of care and minor children d oes not exist. Though Rajesh re f ers to Santosh Devi, it does n ot seem to follow the same. T he conventional and traditiona l heads, needless to say, canno t be determined on percentage b asis because that would not b e an acceptable criterion. Unlik e determination of income, the s aid heads have to be quantifie d . Any quantification must ha v e a reasonable foundation. The r e can be no dispute over the f act that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rate s in many a field have to be n oticed. The court cannot re m ain oblivious to the same. The r e has been a thumb rule in t his aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same a n d unless the thumb rule is appl i ed, there will be immense varia t ion lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribu n als and courts are likely to b e unguided. Therefore, we thin k it seemly to fix reasonable su m s. It seems to us that reason a ble figures on conventional he a ds, namely, loss of estate, los s of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15, 0 00, Rs.40,000 and Rs.15,000 respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads i s an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-ce n tric or quantum-centric. We t h ink that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enha n ced on percentage basis in e v ery three years and the enhanc e ment should be at the rate of 10%
