JUDGMENT S.K. Verma, J.
1. The respondents filed a claim petition against the appellant because of the death of Ganga Datt Joshi, who was constable in the Central Reserve Police on the basis that while he was going to his village on 1.1.1982, it is said that he met with an accident with bus No. UTF 7486, owned by the appellant. The claim petition for Rs. 1,26,519/- was filed by Hama Devi, mother of the deceased, Jaimati Devi, widow of the deceased, Shanti Devi and Lilla Devi, daughters of the deceased. The trial court after considering the evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion that the appellant was liable for the accident because of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the aforesaid bus. This finding has not been challenged by the appellant. Further, the trial court also came to the conclusion that a sum of Rs. 90,000/- had to be paid in a lump sum as compensation for loss of pecuniary benefits to the respondents and a further sum of Rs. 20,000/- was payable on the basis of loss of love and affection. Another amount of Rs. 4,200/- was payable to the two daughters of the deceased on the basis of pecuniary benefits accruing to them and a sum of Rs. 18,000/- was also allowed as loss of pension which could have accrued to them had the deceased not met with the accident. Thus a total of Rs. 90,000/- + Rs. 20,000/- + Rs. 18,000/- + Rs. 4,200/- = Rs. 1,32,200/- was determined as compensation payable to the respondents out of which a sum of Rs. 32,200/- was reduced for lump sum payment. Thus, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- became payable. Out of this amount a sum of Rs. 36,000/- paid ex gratia was also deducted and, thus, a decree for Rs. 64,000/- was passed in favour of the respondents along with the interest.
2. The appellant has mainly challenged the finding that the lump sum deduction should have been on the basis of the principle of reduction of 33 per cent as per the legal position enumerated in several decisions of different High Courts. It was also contended on behalf of the appellant that Rs. 20,000/- granted as compensation for loss of love and affection could not have been granted because no compensation can be awarded on the basis of sentimentality. Only pecuniary loss can be compensated and that after deducting 33 per cent from the lump sum amount payable and also after deducting Rs. 20,000/- as stated above, the rest could have been awarded to the respondents and the appeal should, therefore, be allowed.
3. A cross-objection has also been filed for enhancement of the amount decreed in favour of the respondents but in spite of service of notice none has appealed to press the cross-objection. The cross-objection is, therefore, dismissed.
4. In a Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Lachman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur 1979 ACJ 170 (P&H), it was held that:
The compensation to be assessed is the pecuniary loss caused to the dependants by the death of the person concerned and no compensation is to be assessed on any extraneous consideration like love and affection, mental agony or any such similar consideration. Solatium is alien to the concept of compensation.
5. Agreeing with the aforesaid Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, I come to the conclusion that the amount of Rs. 20,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal as compensation for loss of love and affection should be reduced from the compensation awarded, as it is not payable on that account. However, it has to be remarked that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount for the loss caused due to the loss of consortium or companionship. To my mind an amount of Rs. 6,000/- would be enough compensation on this account. Hence instead of Rs. 20,000/-, which has to be reduced, the widow of the deceased is entitled to get Rs. 6,000/- as compensation for loss of consortium.
6. I may now consider the question whether the lump sum amount of 33 per cent should be reduced from the lump sum payment to be made to the respondents. Two decisions of this court have been cited, namely, U.P. State Road Trans. Corporation v. Zakiya Begum 1987 685 (Allahabad), wherein it was held that 33 per cent should be deducted from the lump sum payment and another decision of this court reported in Krishna Sehgal v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation 1983 ACJ 619 (Allahabad), wherein also it was held that 33 per cent has to be deducted from the lump sum payment. The trial court did not fix any percentage for making deduction from the lump sum payment but reduced the award amount from Rs. 1,32,200/-to Rs. 1,00,000/- arbitrarily. I am, therefore, of the opinion that a deduction of 33 per cent should be made from the total amount payable which comes to Rs. 90,000 + Rs. 18,000 + Rs. 4,200 = Rs. 1,12,200/-. 33 per cent of this amount would come to Rs. 37,400/-. The balance is Rs. 74,800/-. Rs. 6,000/- is added to this amount and the total balance comes to Rs. 80,800/-. The respondents have already received a sum of Rs. 36,000/- as ex gratia payment. The balance which has yet to be paid is Rs. 44,800. The claim should, therefore, be decreed for an amount of Rs. 44,800/- together with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the award.
7. The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of the above finding. Whatever has already been paid other than ex gratia payment after the award in pursuance of the direction of this court shall be deducted from this amount.