JUDGMENT : C.S. SUDHA, J. 1. These appeals have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the claim petitioners in O.P.(MV) Nos.1630 & 1648 of 2014 respectively on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mavelikara, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by the common Award dated 24/08/2019. The respondents in MACA No.232/2020 are respondents 1 to 3 respectively in the petition and the sole respondent in MACA No.351/2020 is the third respondent/insurer in the petition. In these appeals, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petitions. 2. The claim petitioners in OP(MV) No.1630/2014 are the husband and sons of deceased Jayalekshmi and the sole claim petitioner in OP(MV) No.1648/2014 is the husband of late Jayalekshmi. According to the claim petitioners, on 13/08/2014 at about 09:30 a.m., while the deceased and her husband were travelling in scooter bearing registration no.KL31A5082 through Mannar-Mavelikara public road and when they reached in front of Surya Harwares south of Koyikka mukku, bus bearing registration no.KL33D7093 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner dashed against their scooter, as a result of which they sustained grievous injuries. Though the deceased was immediately taken to the hospital, she succumbed to the injuries sustained. A sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- was claimed by the petitioners in O.P(MV) No.1630/2014 and a sum of Rs. 22,00,000/- was claimed by the petitioner in O.P(MV) No.1648/2014 as compensation under various heads. 3. The first respondent/driver and the second respondent/owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte. 4. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the existence of a valid policy in respect of the offending vehicle. It was contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claim petitioner in OP(MV) No.1648/2014. The age, occupation etc. of the deceased and her husband were disputed. It was also contended that the compensation claimed was quite excessive. 5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A25 and Ext.X1 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners. No documentary evidence was adduced by the third respondent/insurer. 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 offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of Rs. No documentary evidence was adduced by the third respondent/insurer. 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 offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of Rs. 9,65,250/- in OP(MV) No.1630/2014 and Rs. 14,52,630/- in OP(MV) No.1648/2014 together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, 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 9. The award of compensation by the Tribunal under the following heads is challenged by the claim petitioners. OP (MV) No. 1630/2014 (MACA No. 232/2020) Notional income It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioners that the deceased, aged 43 years, was working as Manager in the agency of her husband and was earning an amount of Rs. 12,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal has fixed the notional income only at Rs. 6,000/- which is quite low and hence needs to be enhanced. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that the amount that has been fixed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and that it does not call for any interference. 9.1. It is true that though an amount of 12,000/- was claimed as the income of the deceased, there were no materials produced to substantiate the same. However, going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236 , the notional income of even a coolie in the year 2014 was liable to be fixed at Rs. 9,500/- per month. Therefore, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that fixing the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 10,000/- per month would be just and reasonable. Compensation for loss of consortium and loss of love & affection 10. An amount of Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of love and affection is seen granted by the Tribunal. Admittedly, the claim petitioners are the husband and two sons of the deceased. 10,000/- per month would be just and reasonable. Compensation for loss of consortium and loss of love & affection 10. An amount of Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of love and affection is seen granted by the Tribunal. Admittedly, the claim petitioners are the husband and two sons of the deceased. Going by 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 , the husband is entitled to an amount of Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium and the children are entitled to Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of parental consortium. Therefore, they are entitled to a total amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- of which an amount of Rs. 80,000/- has already been granted. Hence, they are entitled to the remaining amount of Rs. 40,000/- under this head. 11. The impugned Award is modified to the following extent: S. No. Head of claim Amount claimed (in Rs.) Amount Awarded by Tribunal (in Rs.) Modified in appeal (in Rs.) 1. Loss of earnings - Nil Nil (No Modification) 2. Partial loss of earnings - Nil Nil (No Modification) 3. Transport to hospital 2,000/- 1,500/- 1,500/- (No Modification) 4. Funeral expenses, ambulance charges and medicines 25,000/- 5,000/- 15,000/- 3,000/- 15,000/- (No Modification) 3,000/- (No Modification) 5. Damage to clothing 750/- 750/- 750/- (No Modification) 6. Extra nourishment bystander’s - Nil Nil (No Modification) 7. Compensation for pain and sufferings 50,000/- 10,000/- 10,000/- (No Modification) 8. Compensation for expectation of life and prospects of the family 4,90,000/- Nil Nil (No Modification) 9. Compensation for loss of dependency loss to the estate 9,84,392/- 1,50,000/- 8,40,000/- [(6,000+25%) x12x14x 2/3)] 15,000/- 14,00,000/- [(10,000+25%) x 12 x 14 x 2/3)] 15,000/- (No Modification) 10 Compensation for loss of consortium and loss of love and affection and mental agony 1,00,000/- 2,00,000/- 40,000/- 40,000/- 1,20,000/- (40,000 x 3) 11 Compensation for loss of care and guidance to the minor compensation for loss of amenities in life - Nil Nil (No Modification) Total 20,07,142/- limited to 20,00,000/- 9,65,250/- 15,65,250/- In the result, MACA No.232/2020 is allowed by enhancing  the compensation by a further amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- (total compensation Rs. 15,65,250/- that is, Rs. 9,65,250/- granted by the Tribunal plus Rs. 6,00,000/- 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 70 days delay in filing the appeal) and proportionate costs. The third respondent/insurer is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount before the Tribunal within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. On deposit of the amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the amount to the claim petitioners at the earliest in accordance with law after making deductions, if any. OP (MV) No. 1648/2014 (MACA No. 351/2020 Notional income 12. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that the latter, aged 56 years, was running a parcel service and was earning an amount of Rs. 12,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal has fixed the notional income only at Rs. 8,000/- which is quite low and hence needs to be appropriately enhanced. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that the amount that has been fixed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and that it does not call for any interference. 12.1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of Exts.A19 and A25 agency agreements, I find that fixing the notional income of the claim petitioner at Rs. 12,000/- as claimed in the petition would be just and reasonable. By stander expenses and future treatment 13. It is pointed out that though an amount of Rs. 15,000/- was claimed under this head, the Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs. 20,000/- which, according to the learned counsel for the claim petitioner, is quite low and hence needs to be enhanced. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that though an amount of Rs. 15,000/- only was claimed, the Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs. 20,000/- and therefore, no further enhancement is called for. 13.1. The materials on record show that the claim petitioner was hospitalized for a period of 96 days in four different spells. He sustained multiple fractures. He was also subjected to several surgeries and medical interventions. However, no materials have been produced to show the expenses incurred for future treatment. 20,000/- and therefore, no further enhancement is called for. 13.1. The materials on record show that the claim petitioner was hospitalized for a period of 96 days in four different spells. He sustained multiple fractures. He was also subjected to several surgeries and medical interventions. However, no materials have been produced to show the expenses incurred for future treatment. As he was hospitalized for a period of 96 days and as the incident took place on 13/08/2014, I find that bystander expense at the rate of Rs. 350/- per day for a period of 96 days can be granted, which comes to Rs. 33,600/-. Since an amount of Rs. 20,000/- has already been granted, he will be entitled to the remaining amount. Pain and suffering 14. It is pointed out that though an amount of 1,00,000/- was claimed under this head, the Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs. 35,000/- only. The materials on record show that the claim petitioner had sustained the following injuries: “1. Pain right knee, low back and left wrist 2. Fracture femur right mid shaft closed comminuted. 3. Fracture femur right intertrochanteric. 4.Fracture radius left distal closed comminuted intra articular. 5. Fracture pelvis left inferior and superior pubic rami. 6. Fracture scapular left neck. 7. Diffuse swelling right thigh with tenderness. 8. Abrasion with tenderness over the right tibial tuberosity degloving of skin over right proximal leg. 9. Swelling deformity and tenderness over left wrist. 10. Movement of left shoulder painful.” Therefore, in the light of the injuries sustained which include multiple fractures, I find that an amount of Rs. 90,000/- under this head would be just and reasonable. Loss of amenities 15. Though an amount of Rs. 60,000/- was claimed under this head, the Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs. 40,000/- only which is also stated to be on the lower side. 15.1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the injuries sustained and the period of hospitalization, I find that an amount of Rs. 60,000/- as claimed under this head would be just and reasonable. Compensation for disability and loss of earning power 16. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that when ‘compensation for disability’ has been granted as per column no.9 in the table in page no.15 of the impugned Award, a further amount of Rs. 60,000/- as claimed under this head would be just and reasonable. Compensation for disability and loss of earning power 16. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that when ‘compensation for disability’ has been granted as per column no.9 in the table in page no.15 of the impugned Award, a further amount of Rs. 40,000/- under the head ‘compensation for loss of earning power’ as shown in column no.10 could not have been awarded by the Tribunal as loss of earning power comes within the compensation that is granted towards compensation for disability. The argument advanced is right and therefore the amount of Rs. 40,000/- which has been awarded for loss of earning power over and above the compensation that has been awarded towards compensation for disability shall stand deducted. Percentage of disability 17. The learned counsel for the claim petitioner relying on Ext.X1 certificate submitted that the disability assessed is 29% and therefore the Tribunal ought not to have reduced the disability to 20%. Hence, he submits that the functional disability has to be fixed at 29%. 17.1. Ext.X1 refers to the whole body disability. Going by the dictum in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 , it is the functional disability that needs to be assessed on the basis of which compensation has to be granted. According to the learned counsel for the claim petitioner, in the light of the avocation of the claim petitioner, that is, conducting parcel service, he needs to travel quite frequently and therefore the percentage of disability ought to have been fixed at 50%. 17.2. I am afraid I disagree with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner. As stated earlier, it is the functional disability that needs to be fixed on the basis of which the loss of earning capacity has to be decided. In the light of the injuries sustained and the disability certificate, I find that 20% that has been fixed by the Tribunal as the functional disability is correct and that it does not call for any interference. 18. The impugned Award is modified to the following extent: S. No. Head of claim Amount claimed (in Rs.) Amount Awarded by Tribunal (in Rs.) Modified in appeal (in Rs.) 1. Loss of earnings 48,000/- 48,000/- (8,000 x 6) 72,000/- (12,000 x 6) 2. 18. The impugned Award is modified to the following extent: S. No. Head of claim Amount claimed (in Rs.) Amount Awarded by Tribunal (in Rs.) Modified in appeal (in Rs.) 1. Loss of earnings 48,000/- 48,000/- (8,000 x 6) 72,000/- (12,000 x 6) 2. Partial loss of earnings 15,000/- Nil Nil (No Modification) 3. Transport to hospital 50,000/- 74,550/- 74,550/- (No Modification) 4. Extra nourishment 8,000/- 4,000/- 4,000/- (No Modification) 5. Damage to clothing 1,000/- 1,000/- 1,000/- (No Modification) 6. Medical expenses 14,00,000/- 10,00,000/- 10,00,000/- (No Modification) 7. Bystanders expenses future treatment 15,000/- 20,000/- 33,600/- (350 x 96) 8. Pain and suffering compensation for disfiguration 1,00,000/- 35,000/- 90,000/- 9. Compensation for disability 6,00,000/- 1,90,080/- [(8,000+10%) x 12 x 9 x 20/100] 2,85,120/- [(12,000+10%) x 12 x 9 x 20/100] 10 Compensation for loss of earning power 75,000/- 40,000/- Deducted 11 Loss of amenities compensation for deformity 60,000/- 40,000/- 60,000/- .. Total 23,72,000/- limited to 22,00,000/- 14,52,630/- 16,20,270/- In the result, MACA No.351/2020 is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs. 1,67,640/- (total compensation Rs. 16,20,270/- that is, Rs. 14,52,630/- granted by the Tribunal plus Rs. 1,67,640/- 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 third respondent/insurer is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount before the Tribunal within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. On deposit of the amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the amount to the claim petitioner at the earliest in accordance with law after making deductions, if any. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.