JUDGMENT : C.S. SUDHA, J. These appeals under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (the Act) have been filed by the third respondent/insurer and the claim petitioners respectively in O.P.(MV) No.1057/2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery (the Tribunal) aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 18/07/2019. The respondents in MACA No.213/2020 are the claim petitioners and the respondents in MACA No.1980/2021 are the respondents respectively in the original petition. In these appeals, 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 25/12/2013 at about 06:20 p.m., while the deceased was riding motorbike bearing registration No.KL-13-U-2468 from Kannur to Kuthuparamba, bus bearing registration No.KL-13-Q-6856 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries to which he succumbed. A sum of Rs.15,00,000/- was claimed as compensation under various heads. 3. The first respondent/owner and the second respondent/driver filed written statements admitting the existence of a valid policy for the offending bus, but denying negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver. They also contended that the amount claimed was excessive. 4. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the policy, but denying liability. The age, occupation and income were disputed. It was also contended that the amount claimed was excessive. 5. Before the Tribunal, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners. No oral evidence was adduced by the side of the respondents. Exts.B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the third respondent. 6. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver of the bus resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of Rs.25,70,200/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. Aggrieved by the Award, the third respondent/insurer and the claim petitioners have come up in appeals. 7. The only point that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court. 8. Heard both sides. Aggrieved by the Award, the third respondent/insurer and the claim petitioners have come up in appeals. 7. The only point that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court. 8. Heard both sides. MACA No.213/2020 Notional income 9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that the monthly income of Rs.18,000/- fixed by the Tribunal is on the higher side and hence the same needs to be appropriately reduced. It was also pointed out that the case in the petition is that the deceased was a receptionist in Hotel Central Avenue, Kannur. However, when PW1 was examined, his case was that the deceased was Account Manager of the hotel. It was also pointed out that the salary certificate of the deceased has also not been produced. Therefore, it was pointed out that the evidence on record is not satisfactory to establish the claim regarding the income of the deceased and therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.18,000/-. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioners that Exts.A1 to A3 and the testimony of PW1 establish the income of the deceased and therefore the Tribunal was justified in fixing the income as such and therefore no interference into the same is called for. 10. It is true that PW1, Manager, Administration, Hotel Central Avenue, when examined deposed that the deceased was working as Account Manager in the hotel whereas the case in the petition is that the latter was a receptionist. In order to substantiate the case of the claim petitioners regarding the income of the deceased, Exts.A1 to A3 were produced and marked in evidence. It is quite pertinent to note that these documents which are the salary statement and abstract of the salary ledger of the deceased were not objected to when the same were attempted to be brought in evidence. In fact, PW1 was not even cross examined on the day on which he was examined in chief. It was submitted that there was no cross examination for the respondent. It was thereafter PW1 was recalled and examined. On going through the testimony of PW1, I do not find any reasons to suspect or disbelieve the case regarding the income of the deceased. It was submitted that there was no cross examination for the respondent. It was thereafter PW1 was recalled and examined. On going through the testimony of PW1, I do not find any reasons to suspect or disbelieve the case regarding the income of the deceased. Hence, I find that the Tribunal was justified in relying on Exts.A1 to A3 coupled with the testimony of PW1 regarding the monthly income of the deceased. Hence, I find no grounds calling for an interference into the same. 11. It is well settled that income means income minus the income tax. When Rs.18,000/- is taken as the monthly income, the annual income would be Rs.2,16,000/-. As per the tax prevailing at the relevant time, no income tax is liable to be paid till Rs.1,80,000/-. For income coming between Rs.1,80,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-, 10% is liable to be paid as income tax. Therefore, the tax to be paid is Rs.3,600/-. Hence, the annual income minus the tax would be Rs.2,12,400/-. MACA No.1980 of 2021 Compensation for loss of consortium and loss of love and affection 12. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioners that the parents of the deceased, namely, the first and the second claim petitioners are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium. However, no amount has been awarded under the said head. On the other hand, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded under the head loss of love and affection. Therefore, necessary enhancement is required to be awarded. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that it is only the parents who are entitled to loss of consortium and that the siblings are not entitled to any amount. An amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has already been granted and therefore no further amount needs to be awarded under this head. 13. Admittedly, claim petitioners 1 & 2 are the parents and claim petitioners 3 to 5 are the siblings of the deceased. Going by the dictum in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram , (2018) 18 SCC 130 : 2018 KHC 6697 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur , AIR 2020 SC 3076 : 2023 KHC 760 and New India Assurance Co. Going by the dictum in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram , (2018) 18 SCC 130 : 2018 KHC 6697 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs 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 , claim petitioners 1 and 2 are entitled to an amount of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium. The siblings are certainly entitled to compensation towards loss of love and affection. An amount of Rs.40,000/- each would be a reasonable amount under this head. Therefore, the claim petitioners 3 to 5 would be entitled to an amount of Rs.40,000/- each as compensation for love and affection. As the parents were not granted any compensation towards loss of consortium, they will be entitled to an amount of Rs.40,000/- each. 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/-). 14. The impugned Award is modified to the following extent : Sl. 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/-). 14. The impugned Award is modified to the following extent : Sl. No. Head of claim Amount claimed Amount Awarded by Tribunal Modified in appeal 1 Loss of dependency -- Rs.24,19,200/- Rs.23,78,880/- (Rs.17,700+40% of17,700/-)x12x 16x1/2 2 Loss of filial consortium -- -- Rs.96,800/- (claim petitioners 1 & 2 @ Rs.48,400x2) 3 Loss of estate -- Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- (No modification) 4 Loss of love and affection Rs.14,21,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,20,000/- (claim petitioners 3 to 5 @ Rs.40,000/- x3) 5 Loss of pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- (No-modification) 6 Medical expenses -- -- -- (No modification) 7 Transport to hospital Rs.2,000/- Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/- (No modification) 8 Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- (No modification) 9 Damage to clothing Rs.2,000/- Rs.1,000/- Rs.1,000/- (No modification) Total Rs.15,00,000/- Rs.25,70,200/- Rs.26,46,680/- In the result, MACA Nos.213/2020 and 1980/2021 are disposed off as stated above, by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs.76,480/- (total compensation Rs.26,46,680/-, that is, Rs.25,70,200/- granted by the Tribunal + Rs.76,480/- granted in appeal) with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization (excluding the period of 150 days delay in filing the appeal) and proportionate costs. The third 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.