THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A C.M.A.No.1847 of 2006 JUDGMENT: The appellant-Insurance Company filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order, dated 17.04.2006, passed in O.P.No.721 of 2004 by the Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 24.06.2004 at 9.30 PM, while the deceased Purumandla Narayan Reddy was riding Hero Honda Splender Motorcycle bearing No.AP 10/R-7544, and when reached in front of the Hostel of Gunda Eshwaraiah High School, Bansilalpet, he dashed one DCM van bearing No.AP-10/T-3308, which was parked without any precautionary indication in the ‘No parking zone’, as there was a manhole above the road level and because of poor light. Due to the said accident, the deceased sustained injuries to his head and both legs and while undergoing treatment in NIMS, he succumbed to the injuries on 07.07.2004 at 11.00 PM. The Police, Gandhinagar registered a case in Crime No.229 of 2004 under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the said van. At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 38 years, working as Field Supervisor, drawing monthly salary of Rs.6,605/-. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3/claimants being the wife, daughter and son of the deceased filed the above said O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in the said motor vehicle accident. 3. The fourth respondent-owner of the crime vehicle remained ex parte. The appellant-insurance company filed counter-affidavit denying the manner and occurrence of the accident and stated that the compensation claimed is highly excessive. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues; 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle (DCM van bearing No.AP-10/T-3308)? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, at what quantum and from whom? 3. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. On behalf of the second respondent, R.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1-Policy was marked. 6. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the van driver, who parked the vehicle near manhole without taking any precaution. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.6,72,000/-towards loss of earnings, Rs.15,000/-towards loss of consortium to the first respondent-wife, Rs.15,000/-towards loss of estate, Rs.50,000/-towards medical bills and Rs.30,000/-towards all other incidental expenses i.e., extra-nourishment charges, transportation etc., and in total, awarded an amount of Rs.7,82,000/- towards compensation to the claimants. Aggrieved by the said quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed by the appellant-insurance company. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that an amount of Rs.15,000/-towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/-towards loss of estate awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in SARALA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] it has to be reduced from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.10,000/-each under those two counts. 8. There is no dispute with regard to the negligence of the driver of the crime vehicle and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal except under two counts i.e., loss of consortium and loss of estate. With regard to granting of compensation towards loss of consortium and loss of estate, the Apex Court in SARALA VERMA’s case ( 1 supra), held as under: Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- may be added as loss of estate. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased. Following the said judgment, I deem it appropriate to reduce the amount awarded by the Tribunal under those two counts i.e., loss of consortium and loss of estate, from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.10,000/- each. After reducing the said amount, in total, the respondents/claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.7,72,000/- payable by the respondents in the above said O.P. The award of the Tribunal in all other aspects shall remain unaltered. The compensation amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till realization. 9. With the modification as above to the award of the Tribunal, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:17.06.2010 sj [1] AIR 2009 SC 3104