JUDGMENT : The order of this Court shall dispose of four appeals: Two appeals filed by the Insurance Company questioning the quantum of compensation awarded, and two appeals preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation. 2. Two intriguing questions arise for consideration of these appeals. Two claim petitions arising out of the same accident were tried together jointly. The son was driving a motorcycle and the father was a pillion rider. The son died on the date of the accident itself. The father succumbed to the injury after five days. The mother, wife and children of the son raised a claim for compensation. The wife, daughter-in-law, grandchildren and the daughter of the father claimed compensation in a separate application. First question is “whether the mother can claim compensation under loss of dependency for both her son and her husband”? Second question raised is “whether the daughter-in-law and grandchildren of the deceased can claim loss of dependency on account of death of grandfather?”. 3. Succinctly stated facts are as follows: On 10.03.2018 at 11 a.m, a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-5/R-3330 was driven by one Mr.Sudheesh with his father Mr.Sasi as a pillion rider. When the motorcycle reached Chalakudy – Pudukkad public road near Kodakara flyover, a goods carriage bearing Reg.No.KL-32/B-9507 was parked without any precautions, warnings or any signals, resulting in the motorcycle hitting the rear side of the goods carriage, and both the rider and the pillion rider were thrown off. The rider Mr.Sudheesh succumbed to the injury on the same date i.e. 10.03.2018, whereas Mr.Sasi, the father, expired on 15.03.2018, after five days. 4. Smt.Lalitha, the wife of the deceased Sasi, along with their daughter Smt.Sumita, daughter-in-law Smt.Sruthy, and her two grandchildren, filed O.P.(MV)No. 628/2018. The legal heirs of the deceased Sudheesh, namely his wife, two children and the mother Smt.Lalitha filed O.P. (MV)No.627/2018. 5. The claimants contended that the deceased Sudheesh was an Electrician by profession and was working abroad with a monthly salary of 2,500 Dirhams. He returned back to his native place and was doing work with a monthly salary of Rs.24,000/-. Similarly, the father of Sudheesh was a manual labourer who had a visa valid until 2019, but it was cancelled. He came back and was working as a manual labourer earning a monthly income of Rs.24,000/-. 6. The Insurance Company appeared and resisted the claim vehemently. Similarly, the father of Sudheesh was a manual labourer who had a visa valid until 2019, but it was cancelled. He came back and was working as a manual labourer earning a monthly income of Rs.24,000/-. 6. The Insurance Company appeared and resisted the claim vehemently. The primary contention raised by the Insurance Company was that the alleged accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider and that the vehicle was parked in a left-hand corner of the flyover, having a three lane traffic. The Insurance Company relied on Ext.B2 Location Sketch and contended that, had the rider of the vehicle taken precaution, the accident could have been averted. 7. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, found that based on Ext.A2 Final Report, the negligence was on the driver of the offending vehicle and thus, rejected the claim of the Insurance Company. As regards the claim of the claimants that deceased Sudheesh was working as an Electrician drawing a monthly income of Rs.24,000/-, the Tribunal found that no evidence was adduced on behalf of the claimants and thus proceeded to fix the income notionally at Rs.12,000/-. In case of late Sasi, the husband of the claimant Smt Lalitha, the Tribunal fixed the notional income at Rs.10,000/- and proceeded to consider the claim for compensation. It is pertinent to mention here that, when the Tribunal considered the claim on account of death of Mr.Sasi, the Tribunal excluded the daughter-in-law and the grandchildren from the purview of dependency of her father-in-law and granted the benefit of dependency only to the wife. On analysis of the evidence, the Tribunal found entitlement of the claimants for compensation and granted the compensation as follows: O.P.(M.V)No.627/2018: Sl.no. Head of claim Amount Claimed (in Rupees) Amount Awarded (in Rupees) Basis vital details in a nut shell 1 Compensation for the loss of dependency 20,00,000/- 22,68,000 (16,800x15x 12x3/4) 2 Funeral expenses 50,000 15.000 3 Loss of estate 2,00,000 15,000 4 Transport expenses 5,000 5,000 5 Loss of love and affection 2,00,000 Nil 6 Loss of consortium 2,00,000 1,60,000 7 Pain and suffering 50,000 15,000 8 Loss of gratuitous services rendered to parents 2,00,000 Nil 9 Expectation of life 2,00,000 Nil 10 Mental shock and agony 2,00,000 Nil 11 Damage to clothing and articles 5,000 Nil Total Rs.33,10,000/- limited to Rs.30,00,000/- Rs.24,78,000/ Rs.24,78,000/- along with interest @8% p.a. from 01.06.2018 till realisation O.P.(M.V)No.628/2018: Sl. No. Head of claim Amount Claimed (in Rupees) Amount Awarded (in Rupees) Amount Awarded (in Rupees) 1 Compensation for the loss of dependency 15,00,000 7,92,00 (11000x9x12x2/3 ) 2 Funeral expenses 50,000 15,000 3 Loss of estate 2,00,000 15,000 4 Transport expenses 5,000 5,000 5 Loss of love and affection 1,00,000 Nil 6 Loss of consortium 1,00,000 2,00,000 7 Pain and suffering 1,00,000 15,000 8 Damage to clothing and articles 5,000 Nil 9 Expectation of life 2,00,000 Nil 10 Mental shock and agony 1,00,000 Nil Total Rs.23,60,000/- limited to Rs.20,00,000/- Rs.10,42,000/- Rs.10,42,000/- along with interest @8% p.a. from 01.06.2018 till realisation 8. As stated, the claimants, as well as the Insurance Company have preferred the appeals dissatisfied with the nature of disposal of the claim petitions, though the contentions are differently burdened. 9. Before considering the entitlement of the claimants for enhancement, it is necessary for this Court to consider the contentions raised by the Insurance Company, since the decision of this Court in the two appeals preferred by the Insurance Company will depend upon the entitlement of the claimants to seek enhancement. 10. Heard, Sri.Rajan P. Kaliyath - learned counsel appearing for the appellants in MACA Nos.379/2021 and 505/2021 and Sri.Joseph Gopuran - learned counsel appearing for the claimants – appellants in MACA 1144/2021 and 1161/2021. 11. Sri.Rajan P. Kaliyath - learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company, raised the following submissions: i. As per Ext.B2 Location Sketch of the accident, it is evident that the rider of the motorcycle was at fault. Admittedly, the accident occurred on the National Highway which was a six lane way (three on each side). The goods carriage was parked at the left extreme end of the road and the time of the accident was 11 a.m. The visibility of the road was 100 metres. Had the rider taken sufficient precaution, he could have averted the accident. The scene of occurrence of the accident clearly establishes negligence on the part of the rider. In support of his contentions, the learned Standing Counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kamalesh and Others v. Attar Singh and Others [ 2015 15 SCC 364 ] and Nishan Singh and Others v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Others [ AIR 2018 SC 2118 ]. ii. In support of his contentions, the learned Standing Counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kamalesh and Others v. Attar Singh and Others [ 2015 15 SCC 364 ] and Nishan Singh and Others v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Others [ AIR 2018 SC 2118 ]. ii. The first claimant in O.P.(MV)No.628/2018, namely Smt.Lalitha, had already raised her claim as a dependent of the deceased son Sudheesh. Having raised the claim in O.P. (MV)No.627/2018 on the basis of the dependency qua her son, she cannot claim the same dependency under her husband and therefore, such claim ought not have been entertained by the Tribunal. iii. The Tribunal also erred in granting compensation under the head loss of consortium for five persons, whereas the daughter-in-law and two grandchildren cannot be granted the said benefits. 12. Per Contra, Sri Joseph Gopuran, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants/appellants in other appeals opposed the submissions of Sri.Rajan P. Kaliyath by raising the following points: i. Going by the provisions contained under the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, framed by the Central Government in exercise of the powers under Section 118 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, certain precautions are required to be taken while parking the vehicle. He placed reliance on Regulation 14(IV) of the said Regulations. ii. As per Regulation 22(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017, no vehicle shall be parked on a main road, or at a stretch of a road where the notified maximum speed limit is fifty kilometres per hour or more. iii. He further pointed out that, once it is established that a motor vehicle has been parked in the tar road, the burden is on the defendants to set up contributory negligence as a defence. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Siji Antony [ 2022 (7) KHC 100 ] and Jiju Kuruvila and Others v. Kunjujamma Mohan and Others [2013 KHC 4486 (SC)]. iv. The contention of the Insurance Company that the daughter-in-law and the grandchildren cannot claim dependency compensation is not sustainable for the simple reason that, had Sudheesh been alive, certainly the son could have claimed compensation towards the loss of dependency of his father. Moreover, the death of Sasi was on 15.03.2018, whereas the death of Sudheesh was on 10.03.2018. iv. The contention of the Insurance Company that the daughter-in-law and the grandchildren cannot claim dependency compensation is not sustainable for the simple reason that, had Sudheesh been alive, certainly the son could have claimed compensation towards the loss of dependency of his father. Moreover, the death of Sasi was on 15.03.2018, whereas the death of Sudheesh was on 10.03.2018. Had late Sasi, father-in-law of Sruthy been alive, she and her children would have to depend upon him for their livelihood. v. As regards the fixation of notional income, Sri.Joseph Gopuran pointed out that, although the claim in respect of Sudheesh was that he was working as an AC Mechanic abroad at the time of the accident, he had cancelled the visa and came back to the native state and was working as Electrician. The income claimed is Rs.24,000/-. The Tribunal fixed the same as Rs.12,000/-. Even going by the standards of wages prescribed by the State of Kerala under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, a minimum of Rs.800/- per day is required to be fixed. vi. In so far as notional income of deceased Sasi is concerned, the learned counsel pointed out that, even going by the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ], the claimants are entitled to have the notional income of deceased Sasi fixed at Rs.11,500/-. 13. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the Bar. 14. The first question to be considered by this Court is as regards the defence of contributory negligence set up by the Insurance Company. The decision of this court on this point will certainly impact the decision on the plea for enhancement raised by the claimants. 15. Ext.A2 is the Final Report in Crime No.159/2018 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Irinjalakuda. A reading of the Final Report shows that the driver of the offending vehicle was charged for offences under Section 279 and 304A of erstwhile Indian Penal Code, 1860. On a detailed analysis of the Final Report, it is evident that after investigation, the Police Authorities have concluded that the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-32/B-9507 was parked in the flyover on National Highway 47 without any precaution. On a detailed analysis of the Final Report, it is evident that after investigation, the Police Authorities have concluded that the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-32/B-9507 was parked in the flyover on National Highway 47 without any precaution. However, the Insurance Company disputes the contents of Ext.A2, on the ground that Location Sketch of the accident prepared on 28.04.2018 shows that the vehicle was parked at the left extreme end of the flyover. To appreciate the contention regarding the sustainability of Ext.B2 qua Ext.A2, it is pertinent to note the date of preparation of both Exts.A2 and B2. Ext.A2 is the Final Report based on Ext.A1 FIR. The FIR was registered on 11.03.2018, whereas Ext.A2 Final Report was filed after investigation before the Jurisdictional Magistrate Court on 25.04.2018. Ext.B2 was prepared on 28.04.2018. No doubt, a perusal of Ext.B2 shows that the point of accident is at the left extreme end. If the contention of the Insurance Company is to be accepted, then the contributory negligence will have to be attributed on the side of the rider of the motorcycle, especially, since the flyover is a three lane on either side. However, can it be said that merely because the flyover is having a three lane traffic, the rider was negligent ? 16. It is pertinent to mention that Ext.A2 specifically shows that the vehicle was parked without any precaution. However, as stated above, the preparation of Ext.B2 was nearly one and half months after the date of occurrence of the accident. The exact nature of the parking of the vehicle is not demonstrated in Ext.B2. Rather it is only an abstract marking of the place of occurrence. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company regarding the contributory negligence on the side of the rider may appear to be correct at the first blush. However, the said contention has its own infirmities which will be dealt with by this Court. 17. Going by the provisions under the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017, as well as the Regulations of the year 1989, a vehicle is not supposed to be parked on a highway under any circumstances. The Ext.A8 report of the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector also shows that no mechanical defect has been attributed towards the parked vehicle. Therefore, obviously there were other reasons for the driver of the offending vehicle to park the vehicle in the flyover. The Ext.A8 report of the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector also shows that no mechanical defect has been attributed towards the parked vehicle. Therefore, obviously there were other reasons for the driver of the offending vehicle to park the vehicle in the flyover. Whatever be the reason which led to the parking of the vehicle, the fact remains that the vehicle was parked in the extreme left-end of the flyover. 18. The significance of the lane traffic system cannot be brushed aside by this Court while dealing with the contention of the Insurance Company in the instant appeals. Motor Vehicles (driving) Regulations 2017 includes the rules of lane driving. Going by the Regulations, the left extreme end of the lane is supposed to be used by vehicles having a lesser speed and heavy vehicles. Changing lanes has to be done strictly adhering to the rules. A motorcycle driving in the extreme left end cannot be expected to change the lane suddenly. Therefore, the argument of the Insurance company lacks support of law. Moreover, any sudden change of lane can also cause detriment to the driver of the vehicle. Viewed in the above perspective, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company. The view subscribed by this Court as above is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jiju Kuruvila (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the mere position of the vehicle after the incident, as shown in the scene mahazar, cannot give a substantial proof of rash and negligent driving on the part of one or the other. No doubt, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nishan Singh (supra) and Kamalesh (supra) have taken a view that, in case of accident caused by hitting behind the parked vehicle, contributory negligence has to be attributed to the driver of the vehicle. A careful reading of the aforementioned decision shows that the decision was rendered after analysing the particular facts of that case. Therefore, this Court is not persuaded to accept the suggestion made by the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company, that the Tribunal ought to have fixed the contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the vehicle. Hence, the aforesaid point is answered accordingly. 19. Therefore, this Court is not persuaded to accept the suggestion made by the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company, that the Tribunal ought to have fixed the contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the vehicle. Hence, the aforesaid point is answered accordingly. 19. Coming to the more vexatious point as regards the claim of Smt.Lalitha for dependency compensation in both the original petitions, this Court has to consider whether there is a bar under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to maintain a dual claim for dependency compensation. The word ‘dependent’ is not mentioned in any of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, a reading of Rule 2(k) of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, shows who is a legal representative. Rule 2(k) is extracted as hereunder: 2.“Definitions.-In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires,- (k) “Legal representative" means a person who in law is entitled to inherit the estate of the deceased if he had left any estate at the time of his death and also includes any legal heir of the deceased and the executor or administrator of the estate of the deceased;” 20. Entitlement to prefer a claim petition is traceable to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. Section 166 reads as under. “Section 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; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (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. [(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: Provided that where no claim for compensation under section 140 is made in such application, the application shall contain a separate statement to that effect immediately before the signature of the applicant.] 3. * * * *(omitted) [(4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act.]” 21. A reading of the aforementioned provision shows that any legal representative can maintain an application seeking compensation. When a legal representative of a deceased could maintain a claim before the Tribunal for motor accident, it is immaterial as to whether he or she is entitled to maintain a dual claim or not. This is more so when the statute does not create any embargo for the same. It must be remembered that the claim for damages under the Act is for the tortious act. Once a person becomes entitled to claim damages for a tortious act, the said right cannot be restricted by saying that since he or she has claimed compensation for death of one or two persons under whom he or she was dependent, the second application claiming compensation cannot be maintained. This Court cannot remain oblivious of the fact that the entitlement to file a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act stems out of the accident. If a claimant was dependent on one or more people and both of them died in a road accident, then the Court cannot place restrictive interpretation to a beneficial legislation and restrict the claim. 22. It is pertinent to mention that under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, though a dual claim is prohibited, the said prohibition is applicable to the claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 22. It is pertinent to mention that under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, though a dual claim is prohibited, the said prohibition is applicable to the claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Therefore on a careful analysis of Section 167, this Court is of the view that Section 167 will not be a bar to maintain two different claim petitions by a single dependent on account of death of a person under whom he or she was dependent. In fact, this Court is inclined to hold that, on the facts of this case, Smt Lalitha was entitled to file claim petition on account of the death of her husband as well as her son, since the claim petitions are based on different cause of action and the cause of action being the death of her husband as well as death of her son. Therefore, it must be held that both the claims are independent to each other and not mutually exclusive. To hold otherwise, will be violence to the statute, namely Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The principles enshrined under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being salutary in nature, which obliges the courts or tribunals to grant just and fair compensation would definitely tilt the case in favour of the claimants. 23. Having found that Smt.Lalitha is entitled to maintain two claim petitions, the next question would be whether the grandchildren and daughter-in-law of deceased Sasi would be entitled to maintain the application for compensation. It is pertinent to mention that the date of accident is 10.03.2018 and that Sasi died on 15.03.2018. The claim made by Smt.Sruthy, wife of late Sudheesh along with her two minor children is purely based on the cause of action which arose on account of the death of her husband on 10.03.2018, whereas the claim raised in O.P.(MV)No.628/2018 is on account of the death of Sasi, that happened on 15.03.2018. Therefore as soon as the father of two minors died in a road accident, they became dependent on their grandfather for all purposes. The dependency in terms of provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, need not be legal dependency. In fact, the word ”dependency” used for the purpose of determination of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, includes all kinds of dependency and not merely the financial dependency. The dependency in terms of provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, need not be legal dependency. In fact, the word ”dependency” used for the purpose of determination of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, includes all kinds of dependency and not merely the financial dependency. 24. In Jayasree Vs Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company [ (2022)14 SCC 712 ], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that claimant-mother in law of the deceased is entitled to maintain an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on the ground that she was a dependent of the deceased. It must be pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Apex Court held that, even if the claimant is not a legal representative, even then he or she is entitled to maintain a claim for compensation. Therefore, this court holds that in order to maintain a claim petition it is sufficient that if the claimant establishes that he or she is the dependent of the deceased and by virtue of said dependency, he or she becomes a legal representative in terms of Rule 2(k) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rule, 1989. Thus the contention of the Insurance Company has to fail and hence, liable to be rejected. It is equally fallacious to hold that the daughter-in-law is not a dependent of the late Sasi. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal could not have excluded the daughter-in-law and the two grandchildren under any circumstances from the purview of dependency compensation. Be that as it may, the interest of justice would suffice if the grandchildren alone are reckoned for the purpose of dependency, since that will have an impact on the calculation of dependency. Hence, this Court is of the view that in light of the peculiar facts, the Court orders to confine the claim of dependency to the grandchildren alone. 25. Having concluded as above, this Court is required to decide whether award is sustainable as it excludes the daughter Smt.Sumita from the purview of the dependency compensation. Pertinently, the Tribunal granted the benefit to the daughter of Sasi, the claim under the head loss of consortium. Going by the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Birender and Others [ (2020) 11 SCC 356 ], as well as this Court in United India Insurance Co. Pertinently, the Tribunal granted the benefit to the daughter of Sasi, the claim under the head loss of consortium. Going by the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Birender and Others [ (2020) 11 SCC 356 ], as well as this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shalumol [ 2021 (5) KLT 74 ], the married daughter cannot be excluded from the purview of the dependency compensation. Therefore, the award of the Tribunal is clearly unsustainable. 26. Coming to the last question regarding the fixation of notional income, it is pertinent to mention that, though claimants have claimed Rs.24,000/- each for deceased Sudheesh and Sasi as monthly income, no evidence has been let in to show that there were any aforesaid income. Necessarily, therefore, the Tribunal had to fix the notional income. While fixing the notional income in respect of deceased Sasi, the Tribunal has ignored the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa (supra). Therefore, this Court finds that the claimants – appellants are entitled to have the notional income of deceased Sasi fixed at Rs.11,500/- in par with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 27. In respect of deceased Sudheesh, it has come out in evidence that he was working as an AC Mechanic abroad. The claim of monthly income was Rs.24,000/-. However, the Tribunal fixed the income as Rs.15,000/-. Going by the notification issued by the State of Kerala in 2018 fixing the minimum wages for the skilled workers, it is seen that the minimum wages varies between Rs.700-Rs.850. This aspect has also been taken note by this Court in the judgment rendered in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Divya [ 2021 (6) KLT 109 ]. Considering the overall facts, this Court is inclined to hold that the minimum wage which was prevalent at that point of time could be applied to the case of the claim on account of the death of Sudheesh. Since, Sudheesh was working as an Electrician, the daily wage could be assessed as Rs.800/- and multiplied by 26, the notional income would come to Rs.20,800/-. Accordingly, this Court fixes the notional income of deceased Sudheesh at Rs.20,800/- and proceeds to consider the claim for compensation accordingly. In the result, MACA No. 505/2021 is partly allowed, MACA No. 379/2018 is dismissed, and MACA Nos. Accordingly, this Court fixes the notional income of deceased Sudheesh at Rs.20,800/- and proceeds to consider the claim for compensation accordingly. In the result, MACA No. 505/2021 is partly allowed, MACA No. 379/2018 is dismissed, and MACA Nos. 1144/2024 and 1161/2024 are allowed. The claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation as follows: OP(MV)No.627/2018 Loss of dependency : 39,31,200 [29,120 (20800+40%) x 12 x 15 x ¾] – 22,68,000 = Rs.16,63,200/- OP(MV)No.628/2018 Loss of dependency : 10,24,650[12650 (11500+10%)x9x12x3/4] – 7,92,000 = Rs. 2,32,650/- Loss of consortium = 2 lakhs granted by the Tribunal reduced to Rs. 1,60, 000/-. ie., 2,32,650-40,000 = 1,92,650/- Total enhanced compensation for both cases will be: 16,63,200 + 1,92,650 = 18,55,850/- Accordingly, the appellants in MACA No.1144/2021 are awarded an additional amount of Rs.1,92,650/- as enhanced compensation and appellants in MACA No.1161/2021 are awarded an additional compensation of Rs.16,63,200/- over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal with interest @8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation together with proportionate costs. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.