JUDGMENT : The 3 rd respondent in OP(MV).No.324/2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha is the appellant. The above OP was filed by the siblings and the children of a deceased sibling of one Manoj who died in a motor accident that occurred on 19.2.2013. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal). 2. According to the petitioners on 19.2.2013 at about 1.45 a.m while the deceased Manoj was riding a motorcycle along the Thodupuzha – Muvattupuzha road, a lorry bearing registration No.KL 7E-5271 driven by the 1 st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motorcycle and as a result of which he fell down, sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the same day. 3. The 2 nd respondent was the owner and 3 rd respondent is the insurer of the offending lorry. According to the petitioners, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. was Rs.32,00,000/- 4. The insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the accident as well as policy, but disputing the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and also contending that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is so excessive. 5. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A11. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. 6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, awarded a total compensation of Rs.28,77,455/- and directed the insurer to pay the same. 7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the 3 rd respondent preferred this appeal. 8. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following: Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? 9. Heard Sri. P. Jacob Mathew, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, and Smt. C. Seena, the learned Counsel for the petitioners. 10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. 9. Heard Sri. P. Jacob Mathew, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, and Smt. C. Seena, the learned Counsel for the petitioners. 10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. One of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent/appellant is that the claimants are the siblings and legal representatives of the sibling of deceased Manoj and as such, they cannot be treated as the dependents of the deceased. The learned Standing Counsel further contended that the Tribunal has added 50% of the income towards future prospects and deducted only 50% of the income towards personal and living expenses, which is not correct. It was also contended that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expense which is on the higher side and Rs.1,20,000/- was awarded towards love and affection, which cannot be allowed. 11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that as per Ext.A8 salary certificate, the monthly salary of the deceased who was working in the Mathrubhoomi Daily was Rs.21,743/- and as such, the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.20,000/- is on the lower side. The learned counsel, relying upon the evidence of PW1, would argue that the siblings were depending upon the deceased and as such, they are to be treated as the dependants of the deceased. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the Tribunal was justified in deducting only one-half of the income towards personal and living expense. 12. It is true that generally the major siblings will not be treated as dependents of the deceased unless there is evidence to the contrary ( The New India Assurance Company Limited. v. Anand Pal and Others, 2024 ACJ 6 ). In the decision in Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Others, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , also the Apex Court held that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. 13. In the decision in Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Others, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , also the Apex Court held that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. 13. In the decision in Joseph v. Giji Varghese and Others, 2009 (4) KLT 199, a Division Bench of this Court held that in the case of unmarried victims survived by siblings alone two-third of the earning is to be deducted towards personal expenses and one-third of the earning can be computed as loss of estate and that in such cases, the legal heirs of the deceased are entitled to get only one-third of the amount towards loss of estate, instead of loss of dependency. In paragraph 4 the Division Bench held that : “Even though there is no proof regarding quantum of income derived by the deceased, it can be presumed that the deceased was earning some amount out of agricultural operations. If that be so, whatever surplus amount, which will remain after meeting personal expenses of the deceased, would have been his savings which ultimately could have developed upon his sibling (legal heirs) as his estate. Taking view of the matter in this angle, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal ought to have granted compensation under the head of loss of estate.” 14. In the decision in Elamma and others v. ICICI Lombard General Insurance (MACA 1502 of 2015) a learned Single Judge of this court relying upon the decision in J oseph (supra) held that married sisters of the deceased are not entitled to get compensation under the head loss of dependency but they can claim compensation on the head loss of estate. It was also held that in such cases, loss of estate can be calculated using the same method used for computing loss of dependency. 15. It was also held that in such cases, loss of estate can be calculated using the same method used for computing loss of dependency. 15. In the decision in Sijo Jose and Others v. Rejender Kumar Saini and Others (MACA 2092/2009), another learned Single Judge of this Court relying upon various decisions of the Apex Court and this Court also held that the legal heirs of the deceased who are not depending on him can claim compensation for loss of estate after deducing two-third of the income towards the personal and living expense of the deceased. 16. It is true that in this case one of the siblings of the deceased was examined as PW1. However, during the cross-examination it is revealed that she had been living along with her husband in the residence of her husband. Petitioners 1 to 5 are elder siblings of the deceased, claimants 6, 7 and 8 are the wife and minor children of a pre-deceased brother of the deceased. In the light of the above decisions, it is to be held that in this case there is no reliable evidence to prove that the claimants are the dependents of the deceased. However, since they were the legal heirs of the deceased they are entitled to inherit the estate of the deceased and as such in this case, the compensation payable to the claimants on the head loss of estate is to be taken as one-third of the loss of dependency on account of the death of the deceased. 17. From Ext.A8 salary certificate issued by the General Manager, HRD, Mathrubhoomi, Printing and Publishing Co.Ltd, it can be seen that the deceased was a permanent employee working as Attender in the Mathrubhoomi, Kottayam and his gross salary was Rs.21,743/-. Since he was aged 28 at the time of the accident and he was a permanent employee, 50% of the income is to be added towards future prospects and the multiplier to be applied is 17. Therefore, one-third of the amount payable to the petitioners on the head loss of estate will come to Rs.22,17,786/-. 18. In addition to the same, the petitioners are entitled to get the compensation on conventional heads as provided in the decision in National Insurance Co.Ltd v Pranay Sethi [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ]. Therefore, one-third of the amount payable to the petitioners on the head loss of estate will come to Rs.22,17,786/-. 18. In addition to the same, the petitioners are entitled to get the compensation on conventional heads as provided in the decision in National Insurance Co.Ltd v Pranay Sethi [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ]. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.1,20,000/- towards love and affection. No amount was awarded towards loss of consortium. 19. In the light of the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra), the appellants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Therefore, towards funeral expense they are entitled to get a sum of Rs.18,150/- each. Since the petitioners are not dependents of the deceased, they are not entitled to get any compensation on the head loss of consortium. 20. The petitioners are the siblings and legal representatives of the sibling of the deceased. Therefore, though they are not entitled to get any compensation on the head loss of consortium, they are entitled to get compensation for loss of love and affection on account of the untimely death of their minor sibling at the age of 28. Therefore, a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- awarded on the head ‘loss of love and affection’ is retained. 21. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.15000/- which according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, is on the lower side. The deceased died in this case on the date of the accident. In the above circumstances, I hold that the compensation awarded towards pain and suffering is on the lower side, and hence, it is enhanced to Rs.25000/-. 22. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 23. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.23,88,391/- as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference: Sl. 22. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 23. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.23,88,391/- as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference: Sl. No. Head of Claim Amount awarded by Tribunal (in Rs.) Amount Awarded in Appeal (in Rs.) 1 Loss of dependency 2700000 Nil 2 Transportation expense 4900 4900 3 Funeral expenses 25000 18150 4 Damage to clothing 1000 1000 5 Pain and suffering 15000 25000 6 Medical expenses 1555 1555 7 Loss of love and affection 120000 120000 8 Loss of estate 10000 2217786 Total 2877455 23,88,391 Amount reduced- Rs. 4,89,064 24. In the result, this Appeal is disposed of, and the 3 rd respondent is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.23,88,391/- (Rupees twenty three lakh eighty eight thousand three hundred and ninety one only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest as ordered by the Tribunal, from the date of the petition till realisation/deposit, within a period of two months from today. 25. On depositing the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount to the petitioners, in the ratio fixed by the Tribunal, excluding court fee payable, if any, without delay, as per rules.