Law relating to Accidental Claim


You will find here Law relating to Accidental Claims.

 

O.P. SHEORAN & ASSOCIATES

(Law Firm)

111, SHIV NAGAR - II, MURLIPURA

SIKAR ROAD, JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN)

Website:- www.stlegal.in

Email:  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.  

Contact Us : 0141-2262495/ Mob: +91-9950984566

 

Practicing at: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, JAIPUR / JODHPUR 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ASHA VERMAN & ORS. Vs. MAHARAJ SINGH & ORS.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166, 168 – Compensation – Dependency – Enhancement of Compensation – Deceased at the time of his death was working in the operation theatre as a technician in the permanent post at the Hospital and was earning Rs.4,617/- per month – On applying the principles as laid down in the case of Sarla Verma , 50% of the salary must be added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects of income, which comes to Rs.6,900/- per month, i.e. Rs.82,800/- per annum – Deducting 1/4th for personal expenses and applying the appropriate multiplier taking into consideration the age of the deceased 35 years at the time of his death, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.9,93,600/- [(Rs.82,800/- (-) 1/4 X Rs.82,800/-)X 16] – Rs.1,40,000/- was spent by the appellant-wife for medical purposes of her husband(deceased) during the period of treatment before his death awarded towards medical expenses – Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium awarded – Further, Rs.1,00,000/- awarded to each to the appellant-children towards loss of love and affection due to the loss of their father(deceased) and a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded to each of the appellant-parents towards loss of love and affection of their deceased son -Interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation amount awarded instead of 8% awarded by High Court – Compensation enhanced from Rs. 5,35,000/- as awarded by the High Court to Rs. 16,58,600/-.

 

SURTI GUPTA Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. & ANR.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 168 – Compensation – Loss of Dependency – Future Prospectus – Enhancement of compensation – Deceased at the time of the accident was drawing a salary of Rs.4,214/- per month and was 45 years of age – She was employed as a permanent teacher in a government school she must have had at least 20-25 years of work experience at the time of her death -Just and proper to take the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month – On addition of 30% to the income of the deceased towards future prospects monthly income for the calculation of future loss of dependency of the appellant would be Rs.7,800/- – Annual income comes to Rs.93,600/-and on deduction of 1/3rd of the annual income towards personal expenses and applying the appropriate multiplier of 14 future loss of dependency suffered by the appellant is calculated at Rs.8,73,600/- – - A meagre amount of only Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate , loss of love and affection and funeral expenses awarded by High Court enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of estate and of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses -Rate enhance from 6% per annum to 9% per annum on the compensation amount -Total enhanced compensation payable to the appellant by the respondent-Insurance Company will be Rs.10,98,600/- instead of Rs.6,13,536/- as awarded by High Court – Directed to be with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment.

 

S. PERUMAL Vs. K. AMBIKA & ANR.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 168 – Compensation – Injury Case – Tribunal discarded radiologist report of VMKVM College and Hospital on the ground that the claimant had not pleaded in his claim petition about the treatment in VMKVM College – Held that it cannot be taken as a ground to discard the radiologist report of VMKVM College and Hospital – The claimant was a poultry labourer, he would have earned not less than Rs.4,500/- per month – Considering the nature of occupation of the claimant and the 25% disability lump sum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of future earnings, on account of permanent disability, Rs.13,500/- (Rs.4,500 x 3) awarded for the loss of earning during the period of treatment – Considering the nature of treatment and the medical bills (Exp.5), for which an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards medical expenses; Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards pain and sufferings; Rs.10,000/- is awarded for transport charges and Rs.10,000/- is awarded for attendant charges; Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards extra nourishment and Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities – The compensation of Rs.25,300/- awarded to the claimant enhanced to Rs.4,43,500/- payable with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of the claim petition.

 

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. DR. SUKANTA KUMAR BEHERA & ORS.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 168 – Compensation – Just Compensation – Injury Case – Compensation as awarded to respondent a practicing medical practitioner by Tribunal enhanced from Rs. 4,01,414/- to Rs.55,00,000/- by High Court for the injuries sustained and permanent disability incurred by him in the accident dated 9.9.2001 – While awarding compensation of Rs.55,00,000/- there is no discussion and computation done by the High Court – It is necessary to make computation of compensation to be awarded on account of pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads – Claimant was getting Rs.23,000/- per month at the time of accident – He was getting non-practitioner allowance also in addition to the salary – It would be appropriate to take his salary at Rs.25,000/- per month – Considering the fact that 60% permanent disability has been incurred and considering over all injuries caused, there is a loss of working capacity to the said extent – Monthly loss of earning capacity comes to Rs.15,000/- – Multiplier of 16 is applicable at the age of 36 years – Expenditure must have been incurred in 8 days when claimant was treated in Shanti Hospital when surgery of right leg was performed and two plates were inserted which is quantified at Rs.20,000/- – There was loss of earning during course of treatment which has been determined by the Claims Tribunal and medical expenditure in SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack comes to Rs.66,566/- – Compensation for pain and suffering, expenditure on attendant and on special diet has also to be awarded – The compensation after deducting medical reimbursement already received, is awarded Rs. 35,00,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a.

 

JITENDRA KHIMSHANKAR TRIVEDI & ORS. Vs. KASAM DAUD KUMBHAR & ORS.

Constitution of India, Article 142 – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 168 – Compensation – Just Compensation – Enhancement of Compensation – As against the award passed by the tribunal even though the claimants have not preferred any appeal- Even though the claimants have then prayed for compensation of Rs.2,96,480/- yet for doing complete justice to the parties, exercising jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, Court deemed it appropriate to award enhanced compensation of Rs. 6,47,000/ to the claimants.

 

KANHSINGH & ANR. Vs. TUKARAM & ORS.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 and 173 – Just Compensation –Loss of Dependency – Deceased was 27 years of age, working with HDFC as the Manager earning Rs.1,81,860/- per annum -There were definite chances of his further promotion and consequent increase in salary by way of periodical revision of the salary on the basis of cost of living Index prevalent in the area if he would alive and worked in the bank -Therefore, adding 50% under the head of future prospects to the annual income of the deceased the total loss of income comes to Rs.2,72,790/- per annum – Deducting 10% tax (Rs.27,279/-), net annual income comes to Rs.2,45,511/- – Deducting 1/3rd [Rs.81,837] towards personal expenses since the claimants are the parents of the deceased, loss of dependency comes to 1,63,674 X 11(appropriate multiplier as per the age of the parent) Rs. 18,00,414/- – Funeral expenses enhanced to Rs. 25,000/- instead of Rs. 2,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal – Under the heads of loss of love and affection Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded instead of Rs. 30,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal – The total compensation payable to the appellants by the respondent-Insurance Company will be Rs. 24,25,604/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment to the appellants.

 

NEETA W/O KALLAPPA KADOLKAR & ORS.ETC. Vs. DIV. MANAGER, MSRTC, KOLHAPUR

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 and 173 – Just Compensation –Loss of Dependency – In the absence of the salary slip/certificate Tribunal ought to have taken the monthly salary of the deceased who was a carpenter which is a skilled job – In addition to the above said income the deceased were also carrying on with the agricultural occupation in their agricultural land, which is the additional source of income which ought to have been taken into consideration by the courts below – Held that it would be just and proper for this Court to assess their monthly income at Rs.12,000/- p.m. each for the purpose of computation of loss of dependency instead of Rs. 6,000/- and Rs. 4,500/- taken by the Tribunal – The annual income of both the deceased would be Rs.1,44,000/- each – Deducting 1/4th of this amount towards their personal expenses, in order to determine the loss of dependency and keeping in view the age of the minor children, their widowed wives and the aged parents, as their units will be 4 and 5 respectively, the balance amount comes to Rs.1,08,000/- – The loss of dependency of the appellants by applying the appropriate multiplier of 16, comes to Rs.17,28,000/- (Rs. 1,08,000/- X 16) – Further Rs.1,00,000/- awarded to each of the appellant-children, i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- respectively towards loss of love and affection of the deceased father -An amount of Rs.50,000/- each awarded to the parents of the deceased for the loss of love and affection of their deceased son – Further Rs.25,000/- each awarded towards funeral expenses of both the deceased – The appellants also entitled to the interest on the compensation awarded at the rate of 9% p.a. along with the amount under the different heads as indicated above – The courts below have erred in awarding the interest at the rate of 8% p.a. on the compensation awarded by them to the appellants.

 

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – MACT – Maintainability of Claim – Accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of claimant itself – Evidence of eye witness – Claim Petition was not maintainable – At First instance FIR is lodged by P.W.5/auto rickshaw driver, it is found that claimant was driving motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and as a result of which he could not control vehicle and dashed against an electric pole – Front wheel of motorcycle was completely damaged and liquor smell was emanating from mouth of complainant and immediately shifted the injured to Government Hospital and F.I.R. was lodged – There also does not mention about involvement of Mahindra Jeep – Merely because driver of Mahindra Jeep has pleaded guilty before Court by paying fine cannot be a ground for Trial Court to accept the same as a gospel truth and allow claim petition – Held that Tribunal is justified in dismissing claim petition on ground that accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Mahindra Jeep – Appeal dismissed.

 

NIRMALA DEVI & ANOTHER Vs. SH. RAVINDER KUMAR & OTHERS

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 279, 337, 338 and 201 – MACT – Recovery Rights – Third Party Cover – Accused minor without valid and effective driving licence – Owner/insured came to be rightly saddled with liability – Tribunal has rightly held that driver of offending scooter was not having valid and effective driving licence – Her son, who was minor at relevant point of time, has caused accident, she cannot avoid liability – Further, she has not lodged any complaint against her son for taking and driving scooter without her consent – Injured/claimant is a third party, is covered in terms of tin insurance contract – Thus, Tribunal has rightly granted right of recovery to insurer of offending scooter and owner/insured came to be rightly saddled with liability – Claimant/injured is entitled for compensation to tune of Rs. 2,48,967/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum – Impugned award is upheld – Both Appeals dismissed.

 

BATTA YELLAIAH AND OTHERS Vs. B. RAMESH AND ANOTHER

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 166 and 168 – MACT – Compensation enhanced – Compensation under head of loss of estate is inadequate – Deceased was only son, they have no other to look after them in their old age – Compensation enhanced – Loss of consortium, pain and suffering, loss of estate etc., which come under general damages are non-pecuniary damages and they need not be specifically pleaded and proved and they are implied by the law – Found that as per claimants, deceased was their only son – Besides, they have a minor unmarried daughter – Therefore, in their old age, deceased, if alive, has to maintain them and also perform marriage of his sister – Impugned award is enhanced to Rs. 25,000/- from Rs. 15,000/- and funeral and transportation expenses at Rs.25,000/- (instead of Rs. 5,000/-) with proportionate costs and interest at 6% p.a. – Appeal partly allowed.

 

MANDAKINI PATEL AND OTHERS Vs. ASHOK KUMAR AGRAWALLA AND OTHERS

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 166, 140 and 168 – MACT – Compensation enhanced – Figures shown in salary certificate to be taken as net income – Loss of dependency – Compensation enhanced to Rs. 11,35,000/- However, Tribunal has not assigned any reason as to how he worked out net income of deceased at Rs. 6,000/- In absence of any evidence to contrary, figures shown in salary certificate under headings Pay and D.A. must be taken to be net income of deceased which put together comes to Rs. 10,224/- Considering that deceased’s age was above 40 years and not above age of 45 years, multiplier of 14 should be taken to be proper multiplier – Total loss of dependency is worked out at Rs. 11,19,888/- which is rounded off to Rs. 11,20,000/- (Rs. 6666 x 12 x 14) – Amount of compensation awarded by Tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 5,42,000/- to Rs. 11,35,000/- Impugned award is modified to that extent and rest parts thereof is confirmed – Appeal allowed.

 

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD., CHENNAI Vs. C. SANKARAN

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 166 and 168 – MACT – Compensation enhanced – Compensation towards love and affection is very meager – Enhanced from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- each for father and mother – Deceased was aged about 25 years at time of death and was working as a police constable – He was drawing a sum of Rs. 12,000/- as salary and he was a bachelor – Multiplier of 13 adopted by lower court was also correct and if correct multiplier had been adopted, amount of compensation would have been much lower – Since claimants/respondents have not filed either any cross appeal or cross objection, declined to interfere with award of Tribunal – However, with regard to funeral and transport expenses, increased the same from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- Except above two modifications, there are no other modifications in impugned award – Appeal filed by Transport Corporation disposed of.

 

GSRTC Vs. RASULBHAI NATHUBHAI SHAIKH

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 166 and 168 – MACT – Contributory negligence of deceased in ratio of 10% – Prospective income of deceased – Impugned award is upheld – By applying a multiplier of 11, compensation amount would be Rs. 5,48,000/- However, deceased was also contributory negligent at ratio of 10% and therefore, an amount of approximately Rs. 55,000/- will have to be deducted there from and datum figure would be Rs. 4,93,000/- Submission of claimant that multiplier should have been not less than thirteen, and it would have been appropriate if it would have been taken to be fourteen – Since there is no cross appeal, this Court cannot accept said submission of claimant, though prima facie Court is of opinion that multiplier of eleven is definitely on a lower side – First Appeal has no substance, and the same dismissed.

 

KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANOTHER Vs. REGHUNATHAN

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 175 and 165 – MACT – Bar on jurisdiction of Civil Courts -Damages sustained to vehicle arising out of motor vehicle accident – A decree without jurisdiction is a nullity – Decree is set aside – There is in fact a bar of jurisdiction for civil court to entertain any question relating to any claim for compensation which may be adjudicated upon by Claims Tribunal for that area and no injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by or before Claims Tribunal in respect of claim for compensation shall be granted by Civil Court – Held that decree of lower appellate court is liable to be reversed restoring decree of Trial Court thus dismissing suit although for reasons different – Civil Revision Petition allowed.

 

HASSAN MOHD. ALIAS CHOTE LAL Vs. RAHISAN AND ORS.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 163-A – MACT – Murder by use of vehicle – S. 163A does not make distinction between simple accident arising out of use of vehicle or felonious act in which motor vehicle is used to cause murder – Claim petition is maintainable – Award of Rs. 4,09,500/- as compensation is upheld – Found that Senior Superintendent of Police, had examined matter and finally ordered cancellation of case, it showed that it was not a case of murder – At least, police did not take it to be a case of murder – Deceased had been crushed under tractor of appellant/owner and it can safely be presumed that he died in an accident that occurred during use of tractor-trolley in question – Impugned finding that deceased died in an accident arising out of use of a motor vehicle is affirmed – Appeal dismissed.

 

GOLAKOTI DURGA Vs. DODDAPANENI KEDARNADH

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 166, 168 and 171 – MACT – Just and Reasonable Compensation – A guess work has to be made – Compensation enhanced – Held that compensation awarded by Tribunal does not become just compensation merely because Tribunal considered it to be just – ‘Just compensation’ is an adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on facts and circumstances of case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying well settled principles relating to award of compensation – Deceased was aged about 38 years as per inquest and post mortem reports and for age of the person about 36 to 40 years, multiplier applicable is 15 applicable and thus multiplier adopted by Tribunal of 16 is not correct – By taking said amount at Rs. 3,000/- per month without taking any prospective and future earning capacity of deceased by escalation of 30% and by not giving any additional amount towards love, care and guidance as sons and daughters who are aged more than 15 years; it comes to more than claim of Rs. 4,00,000/- It can be awarded as just compensation – Discretionary power to award reasonable rate of interest from drastic fall in bank rate of interest in bank rate under Section 171 of the MV Act is awarded at 7 1/2% per annum – Impugned compensation is enhanced from Rs. 3,00,000/- to Rs. 4,00,000/- Appeal allowed.

 

NALLURI KOTAIAH, S/O. VENKAIAH Vs. ABDUL GAFFAR, S/O. ABDUL HAKH

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 166 and 168 – MACT – Just and Reasonable Compensation – 80% Permanent Disablement – Involved some guess work – Compensation enhanced – As injury and crush injury on right ankle, are proved and taken note of by Tribunal even in its award observations besides amount incurred for medical expenses and treatment, held that amount of Rs. 1,98,914/- awarded by Tribunal is in no way just compensation – Impugned award is modifying on quantum of compensation by enhancing the same from Rs. 1,98,914/- to Rs. 3,80,000/- Interest is awarded at 7 ½ % per annum by modifying and reducing from 9% per annum awarded by Tribunal – Appeal partly allowed.

 

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SUMITRA BAI

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 163-A, Second Schedule and 173 – MACT – Compensation – Annual Income of Rs. 40,000/- p.a. shall be treated as a cap – Claim Application maintainable – Held that proceeding under Section 163-A being a social security provision, providing for a distinct scheme, only those whose annual income is up to Rs. 40,000/- can take benefit thereof – At time of accident, deceased was aged about 32 years and earning Rs. 7,000/- per month as Contractor – Tribunal, by its impugned award after due enquiry held that deceased has died on account of bursting of tyre of motorcycle and annual income of deceased was Rs. 15,000/-p. a. and entitled for Rs. 1,70,000/- along with 6% interest – Said finding has not been challenged by Insurance company in this appeal and the same has attained finality, therefore, merely on basis of pleading in application that cannot be held that annual income of deceased was more than Rs. 40,000/- per annum – There is no illegality in impugned award – Appeal dismissed.

  

BASAPPA S/O SANGANABASAPPA BAHVIKATTI Vs. T RAMESH S/O TANGAVELU & ANR.

The learned counsel for the appellant made grievance only on three counts. In the first instance, he pleaded for increasing the amount of physical and mental pain and suffering. His vehement submission was that loss of future income is not assessed appropriately by the High Court. He pointed out that when the permanent disability was 58%, for the purposes of calculating the loss of future income, it had to be taken at 100%. Another plea of the appellant was that interest should have been granted at the rate of 9% instead of 6%. We find force in the submissions of the learned counsel on all these aspects. …. In this manner, the total compensation which would be payable to the appellant comes to Rs.6,72,000/- as against Rs.2,59,500/-, awarded by the High Court. We enhance the compensation accordingly

 

ASHVINBHAI JAYANTILAL MODI Vs. RAMKARAN RAMCHANDRA SHARMA & ANR.

the deceased was 19 years old and was pursuing his medical degree with good marks at the time of the accident….. The Tribunal and the High Court have not taken into proper consideration that the deceased was a student of medicine at the time of the accident while determining his future income. The courts below have wrongly ascertained the future income of the deceased at only Rs.18,000/- per month, which in our view is too less for a medical graduate these days. …. Further, the Tribunal and the High Court have erred in not following the principles laid down by this Court in M. Mansoor & Anr v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.[2013 (12) SCALE 324] in awarding a meagre sum of just Rs.15,000/- under the heads of loss of love and affection. Accordingly, we award Rs.1,00,000/- to the appellant towards the same. …. With regard to the apportionment made by the Tribunal and the High Court, we are of the view, after considering the facts, evidence produced on record and circumstances of the case on hand, that there was no negligence on the part of the deceased….. Thus, the total compensation payable to the appellant by the respondent- Insurance Company will be Rs.27,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment.

 

KUMARI KIRAN THR. HER FATHER HARINARAYAN Vs. SAJJAN SINGH & ORS.

we are of the view that the courts below have failed to follow the principles as laid down by this Court in the case of Subulaxmi (supra) in awarding compensation under a singular head towards permanent disability and loss of future earning to the appellant-minors and appellant-father. …. It is extremely essential for the courts to consider the two main components of damages i.e. both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages as per the guidelines laid down by this Court in the above case so that the just and reasonable compensation is awarded to the injured. …. However, the only aspect of the case on hand that we can reasonably assume is that the appellant-father would have taken sufficient caution while riding the motorcycle since he was travelling with his two minor children (appellant-minors). Further, upon examining the evidence produced on record, there is no proof showing negligence on the part of the appellant-father. Thus in our view, the contributory negligence apportioned by the High Court at 25% on the appellant-father and 75% on the driver of the offending tractor is erroneous keeping in view the legal principles laid down by this Court on this aspect in the above referred case.

 

YERRAMMA & ORS. Vs. G. KRISHNAMURTHY & ANR.

we are of the view that the Tribunal and the High Court have erred in the apportionment of negligence at 25% on the part of the deceased and 75% on the part of the driver of the respondent-Corporation bus without evidence adduced in this regard by the respondent. …. We are of the view, that on the facts and circumstances of this case, the net salary of the deceased taken by the Tribunal and the High Court for determination of loss of dependency is erroneous as it is not in accordance with the principles laid down by this Court in this regard….. Further, the High Court has erred in not following the rules as laid down by this Court in awarding compensation under other conventional heads as mentioned hereunder. We are of the view that the appellants are entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of love and affection as per the rule laid down by this Court …. In the result, the appellants shall be entitled to compensation under the following heads: Loss of Life Rs.23,16,600/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 10,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs. 1,00,000/- Loss of estate Rs. 1,00,000/- Loss of consortium Rs. 1,00,000/- Total : Rs.26,26,600/-…. Thus, the total compensation payable to the appellants by the respondent- Transport Corporation will be Rs.26,26,600/- with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment.

 

SARALADEVI & ORS.Vs.DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INS. CO. LTD. & ANR.

whereby the High Court reduced the compensation awarded at Rs.37,33,248/- by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and re-determined at Rs.15,84,750/-. …. the High Court has erred in not considering the principles laid down in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. (supra) in so far as deduction of 1/4th of the monthly income of the deceased to arrive at the multiplicand and reducing the compensation by adopting the split up multiplier. Further, recording the finding of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in the absence of evidence on record in this regard rendered the finding erroneous in law …. Further, deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased out of the annual income would be 1/4th as held by this Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors….. The High Court failed to follow the above judgement and committed an error in law in deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses of the deceased….. Further, the High Court has erred in not following the decision of Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh and Ors.[(2013) 9 SCC 54] by awarding only Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium, instead of Rs.1,00,000/-. Towards loss of estate, the High Court awarded Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs.1,00,000/. …. In the result, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside and the Award of the Tribunal is affirmed. Therefore, the appellants shall be entitled to compensation under the following heads: Loss of Dependency Rs.36,58,248/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 5,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs. 50,000/- Loss of estate Rs. 10,000/- Loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/- Total: Rs.37,33,248/-