a case of contributory negligence. According to him, the M.A.C.T., at least, ought to have held that there was contributory negligence in the ratio of 50:50, since it was the duty of drivers of both the vehicles to take appropriate care. He next submitted that the applicants had not proved that the salary of the deceased was Rs.5,500/-per month and pointed out that the salary certificate was private document having no support of other documents. He pointed out that as per the salary certificate, the deceased was allegedly working in a private firm as driver-cum-salesman only since 01.06.2003. He submitted that the evidence of the employer was manipulated. He further submitted that the question of granting sum of Rs. 20,000/-towards promotion and future prospects did not arise. He therefore, urged that the appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment and award be quashed and set aside or in the alternative, the compensation be reduced to more than half. 11. Mr. Afonso, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4, urged that the evidence on record did not at all establish any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and that the accident had occurred due to the rashness and total negligence of the respondent no. 1. 12. I have gone through the original record and proceedings and considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties. 13. There was no dispute that the accident had taken place involving the KRTC bus no. KA-28/F-1107 and Canter no. GA-02/U-6092 and that the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained in the said accident. The evidence of AW-5, Dr. Madhu Ghodkirekar, read with the Memorandum of Autopsy (Exhibit-15), proved that the death of deceased was due to craniocerebral damage with fracture for left thigh bone as a result of blunt force object or surface in an alleged motor vehicular accident. 14. The first point for determination is as to who was at fault for the accident, whether it was the deceased himself or the respondent no. 1 or whether there was contributory negligence. 15. 14. The first point for determination is as to who was at fault for the accident, whether it was the deceased himself or the respondent no. 1 or whether there was contributory negligence. 15. It is true that AW-1, who is the widow of the deceased was not an eye witness to the accident. However, she produced on record the First Information Report at Exhibit-44, which showed that the offence was registered against respondent no. 1, upon the complaint of the Head Constable, Shri Subhash Talekar. The complaint was initially registered for offence under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, against the respondent no. 1. That was the result of the investigation carried out by AW-6. 16. AW-2, Shri Dasharat Rashalkar was an eye witness to the said accident. In his affidavit-in-evidence, he specifically stated that he had witnessed the said accident which took place on 22.07.2005 at 10:10 hours at Upasnagar, Birla junction. He was the loader-cum-delivery boy, working for the respondent no. 3. He deposed that the deceased, Surendra Pagui was the driver of the Swaraj Mazda bearing no. GA-02/U-6092 and that the said Canter after loading with sale items from Canacona Industrial Estate was proceeding to Vasco-da-Gama for supplies. He further stated that at the time of the accident he was on the said Swaraj Mazda bearing registration no. GA-02/U-6092. He further stated that the said canter driven by Surendra Pagui when reached near Upasnagar, Birla, one KRTC bus bearing no. KA-28/F-1107 came at a very fast speed from the inner road from the left side to come on the four lane highway and it was driven in rash and negligent manner and gave dash on the front left side of the Canter driven by Surendra Pagui, as a result of which, Surendra Pagui was seriously injured and succumbed to injuries at Goa Medical College, Bambolim, whereas, AW-2 sustained injuries. He specifically stated that the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the KRTC bus by its driver. In his cross examination, AW-2 stated that they were proceeding from Canacona to Vasco-da-Gama and were supposed to supply goods at Vasco market. He denied the suggestion that at the time of the accident they were taking internal road which adjoins the national highway, which ends at Zuarinagar. In his cross examination, AW-2 stated that they were proceeding from Canacona to Vasco-da-Gama and were supposed to supply goods at Vasco market. He denied the suggestion that at the time of the accident they were taking internal road which adjoins the national highway, which ends at Zuarinagar. He also denied the suggestion that the truck in which they were travelling was in fast speed and when it reached the junction, the deceased could not control the vehicle and instead of taking it on the internal road, the vehicle proceeded on the national highway. He denied the suggestion that the accident had occurred on account of the fault of the deceased. He also denied the suggestion that he had not witnessed the accident and that at the relevant time he was dozing. 17. First of all, AW-2 was indisputably an eye witness to the accident. He was injured in the said accident and had filed Claim Petition No. 206/2006. The testimony of AW-2 was not at all shaken in his cross examination. Merely because AW-2 was working as loader for respondent no. 3 and deceased was working as driver for the same Company, the testimony of AW-2 could not be discarded by saying that it was of an interested witness. 18. AW-3, Mohammad Alfat Kadar, one of the panch witnesses to the panchanama of the scene of accident and sketch at Exhibit 52-colly, stated that the bus bearing no. KA-28/F-1107 was on the middle of the road facing towards northern direction and the Canter bearing no. GA-02/U-6092 was facing northern direction on the middle of the road. The front show of the bus was seen dashed to the middle laterite wall standing in the middle of the road. The bus had damages to its front side. The point of impact was 1.50 metres behind the Canter. The left front wheel of the Canter was broken and its right side door and front show was damaged. The sketch indicated that the bus was totally on the road proceeding to Margao facing north and the Canter was in the middle of the divider on the road facing north. The point of impact was 1.50 metres behind the Canter. The left front wheel of the Canter was broken and its right side door and front show was damaged. The sketch indicated that the bus was totally on the road proceeding to Margao facing north and the Canter was in the middle of the divider on the road facing north. Since, according to AW2, the dash was given by the bus to the left side of the Canter, as rightly observed by the M.A.C.T., from the position of the vehicles as shown in the sketch, read with the deposition of AW-2, it can be said that the bus was driven rashly and negligently and it entered the main road from the junction without taking precaution and dashed against the Canter proceeding from Margao towards Vasco. 19. RW-1, the respondent no. 1 stated in his affidavit-in-evidence that on 22.07.2005, he was driving the bus bearing registration no. KA-28/F-1107 and there were passengers in that bus and he was proceeding from Vasco to go to Bijapur via Birla. He stated that the bus made halts on the way for the passengers to get down and for collecting the passengers and was nearing the junction at Upasnagar at 10:15 hours, due to which the bus was driven in a slow speed and was brought to stop. He stated that there was a road leading to Vasco and another road towards Margao, which had dividers and there was also one more road which took diversion towards Birla and another road to come out from Birla, which in turn were further separated by dividers. The deceased who was driving the Canter came from the road coming from Margao and was trying to proceed towards Birla and was driving the said canter rashly and negligently and at a fast speed, and without looking at the ongoing traffic, he changed the direction, got nervous, lost control and dashed against the said bus which had halted. He therefore, stated that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself. 20. RW-2, Shri Vithal D. Mane and RW-3, Shri Sakaram S. Kalse, both labourers, stated that they were passengers on the said bus. They stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Canter. He therefore, stated that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself. 20. RW-2, Shri Vithal D. Mane and RW-3, Shri Sakaram S. Kalse, both labourers, stated that they were passengers on the said bus. They stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Canter. According to RW-2, he was sitting on the third seat on the driver's side, next to the window, whereas RW-3 was sitting on the second last seat on the driver's side, next to the window. They both stated that at the said junction there was a road leading to Vasco and the other towards Margao, which was having dividers and the road which took diversion to Birla and the other which came out from Birla side, which was also separated by dividers. They stated that the Canter driven by the deceased came from Margao side and was trying to proceed to Birla, as the deceased had put on the left side side-lights. They stated that the said driver drove the canter rashly and negligently and at a fast speed and without looking at the ongoing traffic changed the direction, lost control and gave a dash to the bus in which they were travelling. They both stated that the bus had halted at the junction and earlier, it was driven slowly and cautiously. 21. RW-2 and RW-3 were both labourers. Paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the affidavit in evidence of both these witnesses are exactly the same and stereo type. It is difficult to understand as to how both could state the facts in exactly the same words. Both did not have the tickets although, the bus was of KRTC and was proceeding for a long distance to Bijapur. RW-2 did not even know as to how many passengers were there in the said bus. He did not even know whether there were any standing passengers in the said bus. He could not remember the colour of the Swaraj Mazda and whether it was open type or closed. They stated that the deceased had shown left side side-light whereas RW-1 did not say so. In my view, the learned M.A.C.T. rightly did not place any reliance on these witnesses. 22. He could not remember the colour of the Swaraj Mazda and whether it was open type or closed. They stated that the deceased had shown left side side-light whereas RW-1 did not say so. In my view, the learned M.A.C.T. rightly did not place any reliance on these witnesses. 22. Comparison of evidence of AW-2 and RW-1 showed that AW-2 was a truthful witness, whereas RW-1 had falsely put the blame on the deceased. The question was as to why the Canter would suddenly change direction to go to Birla. The evidence of AW-4, Shri Abdul Salam, the owner of the Canter revealed that on the relevant day, his said vehicle was proceeding to Vasco and there were no deliveries to be done on the route. That made clear that the Canter was proceeding from Margao to Vasco, having come from Canacona, and was not going to Zuarinagar/Birla. The panchanama and the sketch which are at Exhibit 52-colly, duly proved by AW-3, Mohammad Altaf Kadar, corroborated the version of the applicants since the point of impact is seen at a distance of 1.50 metres behind the Canter. The learned M.A.C.T. rightly held that this was not the case of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and it was respondent no. 1, who was rash and negligent. Admittedly, the respondent no. 2 was the owner of the offending vehicle, hence, respondent no. 2 has been rightly directed to pay the compensation. 23. The next point for determination is whether the compensation awarded by the learned M.A.C.T. is just and reasonable or whether it requires reduction? 24. AW-1, the wife of the deceased stated that her husband was working as driver-cum-salesman for M/S Shakti Industries, D3/3, Canacona, since June 2003 and that he was earning Rs.5,500/-per month and would have been promoted as driver-cum-sales-manager, whereby his salary would have increased to Rs.8,500/- per month. She stated that the deceased was the only bread earner in the family and she alongwith their two minor children were completely dependent and due to the death of her husband, the claimants are left with no source of income and are doing their living on the borrowings from friends and relatives. In the claim petition, the claimant no. 1 stated that the deceased was 40 years old, at the time of the accident. In the claim petition, the claimant no. 1 stated that the deceased was 40 years old, at the time of the accident. In the Memorandum of Autopsy, which is at Exhibit-45, the age of the deceased was mentioned as 37 years. The claimant no. 1 had given her age as 36 years at the time of the filing of the claim petition. As per the birth certificate of the claimant no. 1, which is part of Exhibit-41 colly, she was born on 11.01.1969, which means that she was about 36 years old, at the time of the accident. The birth certificate of the claimant no. 2, which is part of Exhibit-41 colly revealed that he was born on 13.10.1991 and that of claimant no. 3 shows that she was born on 26.11.2003. The deceased and the claimant no. 1 were married on 16.04.1990. Considering all the above facts, the learned M.A.C.T. rightly took for granted that the age of the deceased was 40 years old. Since the age of the deceased was higher than the age of the claimants, the said age was relevant for determination of the compensation. 25. AW-4, Shri Abdul Salam, in his affidavit-in-evidence, stated that he was the proprietor of M/S Shakti Industries, having industry at D3/3, Canacona, Goa dealing in manufacturing and supplying of MH-HDPE, LLDPE, LDPE, films and backs. He stated that late Surenda Data Pagui was working for his concern as driver-cum-salesman, since June, 2003 and was drawing salary of Rs.5,500/- per month. He further stated that said Surendra Pagui was due for promotion as driver-cum-sales-manager, if he had not met with tragic death in the motor vehicle accident on 30.07.2005. He identified his signature on the salary certificate which was then marked as Exhibit-55 and which showed that the monthly salary of the deceased was Rs. 5,500/-. In his cross examination, AW-4 stated that he had nine employees in his factory and the deceased was moving around for sales. He stated that he had a register to show that the deceased was employed with him and could produce the same. He further stated that the register of employees was maintained by him and he could produce the same. He stated that there were three operators, three helpers, one clerk and the injured and the deceased as employees. He stated that he had a register to show that the deceased was employed with him and could produce the same. He further stated that the register of employees was maintained by him and he could produce the same. He stated that there were three operators, three helpers, one clerk and the injured and the deceased as employees. He stated that he personally managed the affairs of the factory and he was also the proprietor of the firm. He stated that the next salary scale of the deceased would be Rs.6,000/-per month. He also stated that he could produce the documents to show that the deceased was the driver and drawing salary of Rs. 5,500/- per month and could produce the bills to show that the deceased was on the job of delivery of goods at the relevant time. The respondent no. 2 did not request the Court to direct AW-4 to produce the relevant documents. The testimony of AW-4 was not shaken in the cross examination. On the date of accident admittedly, the deceased was driving the Canter belonging to AW-4. 26. The learned M.A.C.T. rightly held that the applicants had proved that the deceased was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 5,500/-, at the time of the accident. 27. By taking the annual income of the deceased as Rs. 66,000/- and his age as 40 years and by using multiplier of 15 and deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, the loss of dependency was held to be Rs. 6,60,000/-. Considering the promotional avenues of the deceased vis-à-vis his age of 40 years, the learned M.A.C.T. awarded lump sum amount of Rs. 20,000/-towards promotion and future prospects. The claimant no. 1, being the widow of the deceased was awarded Rs. 5,000/- towards consortium. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- was awarded to the claimants towards loss of estate as well as towards love and affection and Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and lastly, Rs. 1,000/- was awarded towards transport charges. Hence, the total compensation determined was Rs. 6,93,000/- and since the claimants were already paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, under Section 140 of the M.V. Act, after adjustment of the said amount the claimants were held to be entitled to compensation of Rs. 6,43,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 28. In the case of “Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. 6,93,000/- and since the claimants were already paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, under Section 140 of the M.V. Act, after adjustment of the said amount the claimants were held to be entitled to compensation of Rs. 6,43,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 28. In the case of “Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another”, reported in [2009(4) ALL MR 429], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in paragraphs 14 thereof that where the number of dependent family members are 2 to 3, deduction towards personal and living expenses should be 1/4th. In the present case, the dependents are three in number and therefore, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased ought to have been 1/4th. However, the learned M.A.C.T. has deducted only 1/3rd. In paragraph 11 of the said judgment in the case of “Smt. Sarla Verma and Others” (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that towards future prospects, an addition of 30% should be made to the actual salary income, if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. In the present case, the age of the deceased was about 40 years. However, inspite of making 30% addition to the actual salary and thereafter, calculating the compensation, the learned M.A.C.T. has awarded a lump sum amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards promotion and future prospects, which is less. The claimants would have become entitled to more compensation if, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Sarla Verma” (supra) was followed. 29. In the case of “Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others”, reported in [2013 ACJ 1403], at paragraph 20, the Hon'ble three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court has observed thus:- “20. The ratio of a decision of this Court, on a legal issue is a precedent. 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 Santhosh 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. 2,500/- to Rs. 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. 2,500/- to Rs. 10,000/- 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. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-. 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., the spouse is entitled to get, has to be compensated appropriately. The concept of non-pecuniary 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 only be just and reasonable that the Courts award at least Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium.” 30. In the present case, the learned M.A.C.T. has awarded only Rs. 5,000/-, towards consortium and Rs. 2,000/-, towards funeral expenses. If, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of “Rajesh and Others” (supra) was followed, the claimants would have become entitled to more compensation than what has been awarded by the learned M.A.C.T. 31. In view of the above, I am not inclined to interfere with the compensation that has been awarded by the learned M.A.C.T. I hold that the same is just and reasonable and no reduction to the same is warranted. In view of the above, I am not inclined to interfere with the compensation that has been awarded by the learned M.A.C.T. I hold that the same is just and reasonable and no reduction to the same is warranted. Therefore, there is no substance in the present appeal and therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed. 32. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. In the High Court of Bombay at Goa U.V. BAKRE, J. North Western Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, represented by the Divisional Controller, Bijapur Division Versus Neelima Surendra Pagui @ Nelima Surendra Namshikar & Others First Appeal No. 165 of 2009 Decided on : 02-12-2014 Cases Referred : Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another”, reported in [2009(4) ALL MR 429] Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others”, reported in [2013 ACJ 1403] Santhosh Devi, 2012 ACJ 1428 (SC) Sarla Verma's case, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) Advocates Appeared : For the Appellant: Ajit R. Kantak, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 to R4, None Present, R5, Emerico Afonso, Advocate. Judgment : 1. Heard Mr. Kantak, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Afonso, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 5. None present on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 4, though duly served after admission. In view of order dated 17.11.2011, appeal stands dismissed against respondent no. 6 for want of prosecution. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 19.03.2008, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa, Margao (M.A.C.T., for short), in Claim Petition No. 294/2005. 3. The appellant was respondent no. 2 in the said petition. The respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 were the applicants and respondents no. 4, 5 and 6 were respondents no. 3, 4 and 1 respectively in the said claim petition. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said claim petition. 4. The applicants had filed the said claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M. V. Act, for short) for grant of total compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- on account of death of the husband of applicant no. 1 and father of the applicants no. 2 and 3. The name of the deceased was Surendra Data Pagui alias Surendra Data Namshikar. 5. 1 and father of the applicants no. 2 and 3. The name of the deceased was Surendra Data Pagui alias Surendra Data Namshikar. 5. Case of the applicants, in short, was as follows:- On 22.07.2005, the deceased who was driver-cum-salesman working for respondent no. 3 since June, 2003, as usual, loaded the vehicle Canter Swaraj Mazda, bearing registration no. GA-02/U-6092, belonging to the respondent no. 3 and insured with respondent no. 4, with the sales items and proceeded from Canacona Industrial Estate to Vasco-da-Gama. When he reached Upasnagar, Birla, a KRTC bus bearing registration no. KA-28/F-1107, belonging to the respondent no. 2 and driven by respondent no. 1 in rash and negligent manner gave dash to the said canter causing serious injuries to him and one another person travelling with him. As a result of the said accident, the deceased died on 30.07.2005 at Goa Medical College, Bambolim. The accident took place entirely due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1. The deceased was 40 years old working as driver-cum-salesman for respondent no. 3 and was earning monthly income of Rs. 5,500/-. 6. The respondents no. 1 and 2 filed written statement denying the case of the applicants and stated that the deceased was driving the Canter Swaraj Mazda carelessly, without looking at the traffic from opposite direction and at a fast speed and in rash and negligent manner. They pleaded that the said canter came in the direction of bus and though respondent no. 1 tried to avoid the dash, however he could not, and the said canter dashed against the bus. They stated that the KRTC bus was driven slowly and by observing all the Rules on the road. 7. Respondents no. 3 and 4 also denied the case of the applicants. They stated that the applicants did not have any cause of action against them, since the accident had taken place entirely because of rash and negligent driving of KRTC bus, driven by the respondent no. 1, and there was no negligence on the part of the deceased. 8. Accordingly, the learned M.A.C.T. framed issues as per the rival contentions of the parties. The applicants examined applicant no. 1, Smt. Neelima Pagui as AW-1; Shri Dashrath Rashalkar as AW-2; Shri Mohammed Altaf Kadar as AW-3; Shri Abdul Salam as AW-4; Dr. Madhu Ghodkirekar as AW-5 and Shri Subhash Talekar as AW-6. The respondents no. 8. Accordingly, the learned M.A.C.T. framed issues as per the rival contentions of the parties. The applicants examined applicant no. 1, Smt. Neelima Pagui as AW-1; Shri Dashrath Rashalkar as AW-2; Shri Mohammed Altaf Kadar as AW-3; Shri Abdul Salam as AW-4; Dr. Madhu Ghodkirekar as AW-5 and Shri Subhash Talekar as AW-6. The respondents no. 1 and 2 examined the respondent no. 1, Shri Dharmaraj Tadalagi as RW-1; Shri Vithal Dhondappa Mane as RW-2 and Shri Sakaram Sitaram Kalse as RW-3. 9. Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned M.A.C.T. held that the accident had taken place entirely due to the fault of the driver of KRTC bus and that there was no contributory negligence or otherwise on the part of the deceased. The learned M.A.C.T. held that age of the deceased was 40 years and he was earning monthly income of Rs.5,500/-. Thus, applying the multiplier of 15 and deducting 1/3rd from the total, the learned M.A.C.T. held that the loss of dependency to which the applicants were entitled was Rs.6,60,000/-. Further an amount of Rs.20,000/- has been awarded by the learned M.A.C.T. towards promotion and future prospects, and an amount of Rs.5,000/-to the applicant no. 1 towards consortium, she being the wife of the deceased. An amount of Rs.5,000/-has been awarded to the applicants towards loss of estate as well as, towards loss of love and affection; an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and an amount of Rs.1,000/-towards transport charges. The total amount of compensation to which the applicants have been held to be entitled is Rs6,93,000/-. Accordingly, since an amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid to the applicants under section 140 of the M.V. Act, the claim petition was partly allowed, thereby awarding additional compensation of Rs.6,43,000/-to the applicants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of final payment. The respondent no. 2, aggrieved by the said judgment and award, has filed the present appeal. 10. Mr. Kantak, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2 submitted that the accident had occurred due to the fault of the deceased. He pointed out that AW-1, the wife of deceased was not an eye witness. The respondent no. 2, aggrieved by the said judgment and award, has filed the present appeal. 10. Mr. Kantak, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2 submitted that the accident had occurred due to the fault of the deceased. He pointed out that AW-1, the wife of deceased was not an eye witness. He submitted that AW-2 was examined by the applicants as eye witness, but compared with the evidence of RW-1, the driver of the KRTC bus, RW-2 and RW-3, who were the passengers of the said bus, it was clear beyond doubt that AW-2 was not reliable and the accident had taken place due to the fault of deceased himself. He submitted that the testimony of RW-1, RW-2 and RW-3 corroborated with the panchanama and the sketch. He submitted that the evidence on record revealed that the deceased showed side-lights, but suddenly changed his direction and went straight and therefore, the accident occurred. In the alternative, the learned Counsel submitted that the learned M.A.C.T. wrongly held that this could not be said to be a case of contributory negligence. According to him, the M.A.C.T., at least, ought to have held that there was contributory negligence in the ratio of 50:50, since it was the duty of drivers of both the vehicles to take appropriate care. He next submitted that the applicants had not proved that the salary of the deceased was Rs.5,500/-per month and pointed out that the salary certificate was private document having no support of other documents. He pointed out that as per the salary certificate, the deceased was allegedly working in a private firm as driver-cum-salesman only since 01.06.2003. He submitted that the evidence of the employer was manipulated. He further submitted that the question of granting sum of Rs. 20,000/-towards promotion and future prospects did not arise. He therefore, urged that the appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment and award be quashed and set aside or in the alternative, the compensation be reduced to more than half. 11. Mr. Afonso, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4, urged that the evidence on record did not at all establish any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and that the accident had occurred due to the rashness and total negligence of the respondent no. 1. 12. 11. Mr. Afonso, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4, urged that the evidence on record did not at all establish any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and that the accident had occurred due to the rashness and total negligence of the respondent no. 1. 12. I have gone through the original record and proceedings and considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties. 13. There was no dispute that the accident had taken place involving the KRTC bus no. KA-28/F-1107 and Canter no. GA-02/U-6092 and that the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained in the said accident. The evidence of AW-5, Dr. Madhu Ghodkirekar, read with the Memorandum of Autopsy (Exhibit-15), proved that the death of deceased was due to craniocerebral damage with fracture for left thigh bone as a result of blunt force object or surface in an alleged motor vehicular accident. 14. The first point for determination is as to who was at fault for the accident, whether it was the deceased himself or the respondent no. 1 or whether there was contributory negligence. 15. It is true that AW-1, who is the widow of the deceased was not an eye witness to the accident. However, she produced on record the First Information Report at Exhibit-44, which showed that the offence was registered against respondent no. 1, upon the complaint of the Head Constable, Shri Subhash Talekar. The complaint was initially registered for offence under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, against the respondent no. 1. That was the result of the investigation carried out by AW-6. 16. AW-2, Shri Dasharat Rashalkar was an eye witness to the said accident. In his affidavit-in-evidence, he specifically stated that he had witnessed the said accident which took place on 22.07.2005 at 10:10 hours at Upasnagar, Birla junction. He was the loader-cum-delivery boy, working for the respondent no. 3. He deposed that the deceased, Surendra Pagui was the driver of the Swaraj Mazda bearing no. GA-02/U-6092 and that the said Canter after loading with sale items from Canacona Industrial Estate was proceeding to Vasco-da-Gama for supplies. He further stated that at the time of the accident he was on the said Swaraj Mazda bearing registration no. GA-02/U-6092. 3. He deposed that the deceased, Surendra Pagui was the driver of the Swaraj Mazda bearing no. GA-02/U-6092 and that the said Canter after loading with sale items from Canacona Industrial Estate was proceeding to Vasco-da-Gama for supplies. He further stated that at the time of the accident he was on the said Swaraj Mazda bearing registration no. GA-02/U-6092. He further stated that the said canter driven by Surendra Pagui when reached near Upasnagar, Birla, one KRTC bus bearing no. KA-28/F-1107 came at a very fast speed from the inner road from the left side to come on the four lane highway and it was driven in rash and negligent manner and gave dash on the front left side of the Canter driven by Surendra Pagui, as a result of which, Surendra Pagui was seriously injured and succumbed to injuries at Goa Medical College, Bambolim, whereas, AW-2 sustained injuries. He specifically stated that the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the KRTC bus by its driver. In his cross examination, AW-2 stated that they were proceeding from Canacona to Vasco-da-Gama and were supposed to supply goods at Vasco market. He denied the suggestion that at the time of the accident they were taking internal road which adjoins the national highway, which ends at Zuarinagar. He also denied the suggestion that the truck in which they were travelling was in fast speed and when it reached the junction, the deceased could not control the vehicle and instead of taking it on the internal road, the vehicle proceeded on the national highway. He denied the suggestion that the accident had occurred on account of the fault of the deceased. He also denied the suggestion that he had not witnessed the accident and that at the relevant time he was dozing. 17. First of all, AW-2 was indisputably an eye witness to the accident. He was injured in the said accident and had filed Claim Petition No. 206/2006. The testimony of AW-2 was not at all shaken in his cross examination. Merely because AW-2 was working as loader for respondent no. 3 and deceased was working as driver for the same Company, the testimony of AW-2 could not be discarded by saying that it was of an interested witness. 18. The testimony of AW-2 was not at all shaken in his cross examination. Merely because AW-2 was working as loader for respondent no. 3 and deceased was working as driver for the same Company, the testimony of AW-2 could not be discarded by saying that it was of an interested witness. 18. AW-3, Mohammad Alfat Kadar, one of the panch witnesses to the panchanama of the scene of accident and sketch at Exhibit 52-colly, stated that the bus bearing no. KA-28/F-1107 was on the middle of the road facing towards northern direction and the Canter bearing no. GA-02/U-6092 was facing northern direction on the middle of the road. The front show of the bus was seen dashed to the middle laterite wall standing in the middle of the road. The bus had damages to its front side. The point of impact was 1.50 metres behind the Canter. The left front wheel of the Canter was broken and its right side door and front show was damaged. The sketch indicated that the bus was totally on the road proceeding to Margao facing north and the Canter was in the middle of the divider on the road facing north. Since, according to AW2, the dash was given by the bus to the left side of the Canter, as rightly observed by the M.A.C.T., from the position of the vehicles as shown in the sketch, read with the deposition of AW-2, it can be said that the bus was driven rashly and negligently and it entered the main road from the junction without taking precaution and dashed against the Canter proceeding from Margao towards Vasco. 19. RW-1, the respondent no. 1 stated in his affidavit-in-evidence that on 22.07.2005, he was driving the bus bearing registration no. KA-28/F-1107 and there were passengers in that bus and he was proceeding from Vasco to go to Bijapur via Birla. He stated that the bus made halts on the way for the passengers to get down and for collecting the passengers and was nearing the junction at Upasnagar at 10:15 hours, due to which the bus was driven in a slow speed and was brought to stop. He stated that the bus made halts on the way for the passengers to get down and for collecting the passengers and was nearing the junction at Upasnagar at 10:15 hours, due to which the bus was driven in a slow speed and was brought to stop. He stated that there was a road leading to Vasco and another road towards Margao, which had dividers and there was also one more road which took diversion towards Birla and another road to come out from Birla, which in turn were further separated by dividers. The deceased who was driving the Canter came from the road coming from Margao and was trying to proceed towards Birla and was driving the said canter rashly and negligently and at a fast speed, and without looking at the ongoing traffic, he changed the direction, got nervous, lost control and dashed against the said bus which had halted. He therefore, stated that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself. 20. RW-2, Shri Vithal D. Mane and RW-3, Shri Sakaram S. Kalse, both labourers, stated that they were passengers on the said bus. They stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Canter. According to RW-2, he was sitting on the third seat on the driver's side, next to the window, whereas RW-3 was sitting on the second last seat on the driver's side, next to the window. They both stated that at the said junction there was a road leading to Vasco and the other towards Margao, which was having dividers and the road which took diversion to Birla and the other which came out from Birla side, which was also separated by dividers. They stated that the Canter driven by the deceased came from Margao side and was trying to proceed to Birla, as the deceased had put on the left side side-lights. They stated that the said driver drove the canter rashly and negligently and at a fast speed and without looking at the ongoing traffic changed the direction, lost control and gave a dash to the bus in which they were travelling. They both stated that the bus had halted at the junction and earlier, it was driven slowly and cautiously. 21. RW-2 and RW-3 were both labourers. They both stated that the bus had halted at the junction and earlier, it was driven slowly and cautiously. 21. RW-2 and RW-3 were both labourers. Paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the affidavit in evidence of both these witnesses are exactly the same and stereo type. It is difficult to understand as to how both could state the facts in exactly the same words. Both did not have the tickets although, the bus was of KRTC and was proceeding for a long distance to Bijapur. RW-2 did not even know as to how many passengers were there in the said bus. He did not even know whether there were any standing passengers in the said bus. He could not remember the colour of the Swaraj Mazda and whether it was open type or closed. They stated that the deceased had shown left side side-light whereas RW-1 did not say so. In my view, the learned M.A.C.T. rightly did not place any reliance on these witnesses. 22. Comparison of evidence of AW-2 and RW-1 showed that AW-2 was a truthful witness, whereas RW-1 had falsely put the blame on the deceased. The question was as to why the Canter would suddenly change direction to go to Birla. The evidence of AW-4, Shri Abdul Salam, the owner of the Canter revealed that on the relevant day, his said vehicle was proceeding to Vasco and there were no deliveries to be done on the route. That made clear that the Canter was proceeding from Margao to Vasco, having come from Canacona, and was not going to Zuarinagar/Birla. The panchanama and the sketch which are at Exhibit 52-colly, duly proved by AW-3, Mohammad Altaf Kadar, corroborated the version of the applicants since the point of impact is seen at a distance of 1.50 metres behind the Canter. The learned M.A.C.T. rightly held that this was not the case of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and it was respondent no. 1, who was rash and negligent. Admittedly, the respondent no. 2 was the owner of the offending vehicle, hence, respondent no. 2 has been rightly directed to pay the compensation. 23. The next point for determination is whether the compensation awarded by the learned M.A.C.T. is just and reasonable or whether it requires reduction? 24. 1, who was rash and negligent. Admittedly, the respondent no. 2 was the owner of the offending vehicle, hence, respondent no. 2 has been rightly directed to pay the compensation. 23. The next point for determination is whether the compensation awarded by the learned M.A.C.T. is just and reasonable or whether it requires reduction? 24. AW-1, the wife of the deceased stated that her husband was working as driver-cum-salesman for M/S Shakti Industries, D3/3, Canacona, since June 2003 and that he was earning Rs.5,500/-per month and would have been promoted as driver-cum-sales-manager, whereby his salary would have increased to Rs.8,500/- per month. She stated that the deceased was the only bread earner in the family and she alongwith their two minor children were completely dependent and due to the death of her husband, the claimants are left with no source of income and are doing their living on the borrowings from friends and relatives. In the claim petition, the claimant no. 1 stated that the deceased was 40 years old, at the time of the accident. In the Memorandum of Autopsy, which is at Exhibit-45, the age of the deceased was mentioned as 37 years. The claimant no. 1 had given her age as 36 years at the time of the filing of the claim petition. As per the birth certificate of the claimant no. 1, which is part of Exhibit-41 colly, she was born on 11.01.1969, which means that she was about 36 years old, at the time of the accident. The birth certificate of the claimant no. 2, which is part of Exhibit-41 colly revealed that he was born on 13.10.1991 and that of claimant no. 3 shows that she was born on 26.11.2003. The deceased and the claimant no. 1 were married on 16.04.1990. Considering all the above facts, the learned M.A.C.T. rightly took for granted that the age of the deceased was 40 years old. Since the age of the deceased was higher than the age of the claimants, the said age was relevant for determination of the compensation. 25. AW-4, Shri Abdul Salam, in his affidavit-in-evidence, stated that he was the proprietor of M/S Shakti Industries, having industry at D3/3, Canacona, Goa dealing in manufacturing and supplying of MH-HDPE, LLDPE, LDPE, films and backs. Since the age of the deceased was higher than the age of the claimants, the said age was relevant for determination of the compensation. 25. AW-4, Shri Abdul Salam, in his affidavit-in-evidence, stated that he was the proprietor of M/S Shakti Industries, having industry at D3/3, Canacona, Goa dealing in manufacturing and supplying of MH-HDPE, LLDPE, LDPE, films and backs. He stated that late Surenda Data Pagui was working for his concern as driver-cum-salesman, since June, 2003 and was drawing salary of Rs.5,500/- per month. He further stated that said Surendra Pagui was due for promotion as driver-cum-sales-manager, if he had not met with tragic death in the motor vehicle accident on 30.07.2005. He identified his signature on the salary certificate which was then marked as Exhibit-55 and which showed that the monthly salary of the deceased was Rs. 5,500/-. In his cross examination, AW-4 stated that he had nine employees in his factory and the deceased was moving around for sales. He stated that he had a register to show that the deceased was employed with him and could produce the same. He further stated that the register of employees was maintained by him and he could produce the same. He stated that there were three operators, three helpers, one clerk and the injured and the deceased as employees. He stated that he personally managed the affairs of the factory and he was also the proprietor of the firm. He stated that the next salary scale of the deceased would be Rs.6,000/-per month. He also stated that he could produce the documents to show that the deceased was the driver and drawing salary of Rs. 5,500/- per month and could produce the bills to show that the deceased was on the job of delivery of goods at the relevant time. The respondent no. 2 did not request the Court to direct AW-4 to produce the relevant documents. The testimony of AW-4 was not shaken in the cross examination. On the date of accident admittedly, the deceased was driving the Canter belonging to AW-4. 26. The learned M.A.C.T. rightly held that the applicants had proved that the deceased was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 5,500/-, at the time of the accident. 27. By taking the annual income of the deceased as Rs. On the date of accident admittedly, the deceased was driving the Canter belonging to AW-4. 26. The learned M.A.C.T. rightly held that the applicants had proved that the deceased was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 5,500/-, at the time of the accident. 27. By taking the annual income of the deceased as Rs. 66,000/- and his age as 40 years and by using multiplier of 15 and deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, the loss of dependency was held to be Rs. 6,60,000/-. Considering the promotional avenues of the deceased vis-à-vis his age of 40 years, the learned M.A.C.T. awarded lump sum amount of Rs. 20,000/-towards promotion and future prospects. The claimant no. 1, being the widow of the deceased was awarded Rs. 5,000/- towards consortium. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- was awarded to the claimants towards loss of estate as well as towards love and affection and Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and lastly, Rs. 1,000/- was awarded towards transport charges. Hence, the total compensation determined was Rs. 6,93,000/- and since the claimants were already paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, under Section 140 of the M.V. Act, after adjustment of the said amount the claimants were held to be entitled to compensation of Rs. 6,43,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 28. In the case of “Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another”, reported in [2009(4) ALL MR 429], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in paragraphs 14 thereof that where the number of dependent family members are 2 to 3, deduction towards personal and living expenses should be 1/4th. In the present case, the dependents are three in number and therefore, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased ought to have been 1/4th. However, the learned M.A.C.T. has deducted only 1/3rd. In paragraph 11 of the said judgment in the case of “Smt. Sarla Verma and Others” (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that towards future prospects, an addition of 30% should be made to the actual salary income, if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. In the present case, the age of the deceased was about 40 years. However, inspite of making 30% addition to the actual salary and thereafter, calculating the compensation, the learned M.A.C.T. has awarded a lump sum amount of Rs. In the present case, the age of the deceased was about 40 years. However, inspite of making 30% addition to the actual salary and thereafter, calculating the compensation, the learned M.A.C.T. has awarded a lump sum amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards promotion and future prospects, which is less. The claimants would have become entitled to more compensation if, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Sarla Verma” (supra) was followed. 29. In the case of “Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others”, reported in [2013 ACJ 1403], at paragraph 20, the Hon'ble three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court has observed thus:- “20. The ratio of a decision of this Court, on a legal issue is a precedent. 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 Santhosh 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. 2,500/- to Rs. 10,000/- 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. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-. 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., the spouse is entitled to get, has to be compensated appropriately. The concept of non-pecuniary 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. The concept of non-pecuniary 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 only be just and reasonable that the Courts award at least Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium.” 30. In the present case, the learned M.A.C.T. has awarded only Rs. 5,000/-, towards consortium and Rs. 2,000/-, towards funeral expenses. If, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of “Rajesh and Others” (supra) was followed, the claimants would have become entitled to more compensation than what has been awarded by the learned M.A.C.T. 31. In view of the above, I am not inclined to interfere with the compensation that has been awarded by the learned M.A.C.T. I hold that the same is just and reasonable and no reduction to the same is warranted. Therefore, there is no substance in the present appeal and therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed. 32. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.