JUDGMENT : 1. The legal representatives of one Lathika T.C. who died in the motor accident on 19.12.2012 have come up before this Court with the present appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the 1st and 4th appellants died. Hence, IA No. 1 of 2024 has been filed for impleading the legal heirs which was allowed. 2. The short facts for disposal of the appeal are as under: On 19.12.2012 at 3.45 p.m. while Smt. Lathika T.C. was a pillion rider on a scooter bearing registration No. KL-41/D-1079 ridden by her husband through Aluva-Perumbavoor KSRTC road and when they reached near Matha Cinema Theatre - Pump junction, the private bus bearing registration No. KL-40-4746 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner through the said road hit on the back of their scooter and as a result of which Smt. Lathika fell down and sustained serious injuries and she succumbed to the injuries on the spot itself. 3. The 3rd respondent is the insurance company of the offending vehicle. The respondents 1 and 2 were set ex parte. The 3rd respondent filed a written statement contending among others that the insured neither reported the accident nor produced any documents related to the vehicle for verification. The negligence was on the part of the rider of the scooter on which the deceased was the pillion rider. The other contentions regarding the age, occupation and income of the deceased were also disputed. On behalf of the claimants, Exts.A1 to A12 were marked. The 3rd respondent has not produced any evidence. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence on record, the tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether Smt. Lathika T.C. died due to the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident as alleged? 2. Whether the petitioners are the legal representatives and dependents of the deceased Lathika? 3. Whether the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent resulted in causing the death of said Lathika? 4. Whether the petitioners are entitled to get compensation on account of the death of the said Lathika? If so, the quantum of compensation to which the petitioners are entitled? 5. Who is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners? 6. Reliefs and costs? 4. 4. Whether the petitioners are entitled to get compensation on account of the death of the said Lathika? If so, the quantum of compensation to which the petitioners are entitled? 5. Who is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners? 6. Reliefs and costs? 4. On a consideration of the materials on record, the tribunal allowed the claim of the appellants as follows: Heads Amount Claimed Amount awarded Transport to hospital and back to home 2000 5000 Damage to clothing and articles 2000 0 Mortuary expenses 10000 0 Medical expenses 5000 0 Funeral expenses 25000 15000 Compensation for pain and suffering 350000 10000 Compensation for loss of love and affection 350000 100000 Loss of consortium 236000 40000 Loss of estate 0 15000 Compensation for loss of dependency 7920000 2796840 Total 8900000 2981840 Claim amount Rs.89,00,000/- 5. Aggrieved by the fixing of the quantum of compensation, the appellants/claimants have approached this Court with the present appeal. 6. I have heard Sri. Anchal C. Vijayan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri. V.P.K. Panicker, the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company. 7. Sri. Anchal C. Vijayan, the learned counsel for the appellants raised the following submissions: (a) The notional income fixed by the tribunal at Rs.35,650/- is per se incorrect in the light of Ext.A7 salary certificate issued by the Union Bank of India. (b) The adoption of split multiplier by the tribunal is erroneous and against the settled position of law. (c) The finding of the tribunal on the number of dependents of the deceased Smt. Lathika is incorrect, improper and against the various settled principles of the Honourable Supreme Court as well as this Court. (d) Awarding of compensation under other non conventional heads is also inadequate. 8. On the other hand, Sri. V.P.K. Panicker, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company pointed out that there was no evidence before the tribunal with regard to the dependency of the appellants 2 and 3 and, therefore, the tribunal rightly rejected the claim of reckoning them as the dependents. In so far as the fixing of notional income of the deceased is concerned, according to the learned counsel for the insurance company, Ext.A12 certificate issued by the Income Tax Department would reveal that the deceased had paid the total tax of Rs.20,630/- and that the total income returned was Rs.3,90,290/-. In so far as the fixing of notional income of the deceased is concerned, according to the learned counsel for the insurance company, Ext.A12 certificate issued by the Income Tax Department would reveal that the deceased had paid the total tax of Rs.20,630/- and that the total income returned was Rs.3,90,290/-. Still further, according to the learned counsel, as per Ext.A11 certificate issued by the Union Bank of India, the total net salary payable was Rs.31,048.50/- and therefore, the fixing of the notional income by the tribunal was perfectly justified. However, in so far as the fixing of the compensation under the head loss of consortium is concerned, the learned counsel for the insurance company fairly submitted that all the four claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each and thus a total of Rs.1,60,000/- (40000x4) ought to have been granted instead of Rs.40,000/-. 9. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the Bar and have perused the records. 10. Based on the submissions raised across the Bar, the following questions are required to be considered by this Court: (a) Whether the appellants 2 and 3 can be considered as the dependents of the deceased Smt. Lathika T.C. (b) Whether the Tribunal was justified in adopting a split multiplier. (c) Whether the tribunal was justified in taking the notional income of the deceased at Rs.35,650/-. (d) Whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement on the other non conventional heads. 11. Sri. Anchal C. Vijayan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants opened his arguments based on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Birendar and others, 2020 ACJ 759 to contend for the proposition that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. He further relied on the judgment of the hon’ble Supreme Court in N. Jayasree and Others v. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, 2021 (6) KLT SN 16 (C. No. 19) SC : 2022 (14) SCC 712 and the judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shalumol and Others, 2021 (5) KLT 74 : 2021 (5) KHC 28 . 12. In order to appreciate the contention of learned counsel for the appellants, it is appropriate that Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act be extracted: 166. 12. In order to appreciate the contention of learned counsel for the appellants, it is appropriate that Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act be extracted: 166. Application for compensation: (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section 165 may be made: (a) by the person who has sustained the injury. (b) by the owner of the property. (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased. (d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be: Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application. Provided further that where a person accepts compensation under section 164 in accordance with the procedure provided under section 149, his claims petition before the Claims Tribunal shall lapse. (2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed. (3) No application for compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident. (4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under [section 159] as an application for compensation under this Act. (5) Notwithstanding anything in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, the right of a person to claim compensation for injury in an accident shall, upon the death of the person injured, survive to his legal representatives, irrespective of whether the cause of death is relatable to or had any nexus with the injury or not. 13. 13. Section 166(1)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act entitles any agent duly authorized by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be. While answering the question raised before this Court, it has to be decided whether the appellants 2 and 3 were financially dependent on the deceased Lathika in order to enable them to maintain the claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Of course, the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Sujatha P. and Others v. M/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 2017 (4) KLT 899 : 2017 (5) KHC 568 to contend for the proposition that there is no evidence produced before the tribunal to prove that they were dependent upon the deceased Lathika. 14. Though prima facie the argument of learned counsel for the Insurance Company may be appealing, the same is not so because, the Division Bench in Sujatha P. (Supra) did not take note of the earlier binding law laid down by the another Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Thomas George P. and another v. O. Santha and others, 2016 (3) KLT 853 : 2016 (4) KHC 237 . 15. In Thomas George (supra) the Division Bench of this Court was called upon to decide the question as to whether a married daughter would be dependent on her mother even after marriage. After considering a plethora of decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Division Bench held that dependency cannot be merely equated with money. Applying the principles laid down by the Division Bench, this Court holds that more than the financial dependency, the dependency of a married daughter on her maternal home will have to be considered. Dependency cannot always be equated with money. More than the financial dependency, a married daughter will have to depend on her maternal home for various needs. Therefore, the argument of Mr. V.P.K. Panicker the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the 2nd and 3rd appellants have not proved their financial dependency on their mother and hence they are not entitled to claim the compensation amount cannot be countenanced. 16. Therefore, the argument of Mr. V.P.K. Panicker the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the 2nd and 3rd appellants have not proved their financial dependency on their mother and hence they are not entitled to claim the compensation amount cannot be countenanced. 16. Before stepping into the next question raised before this court, it is necessary to deal with the inconsistency between the principles laid down by the Division Bench in Thomas George(supra) and Sujatha P (supra). It is pertinent to note that the application of the principles laid down by the Division Bench in Sujatha P (supra) came up for consideration before a Learned Single Judge of this Court in Shalumole (Supra). However the Learned Single did not deem fit to deal with this issue. However, considering the definition of Legal representative under Rule 2(k) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rule 1988, the learned Single Judge held that a holistic view has to be taken while considering the question of dependency. Be that as it may, when this Court is called upon to reconcile the apparent conflict between the principles in Thomas George(supra) and Sujatha P. (supra), this Court is reminded of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra, 2014 (2) KLT 809 (SC) : (2014) 16 SCC 623 . While considering the question regarding the conflict of decisions of two coordinate benches of the court, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that if the decision of the subsequent coordinate Bench did not notice the earlier binding principles, then the principles laid down by the earlier bench will have to be followed as precedent. It may be advantageous to mention here that the Division Bench decision in Thomas George (Supra) was followed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Preetha Krishna, 2024 (4) KLT 273 [MACA No. 210 of 2015 dated 28.6.2024], in which, it was held that financial dependency is not the sole criteria for the purpose of deciding whether the claimants will fall within the term legal representatives in order to maintain an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the light of these categoric findings, this Court is not persuaded to accept the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company that the appellants 2 and 3 are not the dependents of the deceased Smt. Lathika T.C. Thus it has to be held that mere financial dependency is not the criteria to reckon the status of the claimants falling within the definition of legal representatives in terms of the provisions contained in the Motor Vehicles Act. Viewed in the above perspective, the tribunal certainly erred in not reckoning the appellants 2 and 3 as the dependents of the deceased Smt. Lathika T.C.. To that extent, the award of the tribunal requires to be interfered with. 17. Coming to the next question as to whether the tribunal was justified in adopting the split multiplier for calculating the compensation to which the claimants are entitled, this Court is of the considered view that the tribunal could not have taken the split multiplier in the facts of this case. The question as to whether the split multiplier could be applied after the judgment of the hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC) : 2009 (6) SCC 121 as confirmed by Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr. 2013 (2) KLT 304 (SC) : (2013) 9 SCC 65 came up for consideration before the hon’ble Supreme Court in Valli R. and Others v. Tamil Nadu State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. 2022 (5) SCC 107 . Following the principles laid down in Valli R. (Supra), this Court in Kamala v. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd. 2024 KLT Online 2118 has deprecated the practice of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals applying the split multiplier while awarding compensation. Therefore this Court has no hesitation to hold that the tribunal went wrong in applying the split multiplier for the purpose of calculating the compensation. 18. Coming to the 3rd question as to what should be the income of the deceased Smt. Lathika to be taken while calculating the compensation to be awarded, this Court will have to balance the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel on both sides. 19. The learned counsel for the appellants would rely on Kalpanaraj and Others v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, 2014 (3) KLT Supp. 19. The learned counsel for the appellants would rely on Kalpanaraj and Others v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, 2014 (3) KLT Supp. 106 (SC) : 2015 (2) SCC 764 to contend that the tribunal could not have fixed the income at Rs.35,650/- as has been done in the impugned award. According to Shri Anchal C. Vijayan the learned Counsel for the Appellant the gross income of the deceased less TDS alone will have to be taken for the purpose of calculating the notional income. While calculating the notional income the statutory deductions which are exempted under the purview of the income tax cannot form part of consideration while calculating the notional income. 20. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the insurance company would vehemently point out that it is seen from Annexure A12, the certificate issued by the Income Tax Department, that the deceased had paid the total tax of Rs.20,630/-. The income as reflected in the tax returns was Rs.3,90,290/- and the exempted limit of tax was only Rs.1,80,000/- within the relevant period and, the same will have to be reckoned for the purpose of calculating notional income. He further contended that even the claimant is liable to pay tax on the future prospects awarded as compensation under the Act. 21. Having considered the rival submissions this Court finds force in the submissions of Sri. Anjal C. Vijayan, the learned counsel for the appellants. This is more so because of the law laid down by the supreme court in Kalpanaraj (Supra)]. Moreover, in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava, 2008 (1) KLT 62 (SC) : 2008 (2) SCC 2763, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows Para 21: “If the dictionary meaning of the word 'income' is taken to its logical conclusion, it should include those benefits, either in terms of money or otherwise, which are taken into consideration for the purpose of payment of income tax or profession tax although some elements thereof may or may not be taxable or would have been otherwise taxable but for the exemption conferred thereupon under the statute.” Thus applying the above principle, this Court will have to see whether the fixation of income of the deceased by the tribunal can be justified or not. It is evident from the salary certificate that the total salary received by the deceased being Rs.54,227.75/- less TDS Rs.2,274/- It is true that there are statutory deductions on the amount after deducting the salary. However for the purpose of computing the compensation under the Act, it is immaterial as to whether there are deductions or not. The amount arrived from the gross salary after deducting TDS will be the income of the deceased for the purpose of computing the compensation. Perhaps the tribunal was carried away by the contention of the Insurance Company that the Income of deceased should be fixed after deducting the statutory deductions which is not the correct approach going by the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Indira Srivastava (supra). Hence the tribunal ought to have fixed Rs.51953.75 as the Income of the deceased. 22. It is also necessary to deal with the contention of the Learned Counsel of the Insurance Company that the tax is liable to be deducted on compensation awarded as future prospects also. In Jyothi S. and others v. Somasekaran Pillai, 2022 (5) KLT 866 this Court held that the income tax is not deductible after adding future prospects. Hence the aforesaid contention is rejected. 23. As a result of the above discussions, this Court find that the appellants are entitled to succeed. Hence the appeal is allowed The appellants are entitled for enhanced compensation as follows: Heads Amount Claimed Amount awarded Enhanced compensation Transport to hospital and back to home 2000 5000 - Damage to clothing and articles 2000 0 1500 Mortuary expenses 10000 0 - Medical expenses 5000 0 2000 Funeral expenses 25000 15000 3000 Compensation for pain and suffering 350000 10000 - Compensation for loss of love and affection 350000 100000 40000 X 4 = 160000 - 4000 = 120000 Loss of consortium 236000 40000 Loss of estate 0 15000 Compensation for loss of dependency (**) 7920000 2796840 31,18,014 Total Rs.32,44,514/- xxx xxx xxx Claim amount Rs. 89,00,000/- **Calculation for loss of dependency is as follows: 54227-2274 51953 51953x15% 7793 51953+7793 59746 59746x11x12x3/4 59,14,854/- 5914854-2796840 31,18,014/- 24. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to get an enhanced compensation of Rs.32,44,514/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lakh Forty Four Thousand Five Hundred and Fourteen only). The amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till date of payment. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to get an enhanced compensation of Rs.32,44,514/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lakh Forty Four Thousand Five Hundred and Fourteen only). The amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till date of payment. While calculating the interest, the appellant shall not be entitled for interest for a period of 128 days in view of the order dated 20-10-2021 of this Court while condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The insurance company shall deposit the enhanced compensation together with interest and proportionate cost within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The claimant shall furnish the details of the bank account to the insurance company for transfer of the amount. It is open for the appellants to work out their proportionate share on the compensation.