FAO/60/2015 on 16 October 2026

1. Whether on 3.5.2013 at about 2:20 p.m. near Lalah Tehsil Bharmour, District Chamba, respondent No. 1 was driving vehicle No. HP-46-1238 in a rash and negligent manner and hit Babu Ram, who later on died, as alleged? OPP

2. If issue No. 1 is proved in the affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation,if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP

3. Whether respondent No. 1 was driving the motor cycle under the supervision of one Shri Anu Mehra of Sohan Lal, resident of village Sirat P.O.Matali, Tehsil Indora, Distt. Kangra, who was sitting as pillion rider with respondent No. 1, as his trainer. If so, its effect? OPR1.

4. Whether the accident took place due to negligence of deceased himself, who all of a sudden appeared from the back side of a stationary truck and got himself struck against the motor cycle of respondent No. 1 despite blowing of horn by him, as alleged? OPR1

5. Whether driver-cum-owner Pankaj Kumar was driving the motor cycle in violation of Rule (3) of CMV Rules, 1989, therefore, respondent No. 2 is not liable to pay any compensation, as alleged? OPR-2.

6. Whether the motor cycle was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, as alleged? OPR-2.

7. Relief.

7. Thereafter, the parties to the lis were directed to adduce evidence. After the closure of the evidence, the learned Tribunal has allowed the said petition, by awarding the compensation, as referred to above, by fastening the ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation, on the Insurance Company.

8. Feeling aggrieved from the said award, Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal, before this Court, assailing the award, mainly on the ground that the learned Tribunal is erroneous in fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation. As per Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rule, the offending vehicle was being driven, in violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.

9. According to the Insurance Company, it has been established that the driving license of the driver was holding a learner’s license and on the strength of this license, he could not be held to be duly licensed driver.

10. Relying upon the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, a plea has been taken that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation.

11. Apart from this, the amount of compensation has also been sought to be reduced, on the ground that the same is on the higher side.

12. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Mamta, Advocate, appearing for the appellant has prayed that the present petition may kindly be allowed by setting aside the impugned award, by virtue of which, liability has been fastened upon the Insurance Company. In addition to this, it has also been prayed that the awarded amount may kindly be reduced.

13. The Insurance Company has further assailed the award on the ground that the Insurance Company has no liability to pay the amount of compensation, as there is fundamental breach of the insurance policy, as the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving license to drive the same, at the time of accident.

14. Per contra, Mr. Praveen Chauhan, learned counsel, appearing for respondents No.1 to 4/claimants has supported the award passed by the learned Tribunal and prayed that the amount of compensation may kindly be enhanced so that the same could fall within the definition of ‘just compensation’.

15. Mr. Gurmeet Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5, owner-cum-driver, of the offending vehicle has also supported the award, passed by the learned Tribunal.

16. In order to decide the present appeal, it would be just and proper for this Court to discuss the oral, as well as, documentary evidence, adduced by the parties, before the learned Tribunal.

16. After framing of issues, petitioners have examined Dr. Devinder Kumar, Regional Medical Officer, RH Chamba, who has conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Babu Ram. The post mortem report is Ext. PW1/A.

17. PW-2 is Kushala, wife of deceased Babu Ram. She has tendered the copy of the FIR mark A, postmortem report, Exhibit PW2/B. In the cross- examination, this witness has admitted that she was not present at the time of accident. She has denied rest of the suggestions. 17.1 In the cross examination by the Insurance Company, this witness has admitted that he has not annexed the copy of the Pariwar Register, along with the affidavit, nor any witness from the PWD Department has been examined. She has denied that her husband was not working with PWD as Roller Helper, nor he was earning 2,500 per month. She has stated that the ₹ offending vehicle was being driven by Pankaj Kumar. As per this witness, FIR was not lodged by this witness.

18. To rebut this evidence, respondent No. 1 Pankaj Kumar filed his affidavit Exhibit PW1/A, which is based upon the averments made in the reply to the claim petition. According to this witness, on 3.5.2013, he was riding the offending vehicle, along with Anu Mehra S/o Sohan Lal. According to this witness, at the place of accident, one truck was parked and Babu Ram, suddenly came out from the back side of truck and tried

to cross the road. In meanwhile, he came in contact with the offending vehicle. He has stated that Anu Mehra was having the license and he was driving the offending vehicle, under the supervision of Anu Mehra. He has produced the copy of the Insurance Policy, Exhibit RW1/B, Registration Certificate Ext. RW1/C, Driving License mark X.

19. He has admitted that at the time of accident, he was having the learning license. He has admitted that when, a person is having the learner’s license, he could drive the vehicle only when instructor is with him. Voluntarily stated that Anu Mehra was with him, who was imparting instructions to him. He has denied that Anu Mehra was not having a valid and effective driving license.

20. RW2, Jeet Singh, from the office of RLA, Dharampur, proved the abstract of the driving license registered as Ext. RW2/A. The license was valid w.e.f. 5.12.2012 to 26.6.2013.

21. So far as the documentary evidence is concerned, Ext. PW1/B is the copy of the postmortem report, Ext. PW2/B is the copy of the inquest report, Ext. PA is the last pay certificate, Ext.PB is the copy of the

FIR, Ext. PC is the copy of the Pariwar Register, whereas, on the other hand, the Insurance Company has placed on record the copy of Registration Certificate Ext. RW1/C, and copy of the driving license Ext.RW2/A.

22. By way of present appeal, the Insurance Company has sought the relief that the Insurance- Company may kindly be exonerated from indemnifying the owner, as the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle, Pankaj Kumar was not having a valid and effective driving licence, and he was having a learner's licence. The lack of a valid and effective driving licence, is stated to be the fundamental breach of the Insurance policy.

23. To decide the contention of the Insurance Company, it would be appropriate for this Court to discuss the provisions of Sections 2(10), 2(19), 3(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, and Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, which have been reproduced as: Section 2(10) of the Motor Vehicles Act: “Driving licence” means the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II authorizing the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description.

Section 2(19) of the Motor Vehicles Act: “Learner’s licence” means the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II authorizing ther person specified therein to drive as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description. Section 3. Necessity for driving licence--

(2) The conditions subject to which sub-section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instruction in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government. Rule -3 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules: General-The provisions of sub-section(1) of section 3 shall instructions or gaining experience in driving with the object of presenting himself for a test of competence to drive, so long as- (a) such person is the holder of an effective learner's licence issued to him in Form 3 to drive the vehicle; (b) such person is accompanied by an instructor holding an effective driving licence to drive the vehicle and instructor is sitting at such a position to control or stop the vehicle; and

(c) there is painted, in the front and the rear of the vehicle or on a plate or card affixed to the front or the rear, the letter "L" in red on a white background. Note—The painting on the vehicle or on the plate or card shall not be less than 18 centimeters squares and the letter “L” shall not be less than 10 centimeters high, 2 centimeters thick and 9 centimeters wide at the bottom. Provided that a person, while receiving instructions or gaining experience in driving a motorcycle (with or without a side-car attached), shall not carry any other person on the motorcycle except for the purpose, and in the manner referred to in clause (b).

24. In this case, it has not been disputed by the owner-cum-driver that he was having the learner's licence, as, when he appeared in the witness box as RW1, he has produced the driving licence mark-X, which has later been exhibited as Ext. RW2/A. The said licence admittedly is learner's licence, authorizing him to have learner's licence.

25. As per the statement of RW2, by virtue of the said learner's licence, Ext. RW2/A, Pankaj Kumar was authorized to drive motorcycle with gear, which was valid from 19.12.2012 to to 28.6.2013.

26. In his examination-in-chief, Pankaj Kumar has got recorded in his affidavit that on 3.5.2013, he, along with Anu Mehra, S/o Sohan Lal, R/o Village Sirat, P.O. Motali, Tehsil Indora, District Kangra, was rider on the offending vehicle. He has also stated that at the relevant time, he was having the learner's licence and Anu Mehra was having the valid licence, and under the instructions of said Anu Mehra, he was driving the vehicle with full control over it, in a limited speed.

27. Even, in the cross-examination, conducted by the Insurance Company, he has deposed that Anu Mehra was his instructor. A suggestion was given to him that

Anu Mehra was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the scooter. He has denied the said suggestion.

28. On the basis of the above evidence, it has vehemently been argued by the learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company that said Anu Mehra has not been examined by respondent No. 1 and the said failure to examine Anu Mehra, as his witness, is fatal for the case of respondent No. 1. The said argument does not hold water, since, the alleged breach of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, has been alleged by the Insurance Company, and the onus to prove that Anu Mehra, whose parentage and address has duly been deposed by RW1, was not having a valid and effective driving licence, rests upon it. There was every occasion for the Insurance Company to call said Anu Mehra as its witness, in the witness box, to ascertain the fact whether Anu Mehra was having an effective and valid driving licence, at the relevant time, when, he was imparting instructions to respondent No. 1 to drive the two-wheeler (Motor Cycle).

29. In the light of the Insurance Company’s failure to prove/probabilize the fact that Anu Mehra was not having a valid and effective driving licence, no benefit can be derived by it, particularly on the ground that the respondent No. 1 has not examined Anu Mehra, as his witness, nor produced his licence.

30. In this case, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has also made a futile attempt to draw the attention of the Court towards the reply of respondent No. 1 and argued that in the reply, these material facts have not been pleaded by respondent No. 1 that he was having a learner's licence and at the relevant time, he was driving the offending vehicle, under the instructions of Anu Mehra, who was having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the two-wheeler.

31. Respondent No. 1 was supposed to respond to the contents of the claim petition, in his reply. He was not supposed to plead those facts, which are not there, in the claim petition. Moreover, it has not been mandated on part of the owner to plead about the fact that he was having the driving licence or learner's licence and he was driving the offending vehicle, under the supervision of a person, who was having a valid and effective driving licence. This plea has been taken by the Insurance

Company, and it was for the Insurance Company to prove/probabilize the violation of the provisions of law, as referred to above, as well as, the fundamental breach of the Insurance Policy.

32. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case titled as, ‘National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Bhagwani & others, reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 2874, has held that the learner’s license is a valid license. Relevant paragraph-1 of the judgment is reproduced as under: “1.This Special Leave Petition is covered by a judgment of this Court in SLP (Civil) No. 9027 of 2003, National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.Swaran Singh and others delivered today where it has been held that the learner’s licence is also a valid licence.”

33. The above decision is based upon the decision of a three judges Bench of a Supreme Court in a case titled as, ‘National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Swaran Singh’, reported in (2004)3 Supreme Court Cases 297. Relevant paragraphs 93 and 94 of the judgment are reproduced as under: “93. The Motor Vehicles Ac, 1988 provides for grant of learner’s licence. [See Section 4(3), Section 7(2), Section 10(3) and Section 14]. A learner’s licence is, thus, also a licence within the meaning of the provisions of the said Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that when a vehicle is being driven by a learner subject to the conditions mentioned in the licence, he would not be a person who is not “duly licensed” resulting in conferring a right on the insurer to avoid the claim of the third party. It cannot be said that a person holding a learner’s licence is not entitled to drive the vehicle. Even if there exists a condition in the contract of insurance that the vehicle cannot be driven by a person holding a learner’s licence, the same would run counter to the provisions of Section 149(2) of the said Act.”

94. The provisions contained in the said Act provide also for grant of driving licence which is otherwise a learner's licence. Sections 3(2) and 6 of the Act provide for restriction in the matter of grant of driving licence, Section 7 deals with such restrictions on granting of learner's licence. Sections 8 and 9 provide for the manner and conditions for grant of driving licence. Section 15 provides for renewal of driving licence. Learner's licences are granted under the Rules framed by the Central Government or the State Governments in exercise of their rule-making power. Conditions are attached to the learner's licences granted in terms of the statute. A person holding b learner's licence would, thus, also come within the purview of "duly licensed" as such a licence is also granted in terms of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It is now a well-settled principle of law that rules validly framed become part of the statute. Such rules are, therefore, required to be read as a part of the main enactment. It is also a well-settled principle of law that for the interpretation of statute an attempt must be made to give effect to all provisions under the rule. No provision should be considered as surplusage.” (self emphasis supplied)

34. At the cost of repetition, it can be held that the Insurance Company has miserably failed to prove that Anu Mehra was not having a valid and effective driving license, as the said fact could easily be proved or disproved by summoning said Anu Mehra, in the witness box. The failure of the Insurance Company to do so, is fatal for its case and on this ground, the plea of the Insurance Company to seek exoneration from indemnifying the owner, cannot be accepted.

35. The matter can be seen from another angle. The driver-cum-owner was possessing a driving license. The offending vehicle was Motor Cycle with gear. In such situation, considering the proviso, added to Rule-3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, there is no legal requirement for the Instructor to be with the person, possessing the learner’s licence. The proviso, added with Rule -3 is to be considered alongwith the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Rule 24 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules is reproduced, as under: “24. Driving schools and establishments.—(1) No person shall establish or maintain any driving school or establishment for imparting instructions for hire or reward in driving motor vehicles without a licence in Form 11 granted by the licensing authority.

(2) An application for the grant or renewal of a licence under sub-rule (1) shall be made in Form 12 or Form 13, as the case may be, to the licensing authority having jurisdiction in the area in which the school or establishment is situated and shall be accompanied by appropriate fee as specified in rule 32. Explanation.—For the purposes of this rule and rules 25 to 28 "licensing authority" means an officer not below the rank of the Regional Transport Officer of the Motor Vehicles Department established under section 213.

(3) The licensing authority shall, when considering an application for the grant or renewal of a licence under this rule, have regard to the following matters, namely:—

(i) the applicant and the staff working under him are of good moral character and are qualified to give driving instructions;

(ii) the premises where the school or establishment is proposed to be conducted is either owned by the applicant or is taken on lease by him or is hired in his name and it has adequate provision for [conducting lecture and demonstration of models] besides adequate parking area for the vehicles meant to be used for imparting instructions in driving: Provided that in respect of schools or establishments imparting instructions in driving of motor vehicles or matters connected therewith immediately before the commencement of these rules, the licensing authority may permit the conducting of instruction facilities in the same premises where the school or establishment is housed for a period of six months, notwithstanding the fact that the premises do not satisfy the conditions laid down in this clause;

(iii) the financial resources of the proposed school or establishment are sufficient to provide for its continued maintenance;

(iv) the applicant owns and maintains a minimum of one motor vehicle each of the type in which instruction is imparted in the school or establishment;

(v) the vehicles are available exclusively for purposes of imparting instruction and all such vehicles, except motor cycles, are fitted with dual control facility to enable the instructor to control or stop the vehicle;

(vi) the applicant maintains the following apparatus, equipment and Dther requirements, namely:—

(a) a blackboard,

(b) a road plan board with necessary model signals and charts,

(c) traffic signs chart,

(d) chart on automatic signals and signals given by traffic controllers where there are no automatic signals, (e) a service chart depicting a detailed view of all the components of a motor vehicle, (f) engine gear box, [brake shoe and drums] (except where the applicant desires to impart instruction in the driving of motor cycles only), (g) puncture kit with tyre lever, wheel brace, jack and tyre pressure gauge, (h) spanners (a set each of fix spanners, box spanners, pliers, screw drivers, screw spanners, and hammer),

(i) driving instructions manual,

(j) benches and tables for trainees and work bench, [* * *]

(m) a [collection] of books on automobile mechanism, driving, road safety, traffic regulations, laws relating to motor vehicles and related subjects [***]

(n) a fully equipped first-aid box for use in emergency at the premises; [* * *]

(viii) The applicant or any member of the staff employed by him for imparting instructions possesses the following qualifications, namely:— (a) a minimum educational qualification of a pass in the 10th standard,

(b) a minimum driving experience of five years in addition to a certificate in a course in motor mechanics or any other higher qualification in mechanical engineering from an institution established by the Central or a State Government or from an institution recognised by the Board of Technical Education of a State Government,

(c) thorough knowledge of traffic signs specified in the Schedule to the Act and the regulations made under section 118, (d) ability to demonstrate and to explain the functions of different components, parts of the vehicles, (e) adequate knowledge of English or the regional language of the region in which the school or establishment is situated: Provided that any person who has served as an instructor for a period of not less than five years immediately before the commencement of these rules, is exempted from the requirements of this sub- clause.

(4) The licensing authority may, on receipt of an application under sub-rule (2) and after satisfying that the applicant has complied with the requirements of sub- rule (3), grant or renew a licence in Form 11 [within a period of ninety days from receipt of such an application],

(5) No application for licence shall be refused by the licensing authority unless the applicant is given an opportunity of being heard and reasons for such refusal are given in writing by the licensing authority.

36. In view of Rule 24 (3)(v) as reproduced above, the Instructor shall accompany the learner, while driving the motor vehicle, having dual control facility, to enable the instructor to control or stop the vehicle.

37. Admittedly, the Motor cycle is exempted and it does not require any instructor to be accompanied, holding the learner’s licence.

38. Proviso to Rule 3 enabling the rider of the motor cycle shall not carry any other person, on the motor cycle, as pillion rider, except, for the purpose, and in the manner, referred to in clause (b), which shows that the person holding a driving license shall be accompanied by a person, who holds a learner's license for the motorcycle, but not a license for a motor vehicle.

39. As such, the learned Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company to indemnify the owner-cum-driver. Interestingly, while reproducing Rule-3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, the proviso added with Rule 3 has not been reproduced by the Insurance Company. The selective reproduction of the Rule also dis-entitles the Insurance Company to claim any relief, in the present appeal.

40. It is no longer res integra that the endeavor of the Court or Tribunal is to grant just compensation. In order to achieve the said goal, now, this Court would proceed further to ascertain the fact whether the learned Tribunal has granted just compensation or not?

41. The age of deceased Babu Ram has been held to be 37 years. In the claim petition, his age has been mentioned as 37, and even in the post-mortem report exhibit PW-1/A, his age has been mentioned as 37 years. Apart from this, the copy of the Pariwar Register has also been placed on record, as Ext. PC, in which, the date of birth of deceased Babu Ram has been mentioned as 1.7.1974. The accident in question had taken place on 3.5.2013. So, his age comes to 39 years.

42. So far as the income of deceased Babu Ram is concerned, it has been pleaded that he was a roller helper in HPPWD and his salary was Rs. 25,000/- per month. The last pay certificate of Shri Babu Ram, has been produced by the counsel, representing the petitioner and has been exhibited as Ext. PE. Although, the petitioners have not examined any official witness from the Department of HPPWD, to prove the last pay certificate, but considering the fact that the strict Rules of the Evidence Act, are not applicable to the proceedings, under the Motor Vehicles Act, as they are summary in nature, the same can be taken into consideration.

43. The monthly salary of deceased Babu Ram has been taken as Rs. 16,407/-, which is based upon the last pay certificate, which does not require any interference. Thus, the annual income of deceased comes to Rs. 16,407 x 12 = Rs. 1,96,884/-. The learned Tribunal has rightly given the addition of 50%, on account of future prospects, had Babu Ram been alive, as age of deceased Babu Ram was taken to be 37 years, as he was working in an organized Sector. Thus, his annual income would come to Rs. 1,96,884/- + Rs. 98, 442/- (additional 50% hike) = Rs. 2,95,326/-. Out of this amount, the tax component is to be deducted.

44. As per the tax slab, for the assessment year 2013-2014, the annual income upto Rs. 2,00,000/-was exempted. Therefore, out of Rs. 2,95,326/-, the taxable amount comes to Rs. 95,236/-. After deducting the tax @ 10%, the amount comes to Rs. 9533/- The education cess @ 2% on the aforesaid amount is also liable to be deducted, which comes to Rs. 191/-. Thus, the total tax component comes to Rs. 9724/-. Hence, the established income of the deceased comes to Rs. 2,95,326 minus Rs. 9724= Rs. 2,85,602/- per annum.

45. Keeping in view the number of dependents, 1/4th amount is liable to be deducted, towards personal expenses, had he been alive. His contribution towards his family, comes to Rs. 2,85,602/- minus Rs. 71,400/- (1/4th of Rs. 2,85,602/-) = Rs. 2,14,202/- and a multiplier of 15 is the appropriate multiplier to be applied, in the present case. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to Rs. 2,14,202 x 15 = Rs. 32,13,030/-.

46. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses, and Rs. 25,000/- on account of loss of consortium. These findings, as per the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case titled as, ‘National Insurance Company Limited versus Pranay Sethi and others’, reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680, require interference by this Court. The petitioners are held entitled to Rs. 15,000/-, under the head ‘loss of estate’, Rs. 40,000/-, under the head ‘loss of consortium’ and Rs. 15,000/-, under the head ‘funeral expenses’. `

47. Further in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, all the claimants are held entitled for the amount under the head ‘loss of consortium’. Relevant paragraphs 21 to 24, are reproduced as under:-

21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Seth(supra) dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is Loss of Consortium. In legal parlance,“consortium” is a compendious term which encompasses ‘spousal consortium’, ‘parental consortium’,

and

‘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.

21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of “company society, corporation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation.

21.2. 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.

21.3. 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, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.

22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions worldover have recognized 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 therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.

23. 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 parents has lost their minor child, or unmarried son of 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 vehi cle accidents under the Act. A fe 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.

48. Thus, the entitlement of the petitioners, is, adjudicated, as under:

1. Loss of contribution = Rs. 32,13,030/-

2. Loss of estate = Rs. 15,000.

3. Funeral expenses = Rs. 15,000/-.

4. Loss of consortium = Rs. 40,000 x 4 = Rs. 1,60,000/-. Total amount of compensation= Rs. 34,03,030/-

49. The learned Tribunal has rightly awarded interest at the rate of Rs. 7.5% per annum, as such, the same is not liable to be interfered with.

50. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed, and the awarded amount is enhanced from Rs. 33,97,440/- to Rs. 34,03,030/-. along with interest @ 7.5%, per annum. However, the appellant-Insurance Company is held liable to satisfy the award.

51. The award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified in the above terms.

52. Memo of costs be prepared.

53. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.

54. Record be sent back.

(Virender Singh) 16.10.2026

Judge (kalpana)