JUDGMENT : K. Somashekar, J. Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing on both sides, it is taken up for final disposal. 2. This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 18.2.2014 passed in MVC No.7513/2012 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-XXIV, Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru city, awarding compensation in a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its payment. 3. The appellant-insurer has filed this appeal contending that the tribunal has awarded compensation in sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of expectancy, Rs.25,000/- towards loss of consortium. The compensation awarded under these heads by the tribunal does not arise. Therefore, it requires interference by this Court for consideration on merits. 4. Factual matrix of this appeal are as under : It is stated in the claim petition that on 25.6.2012 at around 7.00 a.m., the deceased Narayanappa along with his son namely Nanjundappa was proceeding on the left side of the footpath in front of Aiyyappa Swamy temple near Kantharaja circle, on Kolar-Mulbagal NH-4. At that relevant point of time, a bus bearing registration No.KA-01-AB-107, which is the offending vehicle, came in a rash and negligent manner and went on the wrong side towards road and hit the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained the grievous injuries. Subsequently, he succumbed to the injuries. The age of the deceased at that relevant point of time was shown as 60 years and income of the deceased was shown at Rs.25,000/- per month. Hence, the claim petition was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased seeking compensation from the respondents. 5. On issuance of notice to the respondents, respondent No.1 being the owner and respondent No.2 being the insurance company filed written statement resisting the claim petition filed by the petitioners seeking compensation for the death of the deceased. 6. In order to establish their case, claimant No.3-A.N. Nanjundapppa was examined himself as P.W.1 and the documents copy of complaint, FIR, spot panchanama, seizure mahazar, MV report, medical bills, inquest mahazar, PM report sketch, ration cards, copy of I.D. card of Srinivas and charge sheet were got marked as Exs. P.1 to P.11 respectively. On behalf of the respondents, no witness was examined nor the documents were got marked. 7. P.1 to P.11 respectively. On behalf of the respondents, no witness was examined nor the documents were got marked. 7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal formulated issues and gave its findings on the said issues and allowed the petition in part, awarding compensation of Rs.5,25,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its payment. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken me through the evidence of P.W.1 and also the documents in order to establish the case against the respondents-claimants and submitted that the tribunal has erroneously given its finding that the claimants respondent Nos.1 to 4 are the dependants of the deceased. All the respondents-claimants are married and self-reliant persons and the same has been revealed in the claim petition. Therefore, granting the compensation under the head loss of dependency is erroneous and does not arise and it requires interference by this Court. It is further contended that the tribunal has erroneously taken the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. Likewise, deduction of 1/3rd of income of the deceased towards his personal expenses is found to be erroneous. The compensation in a sum of Rs.25,000/- under the head loss of consortium is also found to be erroneous. These are the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the appellant which call for interference of this Court for modification. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents has taken me through the evidence of P.W.1 by reiterating the averments made in the claim petition. He submitted that P.W.1-Nanjundappa has given his evidence by establishing his case against the appellant seeking compensation. In support of his contention, P.W.1 has produced the relevant documents such as Ex.P.1 complaint for initiation of the case against the driver of the offending vehicle. Ex.P.7 is the inquest mahaszarr issued by the investigation officer against the accused. Ex.P.8 is said to be P.M. report issued by the doctor. Based on the evidence of P.W.1 and the documents, the tribunal has awarded the compensation in a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its payment. Therefore, in this appeal, it does not call for interference and prays to confirm the impugned judgment and awarded rendered by the tribunal by dismissing the appeal. 11. Therefore, in this appeal, it does not call for interference and prays to confirm the impugned judgment and awarded rendered by the tribunal by dismissing the appeal. 11. Keeping in view the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is relevant to state that the incident had taken place on 25.6.2012 at around 7.00 a.m. when the deceased Narayanappa along with son P.W.1-Nanjundappa was proceeding at Aiyyappa Swamy temple, at that time, the offending vehicle came and hit the deceased wherein he sustained the grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries and the same is reflected on the material as well as in the observations made by the tribunal. The tribunal has considered the evidence of P.W.1 and the other materials available on record and awarded the compensation. It is further relevant to state that the tribunal has awarded the compensation in respect of loss of dependency in a sum of Rs.4,32,000/- and the funeral expenses in a sum of Rs.25,000/-, loss of expectancy in a sum of Rs.25,000/- and loss of consortium in a sum of Rs.25,000/-. Though the compensation under the head loss of expectancy in a sum of Rs.25,000/- need not be awarded as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, but there is relationship between the claimants who are the legal representatives of the deceased. Therefore, the claimants being the children of the deceased, it can be said that the compensation under the head 'loss of expectancy' may be taken as the compensation under the head 'love and affection'. The challenge for the said for the head in this appeal does not call for interference. 12. Insofar as the compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses awarded by the tribunal, referring to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. PRANAY SETHI, (2017) AIR SC 5157, wherein it is held that under the conventional heads, the compensation shall not exceed the sum of Rs.70,000/-. Funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, loss of estate should be Rs.15,000/- and loss of consortium should not exceed the sum of Rs.40,000/-. But the tribunal has awarded 25,000/- in respect of loss of consortium. LTD. Vs. PRANAY SETHI, (2017) AIR SC 5157, wherein it is held that under the conventional heads, the compensation shall not exceed the sum of Rs.70,000/-. Funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, loss of estate should be Rs.15,000/- and loss of consortium should not exceed the sum of Rs.40,000/-. But the tribunal has awarded 25,000/- in respect of loss of consortium. Therefore, keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in respect of compensation under head loss of consortium, in this appeal, it requires interference as the legal representatives of deceased Narayanappa are not entitled for the compensation under head loss of consortium and accordingly, it to be interfered with. 13. Insofar as the income of the deceased, as contended by learned counsel for the appellant, the tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- and allowed the deduction of 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, which is erroneous. The claimants being the legal representatives of the deceased are the married sons and daughters and the tribunal ought to have considered 50% of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased and accordingly, it requires to be worked out. 14. Further, it is relevant to state that the age of the deceased Narayanappa as per ration card (Ex.P.9) was 68 years at the time of incident and as per the PM report said to be issued by the doctor, the age of the deceased was 60 years. It is also to be noticed that the claimants have produced the material documents before the tribunal seeking compensation. However, the income in a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month taken by the tribunal and the deduction of 1/3rd of the same towards personal expenses of the deceased appears to be erroneous. Accordingly, it is taken as 50% of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased. When it is calculated on being taken as 50% towards personal expenses, it comes to Rs.3,24,000/- (3,000/- x 12 x 9) as against Rs.4,32,000/- awarded by the tribunal. 15. Insofar as the award of compensation under the head loss of consortium at Rs.25,000/-, the claimants being the legal representatives of the deceased are married sons and daughters need not require the said compensation. Accordingly, this compensation awarded is absolved. Rest of the compensation awarded by the tribunal is to be maintained. 15. Insofar as the award of compensation under the head loss of consortium at Rs.25,000/-, the claimants being the legal representatives of the deceased are married sons and daughters need not require the said compensation. Accordingly, this compensation awarded is absolved. Rest of the compensation awarded by the tribunal is to be maintained. However, the loss of expectancy awarded in a sum of Rs.25,000/- shall be termed as it is the amount awarded under the head love and affection. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled for Rs.3,92,000/- as against Rs.5,25,000/- awarded by the tribunal . 16. In terms of the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following order: (i) The appeal preferred by the appellant is allowed in part. (ii) The respondents-claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.3,92,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation, as against Rs.5,25,000/- awarded by the tribunal. (iii) The impugned judgment and award, in so far as it relates to apportionment is concerned, shall remain unaltered. (iv) Accordingly, the impugned judgment and award dated 18.2.2014 passed in MVC No.7513/2012 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-XXIV, Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru city,, is modified to the extent stated herein above. (v) Amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.