The relevant portion of the jud g ment is reproduced as under:“ 52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, w e find it difficult to agree with t h e view expressed in Rajesh². I t has granted Rs.25,000 toward s funeral expenses, Rs 1,00,00 0 towards loss of consortium a n d Rs 1,00,000 towards loss o f care and guidance for minor children. The head relating t o loss of care and minor childre n does not exist. Though Rajes h refers to Santosh Devi, it does n ot seem to follow the same. Th e conventional and traditional h e ads, needless to say, cannot b e determined on percentage bas i s because that would not be a n acceptable criterion. Unlike d e termination of income, the sai d heads have to be quantified. A ny quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There c an be no dispute over the fac t that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates i n many a field have to be not i ced. The court cannot remai n oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in thi s aspect. Otherwise, there w ill be extreme difficulty i n determination of the same and u nless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variatio n lacking any kind of consistenc y as a consequence of which, th e orders passed by the tribunal s and courts are likely to be u n guided. Therefore, we think i t seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonabl e figures on conventional heads , namely, loss of estate, loss o f consortium and funeral ex p enses should be Rs.15,000, Rs.40,000 and Rs.15,000 re s pectively. The principle o f revisiting the said heads is a n acceptable principle. But th e revisit should not be fact-centr i c or quantum-centric. We thin k
