JUDGMENT : C.S. SUDHA, J. These appeals have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the third respondent/insurer in O.P. (MV) Nos.777, 632, 635 & 698 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-III, Thiruvananthapuram, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by the common Award dated 12/11/2019. The respondents in these appeals are the respective claim petitioners and respondents 1 and 2 in the petitions. In these appeals, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petitions. 2. According to the claim petitioners, namely, the legal representatives of the deceased students, on 25/03/2013, while the deceased were travelling in bus bearing registration no.KL26A5006 to Munnar, and when they reached the place of occurrence, the bus capsized due to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent/driver as a result of which they sustained grievous injuries to which they succumbed. 3. The first respondent/owner of the offending vehicle filed written statement contending that the vehicle was having a valid insurance policy and that the second respondent/driver was having a valid licence. 4. The second respondent/driver remained ex parte. 5. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the existence of a valid policy in respect of the offending vehicle, but denied liability. It was also contended that the compensation claimed was quite excessive. 6. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A45 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners. No documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents. 7. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of Rs.34,82,000/- in OP(MV) No.777/2013 (MACA No.305/2020), Rs.34,02,000/- in OP(MV) No.632/2013 (MACA No.346/2020), Rs.34,02,000/- in OP(MV) No.635/2013 (MACA No.380/2020) and Rs.34,42,000/- in OP(MV) No.698/2013 (MACA No.2303/2020) together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petitions till realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the third respondent/insurer has come up in appeal. 8. 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. 9. Heard both sides 10. Aggrieved by the Award, the third respondent/insurer has come up in appeal. 8. 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. 9. Heard both sides 10. The award of compensation by the Tribunal under the following heads is challenged by the third respondent/insurer - Notional income It is submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that the notional income of 20,000/- fixed by the Tribunal is on the higher side and hence the same needs to be reduced. It is also submitted that in the light of proliferation of engineering colleges in the State, the employment opportunities of engineering graduates have come down drastically. It is only graduates from premium colleges like IIT who can command high salaries and so the income fixed needs to be reduced. In support of the argument, he relies on the dictums in Shakuntala v. Balraj , 2019 KHC 5508 : 2019 ACJ 3164 , Navjot Singh v. Harpreet Singh , 2020 KHC 4939 : 2020 ACJ 2152 and Meena Pawaia v. Ashraf Ali , 2021 (6) KHC 596 . Per contra, it was quite persuasively submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioners that the amount fixed by the Tribunal is quite reasonable and that the deceased, being final year engineering graduate students, would certainly have gotten Rs.20,000/- per month as their salary and therefore the Tribunal was justified in fixing the said amount, which calls for no interference by this Court. In support of the argument, reference was made to the dictums in Basanti Devi v. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd. , 2022 ACJ 823 and Kumud Gupta v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. , 2024 ACJ 658. 10.1. The accident in Shakuntala (Supra) occurred on04/05/2013. The deceased therein aged about 24 years was studying Master of Business Administration Course. He was unmarried. The High Court quantified the compensation taking the notional income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- per month. In appeal, the Apex court held that since the deceased was also a graduate and was pursuing his master’s course with a view to get a better job in Business Administration, the notional income could be taken Rs.10,000/- per month. 10.2. In Navjot Singh (Supra), the road accident occurred on10.12.2013. In appeal, the Apex court held that since the deceased was also a graduate and was pursuing his master’s course with a view to get a better job in Business Administration, the notional income could be taken Rs.10,000/- per month. 10.2. In Navjot Singh (Supra), the road accident occurred on10.12.2013. The claim of the appellant was that at the time of accident, he was 21 years of age pursuing a course in Food Technology in Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering & Technology (S.L.I.E.T.), Longowal, Punjab, and that he was also earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- by taking tuitions for students. The Tribunal disbelieved the claim of the appellant that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by taking tuitions. The High Court fixed the notional monthly income of the appellant at 5,000/- on the ground that the minimum wages admissible to an unskilled worker was Rs.5,000/- per month. The Apex Court disagreed with the view of the High Court and held that students recruited through campus interviews are at least offered a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, and by exercising the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the notional income of the appellant was taken as Rs.10,000/- per month. 10.3. In Meena Pawaia (Supra), the accident occurred on 12/09/2012. The deceased at the time of accident was a bachelor, aged 21 years and was studying in the 3 rd year of B.E. The Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per month, disbelieving the case that he was getting Rs.25,000/- as salary from one Nectal Construction and earning Rs.8,000/- per month from private tuition. The High Court assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month instead of Rs.15,000/- per month as determined and awarded by the Tribunal. In appeal, the Apex court observed that it was required to be noted that deceased at the time of accident was aged 21-22 years and that he was a 3 rd year student in civil engineering and hence was having a bright future. While awarding the future economic loss, when the deceased died at the young age 21-22 years and was not earning at the time of death/accident, the income for the purpose of determining the future economic loss is always done based on guesswork considering many circumstances namely the educational qualification, background of the family, etc. While awarding the future economic loss, when the deceased died at the young age 21-22 years and was not earning at the time of death/accident, the income for the purpose of determining the future economic loss is always done based on guesswork considering many circumstances namely the educational qualification, background of the family, etc. Therefore, considering the educational qualification and the family background, the income of the deceased was fixed at Rs.10,000/- per month. 10.4. In Basanti Devi (Supra), the deceased, 25 years of age at the time of accident, was a Bachelor of Engineering in Computer Technology. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased for the purpose of awarding the future loss of income @ Rs.20,000/- per month. In appeal, the Apex court held that considering the fact that the deceased at the time of death/accident was aged 25 years of age and was a Bachelor of Engineering in Computer Technology, the Tribunal rightly considered the income of the deceased at the time of death at Rs.20,000/- per month, which was not required to be interfered with by the High Court. The argument on behalf of the Insurance Company that since no documentary evidence had been produced to prove income, the Tribunal ought not to have assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/- per month was rejected. It was held that even assuming that there was no supporting evidence laid, considering the potentiality to earn, as the deceased was a Bachelor of Engineering in Computer Technology, his income could safely be assessed at least at Rs.20,000/- per month. 10.5. In Kumud Gupta (Supra), the accident occurred on21/04/2011. The deceased was a B.Tech (Computer Science) student studying in an Engineering College at Mullana, Haryana. The case of the claim petitioner that had the deceased completed her course, she would have earned at least Rs.25,000/- per month was accepted by the Tribunal. The High Court reduced the notional monthly income to Rs.20,000/- per month, which was challenged. The Apex court held that in light of the materials on record, the High Court was justified in computing the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/- per month. 10.6. In the case on hand, the deceased were final year B.Tech students at Sarabhai Institute of Science & Technology, Vellanad, Thiruvananthapuram. The college may not be a premium college like the IITs in India. 10.6. In the case on hand, the deceased were final year B.Tech students at Sarabhai Institute of Science & Technology, Vellanad, Thiruvananthapuram. The college may not be a premium college like the IITs in India. The Tribunal taking into account the materials produced, that is, the various certificates produced by the claim petitioners, concluded that the deceased were infact bright students and hence fixed the notional income at 20,000/-. On going through the records, I do not find any infirmity calling for an interference by this Court.Addition to be made towards future prospects 11. The Tribunal has added 50% to the established income under this head. However, in the light of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (5) KHC 350 : (2017) 16 SCC 680 , it is 40% that needs to be added. Hence, the impugned award will stand corrected to the said extent.Loss of consortium and loss of love and affection 12. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that it is only the parents who are entitled to compensation towards loss of consortium and that loss of consortium takes in the element of loss of love and affection and therefore the Tribunal was not justified in granting compensation towards love and affection to the siblings. 12.1. It is true that the parents of the deceased are entitled to compensation towards loss of filial consortium only. The siblings are not entitled to be awarded any compensation for loss of consortium. In 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. 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 , it has been held that when compensation for loss of consortium is awarded, then compensation cannot be awarded for loss of love and affection. In the case on hand, the parents are entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium. As the parents have been awarded compensation towards loss of consortium, they are not entitled to any further amount as compensation for loss of love and affection as the said element is included in loss of consortium. In the case on hand, the parents are entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium. As the parents have been awarded compensation towards loss of consortium, they are not entitled to any further amount as compensation for loss of love and affection as the said element is included in loss of consortium. The other claim petitioners are the siblings of the deceased who are not entitled to any amount towards loss of consortium. However, the fact that they are siblings is not disputed. Therefore, I find that they are entitled to compensation towards loss of love and affection and an amount of Rs.40,000/- each under the said head would be a reasonable amount. Therefore, the amount granted in the various petitions, though under the wrong head, does not exceed the amounts to which the claim petitioners are entitled under loss of consortium and loss of love and affection and therefore I find no grounds for interference on the said head. 13. The impugned Award is modified to the following extent: OP(MV) No.777/2013 (MACA No.305/2020) Sl. No. Head of claim Amount claimed (in Rs.) Amount Awarded by Tribunal (in Rs.) Modified in appeal (in Rs.) 1. Transportation to hospital 1,00,000/- 10,000/- 10,000/- (No Modification) 2. Damage to clothing & articles 1,00,000/- 2,000/- 2,000/- (No Modification) 3. Funeral expenses 50,000/- 15,000/- 15,000/- (No Modification) 4 Compensation for pain and sufferings 2,00,000/- Nil Nil (No Modification) 5. Compensation for loss of consortium Nil 2,00,000/- (40,000 x 5) 2,00,000/- (No Modification) 6. Compensation for loss of estate Nil 15,000/- 15,000/- (No Modification) 7. Compensation for loss of dependency 40,00,000/- 32,40,000/- [(20,000+50%) x1/2 x 12 x 18] 30,24,000/- [(20,000+40%) x1/2 x 12 x 18] Total 34,82,000/- 32,66,000/- In the result, MACA No.305/2020 is disposed of by deducting the compensation awarded by an amount of Rs.2,16,000/- (total compensation Rs.32,66,000/- that is, Rs.34,82,000/- granted by the Tribunal minus Rs.2,16,000/- deducted in appeal). OP(MV) No.632/2013 (MACA No.346/2020) Sl.No. Head of claim Amount claimed (in Rs.) Amount Awarded by Tribunal (in Rs.) Modified in appeal (in Rs.) 1. Transportation to hospital 1,00,000/- 10,000/- 10,000/- (No Modification) 2. Damage to clothing & articles 1,00,000/- 2,000/- 2,000/- (No Modification) 3. Funeral expenses 50,000/- 15,000/- 15,000/- (No Modification) 4. Compensation for pain and sufferings 2,00,000/- Nil Nil (No Modification) 5. Compensation for loss of love and affection Nil 1,20,000/- (40,000 x 3) 1,20,000/- (No Modification) 6. Transportation to hospital 1,00,000/- 10,000/- 10,000/- (No Modification) 2. Damage to clothing & articles 1,00,000/- 2,000/- 2,000/- (No Modification) 3. Funeral expenses 50,000/- 15,000/- 15,000/- (No Modification) 4. Compensation for pain and sufferings 2,00,000/- Nil Nil (No Modification) 5. Compensation for loss of love and affection Nil 1,20,000/- (40,000 x 3) 1,20,000/- (No Modification) 6. Compensation for loss of estate 50,00,000/- 15,000/- 15,000/- (No Modification) 7. Compensation for loss of dependency 40,00,000/- 32,40,000/- [(20,000+50%) x1/2 x 12 x 18] 30,24,000/- [(20,000+40%) x1/2 x 12 x 18] Total Limited to 50,00,000/- 34,02,000/ 31,86,000/- In the result, MACA No.346/2020 is disposed of by deducting the compensation awarded by an amount of Rs.2,16,000/- (total compensation Rs.31,86,000/- that is,Rs.34,02,000/- granted by the Tribunal minus Rs.2,16,000/- deducted in appeal). OP(MV) No.635/2013 (MACA No.380/2020) Sl.No. Head of claim Amount claimed (in Rs.) Amount Awarded by Tribunal (in Rs.) Modified in appeal (in Rs.) 1. Transportation to hospital 1,00,000/- 10,000/- 10,000/- (No Modification) 2. Damage to clothing & articles 1,00,000/- 2,000/- 2,000/- (No Modification) 3. Funeral expenses 50,000/- 15,000/- 15,000/- (No Modification) 4. Compensation for pain and sufferings 2,00,000/ Nil Nil (No Modification) 5. Compensation for loss of love and affection Nil 1,20,000/- (40,000 x 3) 1,20,000/- (No Modification) 6. Compensation for loss of estate 50,00,000/- 15,000/- 15,000/- (No Modification) 7. Compensation for loss of dependency 40,00,000/- 32,40,000/- [(20,000+50%) x1/2 x 12 x 18] 30,24,000/- [(20,000+40%) x1/2 x 12 x 18] Total Limited to 50,00,000/- 34,02,000/- 31,86,000/- In the result, MACA No.380/2020 is disposed of by deducting the compensation awarded by an amount of Rs.2,16,000/- (total compensation Rs.31,86,000/- that is, Rs.34,02,000/- granted by the Tribunal minus Rs.2,16,000/- deducted in appeal). OP(MV) No.698/2013 (MACA No.2303/2020) Sl. No. Head of claim Amount claimed (in Rs.) Amount Awarded by Tribunal (in Rs.) Modified in appeal (in Rs.) 1. Transportation to hospital 1,00,000/- 10,000/- 10,000/- (No Modification) 2. Damage to clothing & articles 1,00,000/- 2,000/- 2,000/- (No Modification) 3. Funeral expenses 50,000/- 15,000/- 15,000/- (No Modification) 4 Compensation for pain and sufferings 2,00,000/- Nil Nil (No Modification) 5. Compensation for loss of love and affection Nil 1,60,000/- (40,000 x 4) 1,60,000/- (No Modification) 6. Compensation for loss of estate Nil 15,000/- 15,000/- (No Modification) 7. Damage to clothing & articles 1,00,000/- 2,000/- 2,000/- (No Modification) 3. Funeral expenses 50,000/- 15,000/- 15,000/- (No Modification) 4 Compensation for pain and sufferings 2,00,000/- Nil Nil (No Modification) 5. Compensation for loss of love and affection Nil 1,60,000/- (40,000 x 4) 1,60,000/- (No Modification) 6. Compensation for loss of estate Nil 15,000/- 15,000/- (No Modification) 7. Compensation for loss of dependency 50,00,000/- 32,40,000/- [(20,000+50%) x1/2 x 12 x 18] 30,24,000/- [(20,000+40%) x1/2 x 12 x 18] Total 34,42,000/- 32,26,000/- In the result, MACA No.2303/2020 is disposed of by deducting the compensation awarded by an amount of Rs.2,16,000/- (total compensation Rs.32,26,000/- that is, Rs.34,42,000/- granted by the Tribunal minus Rs.2,16,000/- deducted in appeal). Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.