JUDGMENT : 1. The claimants-appellants have challenged the legality of the award dated 13th June 2013, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, MACT, Srirangapatna, whereby for the death of Mr. Anandegowda, the learned Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.11,14,562/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant No.1 happens to be the wife of Mr. Anandegowda (deceased), appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are his sons, and appellant No.4 happens to be his mother. According to the appellants, on 07-01-2012, Mr. Anandegowda left his place of work and reached Baburayanakoppalu. When he was waiting for a bus at the Kirangoor Bus Stand, around 10.30 p.m., a Tempo, bearing Reg. No. KA-12-2508, came from Srirangapattana, in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed against him. Due to the accident, he suffered grievous injuries on his stomach. Immediately he was rushed to K.R. Hospital, and from there he was referred to My sore Cauvery Hospital. On 08-01-2012, around 4.10 p.m., he succumbed to his injuries. Subsequently, the claimants-appellants Corrected vide Court Order dated 23.10.2017 filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. In order to buttress their case, they examined two witnesses, and submitted twelve documents. On the other hand, the Insurance Company examined a single witness, and submitted three documents. After appreciating the evidence, the learned Tribunal granted the compensation as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this Court. 3. Mr. M. Y. Sreenivasan, the learned counsel for the appellant, has pleaded that despite the fact that the appellant No.1 had lost her husband in mid-life, despite the fact that she has many years to go in the absence of the company of her husband, a meager amount of Rs.10,000/- has been paid for the category of “loss of consortium”. Relying on the case of RAJESH & ORS. VS. RAJBIR SINGH & ORS. [(2013) 9 SCC 544], the learned counsel has pleaded that the compensation should be enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. Secondly, even for the category of “transportation of the dead body”, a mere compensation of Rs.10,000/- has been granted. Therefore, even the compensation for the said category should be enhanced by this Court. VS. RAJBIR SINGH & ORS. [(2013) 9 SCC 544], the learned counsel has pleaded that the compensation should be enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. Secondly, even for the category of “transportation of the dead body”, a mere compensation of Rs.10,000/- has been granted. Therefore, even the compensation for the said category should be enhanced by this Court. Lastly, the learned Tribunal has erred in exonerating the Insurance Company of its liability to pay the compensation amount ostensibly on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a specific endorsement to drive a Maxi-cab. Relying on the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [ AIR 2017 SC 3668 ] the learned counsel has pleaded that in case the driver of the offending vehicle does have a driving license for a light motor vehicle (‘LMV’, for short), the driving license does not require a further specific endorsement for driving a specific kind of vehicle. Therefore, the learned Tribunal is unjustified in exonerating the Insurance Company. 4. On the other hand, Mr. R. Rajagopalan, the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company, has pleaded that the case of RAJESH (supra) cannot be taken as a benchmark for granting Rs.1,00,000/- for “loss of consortium” to the appellant No.1. Secondly, since the accident had occurred in 2012, a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the category of “transportation of dead body” is a reasonable one. While challenging the above contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has frankly conceded, and in the opinion of this Court rightly so, that the Insurance Company could not have been exonerated, keeping in mind the judgment of MUKUND DEWANGAN (supra). 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award. 6. In the case of RAJESH (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt extensively with the concept of “loss of consortium” as under: “17. 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 Santosh Devi. 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 Santosh Devi. We may therefore, revisit the practice of awarding compensation under conventional heads: loss of consortium to the spouse, loss of love, care and guidance to children and funeral expenses. It may be noted that the sum of Rs.2500/- to Rs.10,000/- in those heads was fixed several decades ago and having regard to inflation factor, the same needs to be increased. In Sarla Verma Case, it was held that compensation for loss of consortium should be in the range of Rs.5000/- 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 recognised 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 jurisdiction, 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 rupees Rs. one lakh for loss of consortium.” 7. Admittedly, appellant No.1, Mrs. Puttalakshmamma, was in the prime of her life at the time of the accident, as she was merely 44 years old. Considering the fact that the life expectancy today is about 70 years, she had many more miles to go before she sleeps. one lakh for loss of consortium.” 7. Admittedly, appellant No.1, Mrs. Puttalakshmamma, was in the prime of her life at the time of the accident, as she was merely 44 years old. Considering the fact that the life expectancy today is about 70 years, she had many more miles to go before she sleeps. During her remaining part of the journey in life, she has to walk alone, without the emotional, financial, physical and psychological support of her husband. Therefore, the grant of merely Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium, is certainly on the lower side. Therefore, this Court enhances the compensation in the category of “loss of consortium” from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. Hence for the said category, the claimant is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.90,000/-. 8. Undoubtedly, the accident had occurred on 07-01-2012 and deceased had expired on 08-01-2012. Five years ago, in 2012, Rs.10,000/- still had some value. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has granted a reasonable compensation for the category of “transportation of dead body”. Hence the said compensation need not be enhanced by this Court. 9. As far as the issue of liability of the Insurance Company is concerned, the said issue has been settled in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN (supra). The Apex Court is of the opinion that in case the driver does have a valid driving license for a LMV, no further specific endorsement needs to be made with regard to the type of vehicle that can be driven by the driver. Undoubtedly, in the present case, the driver did have a LMV license for driving a motor-cab, but did not have a specific endorsement for driving a Maxi-cab. But even if he did not have an endorsement on the driving license to drive a Maxi-cab, he cannot be said that he is not duly authorized to drive a Maxi-cab. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from discharging its liability to pay the compensation to the claimants-appellants. Corrected vide Court Order dated 23.10.2017 For the reasons stated above, the impugned award is modified as under: The Insurance Company is directed to pay the entire compensation amount of Rs.12,04,562/- to the claimants-appellants, Corrected vide Court Order dated 23.10.2017 along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Corrected vide Court Order dated 23.10.2017 from the date of filing the claim petition to the date of realization. The Insurance Company is granted three weeks time from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, to deposit the said amount, and the learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the said amount in favour of the claimants-appellants. Corrected vide Court Order dated 23.10.2017