JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Pratyush Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment/award dated 11.07.2024 passed by the learned District Judge-III-cum- M.A.C.T-III, Giridih in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 27 of 2023. 3. Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the claimants have filed the present appeal for enhancement of the awarded amount passed by the learned Tribunal. He submits that the income of the deceased was wrongly calculated by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs.6,000/- only and in view of that, the same may kindly be modified as the deceased was working as a goldsmith. He further submits that under the head of consortium, lesser amount of Rs. 40,000/- only has been provided which is further required to be taken care of by this Court. He then submits that 50% contributory negligence has been fastened upon the deceased which is not in accordance with law and recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Mohammed Hakkim v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors. in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 28062-63 of 2023 vide judgment dated 29.07.2025 held that the contributory negligence can be fastened only upto 30%. On these grounds, he submits that the award may kindly be modified. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Pratyush Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2-Insurance Company opposed the prayer and submits that no evidence with regard to earning of the deceased has been brought on record and it is not proved that the deceased was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month and, as such, no interference is required to be made by this Court. So far as the consortium is concerned, the same is in accordance with law and, as such, on that point also, no interference is required to be made by this Court. 20,000/- per month and, as such, no interference is required to be made by this Court. So far as the consortium is concerned, the same is in accordance with law and, as such, on that point also, no interference is required to be made by this Court. He further submits that so far as 50% contributory negligence is concerned, the learned Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability upon the deceased in view of the fact that the deceased was not driving the motor cycle keeping a safe distance and there is Regulation No.23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989 issued on 12.06.1989 by the Ministry of Surface Transport/Jal Bhootal Parivahan Mantralaya (Transport Wing/ Parivahan Paksha), Government of India, wherein, Regulation No. 23 has been made for keeping sufficient distance. He submits that this aspect of this matter has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nishan Singh and others. v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited through Regional Manager and others , reported in (2018) 6 SCC 765 He further submits that considering the said Regulation No. 23, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if sufficient distance is not maintained, the contributory negligence will be there. He relied upon paragraphs 12 and 14 of the said judgment, which read as under: “12. The finding so recorded by the Tribunal has been affirmed by the High Court, by observing that the evidence was clearly indicative of the fact that the Maruti car was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, which was the cause for accident of this nature and resulting in death of one of the passengers in the Maruti car. The Maruti car was driven by none other than PW 2 Manjeet Singh. In his evidence, he has admitted that the subject truck was running ahead of the Maruti car for quite some time about one kilometre and at the time of accident, the distance between the truck and Maruti car was only 10-15 ft. He has also admitted that the law mandates maintaining sufficient distance between two vehicles running in the same direction. It is also not in dispute that the road on which the two vehicles were moving was only about 14 ft wide. It is unfathomable that on such a narrow road, the subject truck would move at a high speed as alleged. It is also not in dispute that the road on which the two vehicles were moving was only about 14 ft wide. It is unfathomable that on such a narrow road, the subject truck would move at a high speed as alleged. In any case, the Maruti car which was following the truck was expected to maintain a safe distance, as envisaged in Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, which reads thus: “ 23. Distance from vehicles in front .—The driver of a motor vehicle moving behind another vehicle shall keep at a sufficient distance from that other vehicle to avoid collision if the vehicle in front should suddenly slow down or stop.” The expression “sufficient distance” has not been defined in the Regulations or elsewhere. The thumb rule of sufficient distance is at least a safe distance of two to three seconds gap in ideal conditions to avert collision and to allow the following driver time to respond. The distance of 10-15 ft between the truck and Maruti car was certainly not a safe distance for which the driver of the Maruti car must take the blame. It must necessarily follow that the finding on the issue under consideration ought to be against the claimants. 14. The next question is whether the Tribunal should have at least answered the issue of contributory negligence of the truck driver in favour of the appellant claimants? The question of contributory negligence would arise when both parties are involved in the accident due to rash and negligent driving. In a case such as the present one, when the Maruti car was following the truck and no fault can be attributed to the truck driver, the blame must rest on the driver of the Maruti car for having driven his vehicle rashly and negligently. The High Court has justly taken note of the fact that the driver and owner of the Maruti car, as well as insurer of that vehicle, had not been impleaded as parties to the claim petition. The Tribunal has also taken note of the fact that in all probability, the driver and owner of the Maruti car were not made party being close relatives of the appellants. In such a situation, the issue of contributory negligence cannot be taken forward.” 5. The Tribunal has also taken note of the fact that in all probability, the driver and owner of the Maruti car were not made party being close relatives of the appellants. In such a situation, the issue of contributory negligence cannot be taken forward.” 5. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court has gone through the materials on record. It transpires from the impugned award that the informant Binod Sonar instituted the FIR being Birni P.S. Case No. 20 of 2019 stating therein that on 15.02.2019 at about 4:30 P.M, Sanjay Sonar, brother of the informant aged about 30 years was going to his in-laws house Leda on his motorcycle. It has been further stated that the truck bearing Registration No. JH-10AT-8083 was also running just ahead of motorcycle of the deceased and suddenly driver of the truck took brake of the truck to which motorcycle of deceased collided with the said truck and he sustained serious injuries on his head and, thereafter, the injured was brought to Birni Health Centre for treatment but he succumbed to his injuries. In this background, the said case has been instituted. 6. The learned Tribunal has framed issues to decide the claim case and the learned Court has further discussed the evidence of C.Ws.-1, 2, 3 and 4 and has found that there is no eye-witness of the occurrence. The learned Court has found that there is no evidence on record to suggest that Rs. 20,000/- was being earned by the deceased and in view of that, relying on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. , reported in 1995 SCC (1 ) 551 the learned Court has concluded that in such a situation, some hypothetic consideration for assessment of income is required to be taken by the Court and accordingly, the learned Tribunal has found that the income of Rs.20,000/- has not been proved and Rs.6,000/- has been assessed. If such a situation was there, the learned Court was required to consider at least minimum wages for taking into consideration the income aspect. The accident took place in the year 2019 and it has been pointed out that at that time, the minimum wages was Rs. If such a situation was there, the learned Court was required to consider at least minimum wages for taking into consideration the income aspect. The accident took place in the year 2019 and it has been pointed out that at that time, the minimum wages was Rs. 7,500/- and in that view of the matter, the award with regard to the income is required to be modified to the effect that the income of the deceased will be assessed as Rs. 7,500/- in place of Rs.6,000/-. 7. So far as contributory negligence of 50% fastened upon the deceased is concerned, the Court finds that the learned Tribunal has considered the Exhibit-1 which is the certified copy of the order-sheet of the learned C.J.M., Giridih in Birni P.S. Case No.20/2019 and has found that after submission of the final report by the police the notice has been issued upon the informant to file any protest petition, however the protest petition has not been filed and by the final report, the driver of the truck has been exonerated. The learned Court has further found that there is no eye-witness in respect of manner of accident and the evidence brought on record by the claimants itself suggests negligence on the part of the deceased and that has been proved. In this background, Regulation No. 23 of the said Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989 has got relevance. Regulation No.23 speaks as under: “23. Distance from vehicles in front- The driver of the motor vehicle moving behind another vehicle shall keep at a sufficient distance from the other vehicle to avoid collision if the vehicle in front should suddenly slow down or stop.” 8. The said Regulation No. 23 has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nishan Singh v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (supra) and taking into account the said regulation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that at least a safe distance of 2 to 3 seconds gap in ideal conditions to avert collision and to allow the following driver time to respond, is required to be maintained. In view of that, contributory negligence has been held against the driver who was driving the Maruti car. In view of that, contributory negligence has been held against the driver who was driving the Maruti car. In the case in hand, there is clear-cut finding of the learned Tribunal that the deceased has not maintained safe distance with the offending truck and the final form has further exonerated the driver of the truck and in that view of the matter, the Court finds that contributory negligence has been rightly fastened upon the deceased. 9. In the judgment relied in the case of S. Mohammad Hakkim v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) by the learned counsel for the appellants, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that contributory negligence is there, however, it has been fastened to the extent of 20%. 10. What has been discussed herein above with regard to contributory negligence and going through the materials on record, the Court finds that no interference is required to be made with regard to contributory negligence and, as such, the award dated 11.07.2024 passed by the learned District Judge-III-cum- M.A.C.T-III, Giridih in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 27 of 2023 is modified to the effect that the income of the deceased will be assessed to the tune of Rs.7,500/- in place of Rs.6,000/-. 11. The judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi , reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 has been further considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Janabai WD/O Dinkarrao Ghorpade and Others versus ICICI Lambord Insurance Company Limited reported in (2022) 10 SCC 512 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has awarded the consortium under the said head for the spouse consortium and parental consortium for the children and in paragraph Nos.13 and 14, this aspect has been discussed by Hon’ble Supreme Court which are as under : “13. The appellants have not filed any appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal before the High Court. The Constitution Bench judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680 , was rendered when the appeal was pending before the High Court but since the appeal filed by the Insurance Company was accepted, there was no occasion for the High Court to examine the question of enhancement of compensation. The Constitution Bench judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680 , was rendered when the appeal was pending before the High Court but since the appeal filed by the Insurance Company was accepted, there was no occasion for the High Court to examine the question of enhancement of compensation. We find that the appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation particularly in respect of future prospects and other damages in terms of the judgment of this Court in Pranay Sethi. Therefore, in exercise of powers conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution, we have decided to recompute the amount of compensation to be in tune with the constitution Bench Judgment. 14. The appellant has claimed compensation on account of love and affection as well on account of spousal consortium for wife and for the parental consortium for the children in the calculation given to this Court but in view of three Judge Bench judgment reported as United India Insurance Company Limited v. Satinder Kaur & Ors., (2021) 11 SCC 780 the compensation under the head on account of loss of love and affection is not permissible but compensation on account of spousal consortium for wife and for the parental consortium for children is admissible. This Court held as under: “30. In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram this Court interpreted “consortium” to be a compendious term, which encompasses spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial consortium. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse. 31. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love and affection, and their role in the family unit. 32. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love and affection, and their role in the family unit. 32. Modern jurisdictions world over have recognised that the value of a child’s consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions permit parents to be awarded compensation under the loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is the compensation for loss of love and affection, care and companionship of the deceased child. 33. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of 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 the children who lose the care and protection of their parents in motor vehicle accidents. The amount to be awarded for loss consortium will be as per the amount fixed in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] . 34. At this stage, we consider it necessary to provide uniformity with respect to the grant of consortium, and loss of love and affection. Several Tribunals and the High Courts have been awarding compensation for both loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] , has recognised only three conventional heads under which compensation can be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. In Magma General [Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 :(2019) 3 SCC (Civ) 146 : (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 153] , this Court gave a comprehensive interpretation to consortium to include spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial consortium. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. In Magma General [Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 :(2019) 3 SCC (Civ) 146 : (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 153] , this Court gave a comprehensive interpretation to consortium to include spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial consortium. Loss of love and affection is comprehended in loss of consortium. 35. The Tribunals and the High Courts are directed to award compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate conventional head. There is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head.” 15. The evidence of appellant No. 1 on affidavit is that her husband was getting salary of Rs.12,450/- and that he was over 50 years of age. The learned Tribunal assessed monthly income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- in the absence of proof of salary. Therefore, keeping in view the income and the age and the future prospects in terms of judgment of this Court in Pranay Sethi, the compensation is assessed as follows: Head Amount A Loss of earnings @ monthly salary @ 10,000 and future prospects @ 15% (6670 + 1000 X 12 X 11) Rs. 10,12,440.00 B Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000.00 C P Spousal consortium for wife arental consortium for two children (appellant Nos. 2 and 3 @ Rs.40,000/- each R Rs. 40,000.00 s. 80,000.00 D Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000.00 Total Rounded off Rs. 11,62,440.00 Rs. 11,63,000.00 12. In view of the above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the wife is entitled for Rs.40,000/- of the consortium and the children are further entitled for the parental consortium, as such the award is modified to the effect that wife will be entitled for Rs.40,000/- on account of spousal consortium and parental consortium for three children will be Rs.40,000/- each. 13. In view of the above facts, the award dated 11.07.2024 passed by the learned District Judge-III-cum- M.A.C.T-III, Giridih in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 27 of 2023 is modified to the above effect. 14. The insurance company shall satisfy the present order within six weeks. 15. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in above terms and disposed of. 16. Pending petition, if any, is disposed of.