JUDGMENT : C.S. SUDHA, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) has been filed by the claim petitioners in O.P.(MV) No.1984/2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 19/12/2019. The respondents herein are the respondents in the petition. In this appeal, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition. 2. The claim petitioners are the parents and siblings of the deceased. According to the claim petitioners, on 09/05/2013 at about 04:30 a.m., while the deceased was travelling in car bearing registration No. KL-46-E-5999, through Ernakulam-Amballur road and when he reached near Perambra Leo Bhavan Convent, the car driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner rammed against lorry bearing registration No.KL-7-AU-7185 causing grievous injuries to which he succumbed. Hence, the petition claiming an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- under various heads. 3. The first respondent/owner-cum-driver remained ex parte. 4. The second respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the policy, but denying negligence on the part of the first respondent/driver. The age, income, injuries etc. were disputed. It was also contended that the amount claimed was excessive. 5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A12 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners. No documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents. 6. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the first respondent/driver of the car resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of Rs.12,02,400/- together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the claim petitioners have come up in appeal. 7. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court. 8. Heard both sides. 9. The award of compensation by the Tribunal under the following head is challenged by the claim petitioners - Notional income It is submitted by the learned for counsel for the claim petitioner that the deceased, a 21 year old man was a canteen worker and a student of B.Com. 8. Heard both sides. 9. The award of compensation by the Tribunal under the following head is challenged by the claim petitioners - Notional income It is submitted by the learned for counsel for the claim petitioner that the deceased, a 21 year old man was a canteen worker and a student of B.Com. and so the notional income of Rs.7,000/- fixed by the Tribunal is on the lower side and hence the same needs to be appropriately enhanced. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the second respondent/insurer that the amount that was claimed has been fixed by the Tribunal, which is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and hence does not require any further enhancement. 9.1. Though the allegation was that he was working as a worker in a canteen, there are no materials to substantiate the same. Ext.A11 certificate shows that he was pursuing his B.Com. degree. 9.2. Hence, in the light of the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Co. Ltd, (2011) 13 SCC 236 , I find that the notional income of the deceased can be fixed at Rs.9,000/- per month. Compensation for loss of consortium and loss of love and affection 10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioners that claim petitioners 3 to 5 are the siblings of the deceased and hence an appropriate amount towards loss of love and affection ought to have been awarded. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the second respondent/insurer that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was claimed, the entire amount has been granted and therefore, there is no justification for any further enhancements. 10.1. In the light of the dictums in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130: 2018 KHC 6697 , United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur, AIR 2020 SC 3076 : 2023 KHC 760 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Somwati, 2020 KHC 6530 : (2020) 9 SCC 644 , the parents are entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- each towards filial consortium. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- by saying that it includes the filial consortium also. Admittedly, claim petitioners 3 to 5 are the siblings of the deceased who are entitled to compensation towards loss of love and affection. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- by saying that it includes the filial consortium also. Admittedly, claim petitioners 3 to 5 are the siblings of the deceased who are entitled to compensation towards loss of love and affection. An amount of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of love and affection would be just and reasonable and hence the total amount to which they would be entitled to is Rs.40,000/-x3=Rs.1,20,000/-. Rs.1,00,000/- has already been awarded, so they would be entitled to the remaining Rs.20,000/-. The parents, the claim petitioners 1 and 2 can be awarded an amount of Rs.40,000/- each towards filial consortium. As per the dictum in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (5) KHC 350 : (2017) 16 SCC 680 , pronounced on 31/10/2017, the consortium amount has to be enhanced every three years by 10%. Hence, I find that claim petitioners 1 and 2 are entitled to an amount of Rs.40,000/- with two enhancements at the rate of 10% every 3 years. Therefore, they are entitled to Rs.48,400/- each. (Rs.40,000 + 10% = Rs.44,000; Rs.44,000 + 10% = Rs. 48,400/-). 11. The impugned Award is modified to the following extent : Sl. No. Head of claim Amount claimed Amount Awarded by Tribunal Modified in appeal 1 Transport to hospital Rs.2,500/- Rs.3,000/- Rs.3,000/- (No modification) 2 Damage to clothing etc. Rs.1,500/- Rs.1,000/- Rs.1,000/- (No modification) 3 Funeral Expenses Rs.25,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- (No modification) 4 Compensation for pain and suffering Rs.15,000/- Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- (No modification) 5 Compensation for loss of estate Rs.25,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- (No modification) 6 Compensation for loss of dependency Rs.9,72,000/- Rs.10,58,400/- Rs.13,60,800/- (Rs.9,000/-+ 40% of 9,000/-) x12x18x1/2 7 Medical expenses Rs.5,000/- Nil Nil (No modification) 8 Compensation for loss of love and affection Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,20,000/- (claim petitioners 3 to 5 @ Rs.40,000/- x3) 9 Compensation for loss of filial consortium -- -- Rs.96,800/- (claim petitioners 1 & 2 @ Rs.48,400/- x2) 10 Compensation for future dependency Rs.9,72,000/- -- –(No modification) Total Rs.21,18,000/- claim limits to Rs.20,00,000/- Rs.12,02,400/- Rs.16,21,600/- In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs.4,19,200/- (total compensation Rs.16,21,600/- , that is, Rs.12,02,400/- granted by the Tribunal + Rs.4,19,200/- granted in appeal) with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization and proportionate costs. The second respondent/insurer is directed to deposit the compensation with interest and costs before the Tribunal within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. On deposit of the compensation amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the amount to the claim petitioners at the earliest in accordance with law after making deductions, if any. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.