JUDGMENT : H.T. Narendra Prasad, J. MFA 6084/2017 is filed by the claimants and MFA 2393/2017 is filed by the KSRTC challenging the judgment and award dated 1.12.2016 passed by the II Addl. District Judge and MACT, Kolar in MVC 116/2014. 2. Brief facts of the case: On 26.1.2014, when H.Balaji Singh (deceased) was going on his motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-07-R-3123 on the side of the road, when he reached the place known as Kedar Gas Office on Kolar-Bangarpet Road, Kolar Town, the KSRTC bus bearing Registration No.KA-07-F-1585 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle of H.Balaji Singh. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries and immediately he was shifted to the hospital where he succumbed to the injuries on 27.1.2014. Hence, the legal heirs of the deceased, who are wife, son and mother have filed a claim petition before the MACT seeking compensation of Rs.75,00,000/- (rupees seventy five lakhs only). 3. In response to the notice issued, respondent appeared through an advocate and filed its statement of objections opposing the claim of the petition in toto. In addition, it is contended that the respondent is the owner of the KSRTC bus bearing Registration No.KA-07-F-1585, it was driven by the experienced driver of the Corporation. The said vehicle was plying on 26.1.2014 from KGF towards Kolar. The accident occurred in front of Kedar Gas Agency office due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider and not on the fault of the driver of the KSRTC bus. Since the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, the respondent-Corporation is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. 4. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for its consideration:- "(1) Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased Sri.H.Balaji Singh died due to the rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus bearing its Reg.No.KA-07-F- 1585 by its driver on 26.1.2014 at about 8.45 p.m. in front of Kedar Gas Office, on Kolar-Bangarpet road, Kolar town? (2) Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so how much and from whom? (3) What order? 5. In support of the case, the claimants examined the son of the deceased as PW-1 and other two witnesses as PWs-2 and 3 and they have produced 17 documents as Exs.P-1 to 17. (2) Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so how much and from whom? (3) What order? 5. In support of the case, the claimants examined the son of the deceased as PW-1 and other two witnesses as PWs-2 and 3 and they have produced 17 documents as Exs.P-1 to 17. While the respondent-KSRTC examined two witnesses as RWs-2 and 3 and produced one document as Ex.R-1. 6. On the basis of the said evidences, the Tribunal answered the aforesaid issues in the following manner: Issue No.1 : Affirmative Issue Nos.2 and 3: As per final order for the following 7. The Tribunal by the judgment and award dated 1.12.2016 awarded the compensation of Rs.27,49,600/- with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the claimants as well as the KSRTC are before this Court. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the original records. 9. Sri.D.Vijaykumar, the learned counsel for the KSRTC has raised the following contentions: Firstly, it is very clear from Ex.R-1, Accident Register Extract that the deceased had consumed alcohol and was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and he further contended that Ex.P-3, sketch prepared by the police is on the next day. In the evidence of RW-1, it is specifically stated that the driver of the bus was driving on the extreme left side of the road and due to negligence of the deceased, the accident occurred. The driver of the bus had given complaint to the police and the police have refused to take the complaint. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal is not justified in holding that the accident had occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. Secondly, Smt.Sandhya (PW-3), the employer of the deceased in her cross examination has admitted that the family of the deceased was receiving family pension of Rs.15,000/- per month. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly deducted the family pension amount from the salary of the deceased and has assessed the "loss of dependency". Thirdly, the claimants have restricted their claim to Rs.15,00,000/- before this Court and therefore this Court cannot enhance the compensation beyond Rs.15,00,000/- in view of Section 5 of the Karnataka High Courts Act, 1961. Fourthly, the interest awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 7% p.a. is on the higher side. Thirdly, the claimants have restricted their claim to Rs.15,00,000/- before this Court and therefore this Court cannot enhance the compensation beyond Rs.15,00,000/- in view of Section 5 of the Karnataka High Courts Act, 1961. Fourthly, the interest awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 7% p.a. is on the higher side. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal filed by the KSRTC and dismiss the appeal filed by the claimants. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants has raised the following counter- contentions: Firstly, the deceased was riding his motorcycle slowly and cautiously on the left side of the road. The KSRTC bus came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle. From Ex.P-2, Mahazar and Ex.P-3, Sketch. It is clear that there is 20 feet width straight road and the bus went on the extreme left side of the road and dashed to the motorcycle which was coming in the opposite direction. He further contended that even though Ex.R-1, Accident Register Extract mentions that the deceased had consumed alcohol, what is written in the said extract is that the Doctor, who treated the deceased had smelt the alcohol smell from the mouth of the deceased, but there is no evidence as to how much content of alcohol is found in the blood of the deceased. Secondly, in respect of family pension, the Tribunal has not properly considered the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar and others -v- Kishore Dan and others, (2013) 7 SCC 476 and has wrongly deducted the family pension from the income of the deceased while calculating the "loss of dependency". Thirdly, even though the claimants have restricted their claim to Rs.15,00,000/- before this Court, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RAMLA AND OTHERS vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS, 2019 2 SCC 192 , this Court can enhance the compensation and grant just and reasonable compensation. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal filed by the claimants and dismiss the appeal filed by the KSRTC. 11. This Court has requested the learned Additional Advocate General, Sri Sandesh J.Chouta to assist the Court. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal filed by the claimants and dismiss the appeal filed by the KSRTC. 11. This Court has requested the learned Additional Advocate General, Sri Sandesh J.Chouta to assist the Court. He submitted that before amendment of Section 5 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1961"), the appeal has to be decided by the Bench consisting of not less than two judges of the High Court. By amendment, if the value of the appeal is exceeding Rs.15,00,000/-, the appeal has to be decided by the Bench consisting of not less than two Judges of the High Court. He further submitted that Rs.15,00,000/- amount is fixed as the value of the subject matter of appeal for the purpose of ascertaining the forum for hearing the appeal and he has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER vs. GOPAL, (1994) ILR(Kar) 1817 and SRI. GANESH KANOBA WAINGANKAR -V- VITHAL GOURI GOURISH DOVALI, (1997) ILR(Kar) 1704 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, the following points would arise for my consideration : i. Whether the MACT is justified in attributing actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing Registration No.KA-07-F-1585 based on the facts of the case and evidences on record ? OR Whether the deceased had also contributed to the accident as contended by the learned counsel for the KSRTC ? ii. Whether the Single Judge can enhance compensation in the appeal more than Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs only) in view of the provision of Section 5 of the said Act of 1961? iii. Whether the claimants have made out a case for enhancement of compensation ? iv. What order ? Re. Point No.1: 13. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that on 26.01.2014, Sri.H.Balaji Singh (deceased) was riding the motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-07-R-3123. When he reached the place known as Kedar Gas office on Kolar-Bangarpet road, the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-07- F-1585 came from the opposite direction and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, the rider of the motorcycle sustained injuries. It is not in dispute that on 26.01.2014, Sri.H.Balaji Singh (deceased) was riding the motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-07-R-3123. When he reached the place known as Kedar Gas office on Kolar-Bangarpet road, the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-07- F-1585 came from the opposite direction and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, the rider of the motorcycle sustained injuries. He was immediately shifted to R.L.Jalappa Hospital, Kolar and he succumbed to the injuries in the said hospital on 27.01.2014 at about 8.00 a.m. On the same day, PW1 - Raghavendra Singh has given a police complaint. On the basis of the complaint, the police have registered the case in Crime No.13/2014 against the driver of the bus. After registering the case, the police went to the spot, conducted the spot mahazar as per Ex.P2 and the investigation officer has drawn up the spot sketch as per Ex.P3 and seized both the vehicles involved in the accident. After seizure of both the vehicles, IMV Inspector has conducted the inspection of both the vehicles and found damages to both the vehicles on front side, particularly, the front right portion of the bus was damaged. The same is evident from Ex.P4-IMV report. The Motor Vehicle Inspector expresses the opinion that there was no mechanical defect in either of the vehicles. The Ex.P5- inquest mahazar and Ex.P6-postmortem report reveals that the death of H.Balaji Singh was due to head injury sustained in the motor vehicle accident. After investigation, the police have filed a charge sheet against RW1 as per Ex.P7 and the driver of the offending bus was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC. 14. To prove their case, the claimants have examined PW1 Raghavendra Singh, son of Balaji Singh as PW1. Claimants have also examined PW2 Srikanth, who is the eyewitness to the incident. He has deposed that on 26.01.2014 at about 8.30 a.m. when he was in front of Kedar Gas Office near Bangarpet Circle, the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-07/R-3123 was going slowly on Kolar - Bangarpet Road on the left side and at that time, the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-07/F- 1585 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, the driver of the bus lost control over the vehicle and dashed to the motorcycle, as a result Balaji Singh fell down from the motorcycle and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, himself and others shifted the injured to RL Jalappa Hospital Kolar, where he succumbed to the injuries on the next day. The respondent has cross-examined PW2 but nothing has been elicited from PW2. On the other hand, the Corporation has examined the driver and conductor of the offending bus as RWs.1 and 2. Even though they have deposed that accident has occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider and that immediately they have lodged the complaint with the police and also given a telegram to the SP for necessary action against the rider of the motorcycle, but to substantiate their say, they have not produced the copy of the complaint or the endorsement for having sent the telegram to the police. Therefore, they have not substantiated their evidence by producing the necessary documents. 15. This Court also perused the copies of the spot mahazar and sketch marked as Exs.P2 and P3. It discloses that on the spot, there is 20 ft. width straight road, the accident has occurred in front of Kedar Gas Office. The accident is a head on collusion. The above said documents disclose that the offending bus was on the extreme right side of the road. But on perusal of the deposition of the witnesses and the documents produced by the parties, it is established that because of the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver, the accident has occurred. 16. The learned counsel appearing for the Corporation has contended that as per Ex.R1, the deceased has consumed alcohol and due to his negligence the accident has occurred. By perusing Ex.R1, even though it is mentioned that the doctor who treated the injured had smelt the smell of alcohol from the mouth of the deceased, there is no evidence to show how much percentage of the alcohol was found in the blood. Merely because a person had consumed alcohol, it cannot be said that the accident has occurred due to his negligence. The Tribunal also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RUDRA vs. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSRUANCE CO. LTD., (2011) AIR SC 2572 wherein it is held that merely because the appellant had consumed alcohol, it did not mean that the driver of the vehicle did not drive the vehicle cautiously. The Tribunal also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RUDRA vs. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSRUANCE CO. LTD., (2011) AIR SC 2572 wherein it is held that merely because the appellant had consumed alcohol, it did not mean that the driver of the vehicle did not drive the vehicle cautiously. Thus, the Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and as a result of which, the appellant sustained injuries. 17. In the instant case, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, as a result of which Balaji Singh sustained injuries. Therefore, it is clear that Balaji Singh died due to the rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-07/F-1585 by its driver. 18. On perusal of the original records and the documents produced by both the parties, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal is justified in holding that the negligence is on the part of the driver of the KSRTC bus. Re. Point No.2: 19. The legislature has enacted a law called the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 with an object to make provision for regulating the business and the exercise of power of the High Court of the State of Karnataka in relation to the administration of justice and to provide for its jurisdiction. For better understanding, Section 5 of the said Act of 1961 is extracted hereinbelow: Section 5 of the said Act of 1961 as it read before the amendment: "5. First Appeals.- Save as otherwise provided in this Act, all First Appeals, Criminal Appeals and all cases referred to the High Court for confirmation of a sentence of death, shall be heard by a Bench consisting of not less than two Judges of the High Court; Provided that a Criminal Appeal from a judgment in which no sentence of death or imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a period exceeding seven years is passed against any accused, who has preferred an appeal, may be heard by a single Judge of the High Court." 20. On the basis of the recommendations of the Law Commission of India in its 124th report, the Arrears Committee was constituted. On the basis of the recommendations of the Law Commission of India in its 124th report, the Arrears Committee was constituted. On the suggestions of the Arrears Committee of the High Court, the High Court of Karnataka recommended amendment of Section 5 of the said Act of 1961 to facilitate quick disposal of cases at lesser cost. With that object Section 5 of the said Act of 1961 has been amended by Act No.6/1994. It has come into effect from 08.03.1994. Section 5 of the said Act of 1961, as amended, reads thus: "5. First appeals - Save as otherwise provided in this Act,- (i) all First Appeals against a decree or order passed in a suit or other proceedings, the value of the subject mater which exceeds fifteen lakh rupees shall be heard by a Bench consisting of not less than two Judges of the High Court and other First Appeals shall be heard by a Single Judge of the High Court. (ii) All Criminal Appeals against Judgments in which sentence of death or imprisonment for life is passed and against judgments of acquittal in cases in which offences are punishable with death or imprisonment for life shall be heard by a Bench consisting of not less than two Judges of High Court and other Criminal Appeals shall be heard by a Single Judge of the High Court." 21. Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads thus: "173. Appeals.- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court; Provided that no appeal by the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall be entertained by the High Court unless he has deposited with it twenty-five thousand rupees or fifty per cent of the amount so awarded, whichever is less, in the manner directed by the High Court. Provided further that the High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time. (2) No appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than ten thousand rupees." 22. (2) No appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than ten thousand rupees." 22. On a plain reading of the above provisions of the said Act of 1961, it clearly shows that when the first appeal filed before the High Court under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it has to be disposed of and decided by the High Court. The forum is the High Court and not the Bench. The amendment has been made with an object to make early disposal of the cases pending in the High Court as well as to avoid delay in disposal of the matters by the High Court. If all the matters of whatsoever value of the subject matter in appeal are to be kept pending for decision by Division Bench, it may not be easy to dispose of the appeals at the earliest possible to obviate this difficulty and to make early disposal of first appeals. The legislature amended the law and provided that first appeals may also be decided by the Single Judge, exercising the jurisdiction and power of the High Court to dispose of the appeal, so that instead of two judges deciding the appeal many appeals may be disposed of by making them disposable by Single Judges of the High Court. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the value of the subject matter of an appeal has to be considered for the purpose of ascertaining whether first appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has to be heard and decided by the Single Judge or the Division Bench. Therefore, there is no bar under Section 5 of the said Act of 1961 for the Single Judge to enhance the compensation amount more than Rs.15 Lakhs in the appeal while awarding just compensation. 23. For the view taken above, I find support of the following two judgments: This Court in the case of SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (supra) has considered the amendment of Section 5 of the said Act of 1961 and held as hereinbelow: "11. It is a well accepted principle that ordinarily it is the value in the original proceedings that determines the jurisdiction of the Court and not the amount which may be found or decreed by the Court against which the appeal is preferred. It is a well accepted principle that ordinarily it is the value in the original proceedings that determines the jurisdiction of the Court and not the amount which may be found or decreed by the Court against which the appeal is preferred. But the tenor of the amended provision of Section 5 appears to lay emphasis on the value of the subject matter in the First Appeal and not the value of the subject matter in the suit or other proceedings. If we were to hold that the value of the subject matter in "a suit or other proceedings" is pivotal for determining the forum it may defeat the very purpose of the amendment. To illustrate, in a money suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.3 lakhs, if the suit were to be decreed say for Rs.2,99,0000, and if the plaintiff were to prefer appeal against the said judgment and decree as against the dismissal of his suit for the balance sum of Rs.1000/- the same has to be heard by a Bench consisting of not less than two Judges of this Court." In the case of GANESH KANOBA (supra), it is held as under: "The interpretation of the expression "value of subject matter of which" used in Section 5(1) of the Act as subject matter of suit or value of claim in suit or proceeding before original forum as governing the forum for decision of appeal will not help in obviating or getting rid of the problem, nor can the object be achieved, instead object of amendment will be frustrated. That as such if we read the expression "the value of which" refers to the first appeal, that is the value of the subject matter in dispute or involved in the appeal is to govern determination of question whether first appeal is to be heard and decided by Single Judge or Division Bench. Such an interpretation may be said to be purpose oriented interpretation which may fructify the very object or help in fructifying the very object of the amendment. It is one of the settled principles of law relating to interpretation of statute that if there are two possible interpretations of law and particularly when the law has been amended, the one which fructifies and helps in making effective the purpose of amendment should be adopted." 24. It is one of the settled principles of law relating to interpretation of statute that if there are two possible interpretations of law and particularly when the law has been amended, the one which fructifies and helps in making effective the purpose of amendment should be adopted." 24. In respect of the point regarding grant of compensation amount in excess of the amount claimed was considered by the Apex Court in the case of RAMLA AND OTHERS vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS, 2019 2 SCC 192 and held thus in paragraph 5: "5. Though the claimants had claimed a total compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- in their claim petition filed before the Tribunal, we fell that the compensation which the claimants are entitled to is higher than the same as mentioned supra. There is no restriction that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount, since the function of the Tribunal or court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to award "just compensation". The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. A "just compensation" is one which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. It cannot be said to have become time-barred. Further, there is no need for a new cause of action to claim an enhanced amount. The courts are duty-bound to award just compensation. (see the judgments of this Court in (a) Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 274 , (b) Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130, (c) Ibrahim vs. Raju, (2011) 10 SCC 634 )." 25. Therefore, the contention of the counsel for the Corporation that this Court cannot enhance the compensation more than Rs.15,00,000/- cannot be accepted. Re.Point No.3: 26. In respect of the amount of compensation is concerned, the only contention raised by the claimants is that the Tribunal while calculating 'loss of dependency' has wrongly deducted the family pension. As far as the amounts of pension and gratuity are concerned, these are paid on account of the service rendered by the deceased to his employer. It is now an established principle of service jurisprudence that pension and gratuity are the property of the deceased. They are more in the nature of deferred wages. The deceased employee works throughout his life expecting that on his retirement he will get substantial amount as pension and gratuity. It is now an established principle of service jurisprudence that pension and gratuity are the property of the deceased. They are more in the nature of deferred wages. The deceased employee works throughout his life expecting that on his retirement he will get substantial amount as pension and gratuity. These amounts are also payable on death, whatever be the cause of death. This issue has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of VIMAL KANWAR AND OTHERS vs. KISHORE DAN AND OTHERS, (2013) ACJ 1441 wherein it is held thus: "19. The first issue is "whether Provident Fund, Pension and Insurance receivable by claimants come within the periphery of the motor Vehicles Act to be termed as "Pecuniary Advantage" liable for deduction". The aforesaid issue fell for consideration before this Court in Helen C.Rebellow and others vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another, (1999) 1 SCC 90 . In the said case, this Court held that Provident Fund, Pension, Insurance and similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits etc. are all a "pecuniary advantage" receivable by the heirs on account of one's death but all these have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. Such an amount will not come within the periphery of the motor Vehicles Act to be termed a "pecuniary advantage" liable for deduction. The following was the observation and finding of this Court: "35. Broadly, we may examine the receipt of the Provident Fund, which is a deferred payment out of the contribution made by an employee during the tenure of his service. Such employee or his heirs are entitled to receive this amount irrespective of the accidental death. This amount is secured, is certain to be received, while the amount under the Motor Vehicles Act is uncertain and is place at all. Similarly, family pension is also earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in the service in terms of the service conditions receivable by the heirs after his dearth. The heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental death. No correlation between the two. Similarly Life Insurance Policy is received either by the insured or the insured contributes in the form of premium. It is receivable even by the insured if he lives till maturity after paying all the premiums. The heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental death. No correlation between the two. Similarly Life Insurance Policy is received either by the insured or the insured contributes in the form of premium. It is receivable even by the insured if he lives till maturity after paying all the premiums. In the case of death, the insurer indemnifies to pay the sum to the heirs, again in terms of the contract for the premium paid. Again, this amount is receivable by the claimant not on account of any accidental death but otherwise on the insured's death. Death is only a step or contingency in terms of the contract, to receive the amount. Similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. though are all a pecuniary advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one's death but all these have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. How could such an amount come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as "pecuniary advantage" liable for deduction. When we seek the principle of loss and gain, it has to be on a similar and same plane having nexus, inter se, between them and not to which there is no semblance of any correlation. The insured (deceased) contributes his own money for which he receives the amount which has no correlation to the compensation computed as against the tortfeasor for his negligence on account of the accident. As aforesaid, the amount receivable as compensation under the Act is on account of the injury or death without making any contribution towards it, then how can the fruits of an amount received through contributions of the insured be deducted out of the amount receivable under the Motor Vehicles Act. The amount under this Act he receives without any contribution. As we have said, the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory while the amount receivable under the Life Insurance Policy is contractual." 27. The Tribunal even though has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in VIMAL KANWAR (supra) is not justified in deducting the family pension. Hence, the deduction made by the Tribunal is unsustainable. Accordingly, the 'loss of dependency' is recalculated as below: Rs.30,325 x 12 x 14 = Rs.50,94,600/- 28. The Tribunal even though has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in VIMAL KANWAR (supra) is not justified in deducting the family pension. Hence, the deduction made by the Tribunal is unsustainable. Accordingly, the 'loss of dependency' is recalculated as below: Rs.30,325 x 12 x 14 = Rs.50,94,600/- 28. In respect of conventional heads is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS, (2017) AIR SC 5157 has held that claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- under the categories of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, respectively. Accordingly, total sum of Rs.70,000/- is awarded under the above categories. In respect of loss of love and affection is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD -V- NANU RAM, (2018) ACJ 2782, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that children are entitled for parental consortium and parents are entitled for filial consortium of Rs.40,000/- each. Accordingly, son and mother of the deceased are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each, totally Rs.80,000/- under the category of 'loss of love and affection'. 29. In respect of interest is concerned, the accident occurred on 26.01.2014. As per the RBI guidelines, from 28.01.2014 to 15.01.2015, the interest rate is 8%. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in awarding 7% interest in the above case. 30. For the reasons stated above, the appeal filed by the claimants in MFA No.6084/2017 is hereby allowed in part. The award, dated 01.12.2016, stands modified as under: Compensation under different Heads As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) As awarded by this Court (Rs.) Loss of dependency 25,74,600/- 50,94,600/- Loss of estate 25,000/- 15,000/- Loss of consortium 50,000/- 40,000/- Transportation and funeral 25,000/- 15,000/- Loss of love and affection 75,000/- 80,000/- Total 27,49,600/- 52,44,600/- 31. The appeal filed by the Corporation in MFA No.2393/2017 is dismissed. The Corporation is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the date of realization, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The amount so deposited by the Insurance Company shall be disbursed to the claimants as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal, after due verification of their identity. The amount so deposited by the Insurance Company shall be disbursed to the claimants as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal, after due verification of their identity. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal, forthwith. This Court places on record appreciation of the assistance rendered by Sri Sandesh Chouta, Additional Advocate General.