JUDGMENT : 1. The principal legal issue that has arisen herein is whether, in the light of a recent Supreme Court judgment reported at 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1546 (Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v Nanu Ram), it is permissible to award amounts to relatives other than the spouse under the head of “loss of consortium”, notwithstanding the Constitution Bench judgment reported at (2017) 6 SCC 680 (National Insurance Company Limited v Pranay Sethi). 2. In Nanu Ram, the judgment in Pranay Sethi was noticed at paragraph 10. However, an additional amount that was granted on account of loss of estate was not interfered with in Nanu Ram by expressly referring to the authority of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution. While dealing with the head of “loss of consortium” and referring to Pranay Sethi in such context, Nanu Ram observed as follows towards the end of paragraph 10 of the report: “10 … 8.7 … “The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium. “Parental Consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. “A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of Filial Consortium. “The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under ‘Loss of Consortium’ as laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra). “In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs.40,000/- each for loss of Filial Consortium.” 3. What is evident from the above is that the law relating to loss of consortium has been left untouched and Pranay Sethi has been said to rule the field. However, filial consortium in that case was awarded under Article 142 of the Constitution and such part of the order in Nanu Ram cannot be regarded as the law laid down by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution. There is good reason for taking this view. 4. However, filial consortium in that case was awarded under Article 142 of the Constitution and such part of the order in Nanu Ram cannot be regarded as the law laid down by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution. There is good reason for taking this view. 4. In a judgment reported at 2013 (9) SCC 54 (Rajesh v Rajbir Singh), loss of consortium was awarded to the extent of Rs.1 lakh and loss of care and guidance of minor children was also taken as a head and a further sum of Rs.1 lakh awarded thereunder. 5. Paragraph 52 of the judgment in Pranay Sethi – rendered by a Constitution Bench of five judges – referred to the three-judge Bench judgment in Rajesh and observed that there was no head relating to loss of care for minor children. Earlier, at paragraph 46 of the report in Pranay Sethi, it quoted with approval of the meaning of “consortium” from paragraph 17 of the judgment in Rajesh. After accepting that the concept of “consortium” was confined to a spouse or consort, the allowance for loss of care and guidance of minor children as provided in Rajesh was found to be unacceptable at paragraph 52 of the judgment in Pranay Sethi: “52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh. It has granted Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.1,00,000/- loss of consortium and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to Santosh Devi, it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The Court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The Court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the Tribunals and Courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads.” 6. On a conjoint reading of paragraph 46 and paragraph 52 of the report in Pranay Sethi, it is evident that the head “loss of consortium” is confined only to the spouse. In Nanu Ram, the two-judge Bench referred to other forms of consortium, including parental and filial consortium, in addition to spousal consortium, but accepted that the amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium “will be governed by the principles … as laid down in Pranay Sethi …” . The additional quantum on account of filial consortium and love and affection as awarded in Nanu Ram has, per force, to be seen to have been allowed in exercise of the authority under Article 142 of the Constitution or such award would otherwise clearly fall foul of the dictum in the Constitution Bench judgment of Pranay Sethi. 7. As a consequence, the prayer made on behalf of the claimants to enhance the quantum of compensation by awarding additional amounts on forms of consortium other than spousal consortium, cannot be acceded to and is repelled. 8. 7. As a consequence, the prayer made on behalf of the claimants to enhance the quantum of compensation by awarding additional amounts on forms of consortium other than spousal consortium, cannot be acceded to and is repelled. 8. Since the insurance company seeks an order in the nature of pay and recover, that is to say, pay off the dues of the claimants at the first instance and recover the amount from the owner on the ground that the owner apparently breached the insurance policy, the owner has been served and has been put on notice that the matter would be taken up. However, the owner is not represented today. 9. There will be a stay of the execution proceedings for three weeks from date. The insurance company will serve a fresh notice to the owner by whatever effective means possible informing the owner that the matter will appear a fortnight hence and an order may be made against the owner if he is not represented. The department should also immediately issue a notice of appeal to the owner such that the owner receives such notice in time and is made aware that the appeal will appear in the list and be taken up a fortnight hence.