JUDGMENT : C.S. SUDHA, J. 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.793 & 794 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the common Award dated 17/01/2020. The respondents in both the appeals are respondents 1 to 3 respectively in the petitions. In these appeals, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petitions. 2. In both the claim petitions, the claim petitioners are the parents and siblings of the deceased persons. According to the claim petitioners, on 08/08/2017, at about 09:15 a.m. while the deceased in O.P.(MV) No.794/2017 was riding motorcycle bearing registration no.KL-71/C-8910 with the deceased in O.P(MV) No.793/2017, his friend, as pillion rider from Kodiyankunnu to MES Kalladi College, Mannarkkad and when they reached in front of Venga health centre bus bearing registration no.KL-50/C-4362 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked them down, as a result of which they sustained grievous injuries to which they succumbed. A sum of Rs.20,00,000/- was claimed by the claim petitioners in O.P.(MV) No.793/2017 and a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- by the claim petitioners in O.P(MV) No.794/2017 as compensation under various heads. 3. The first respondent/driver and the second respondent/owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte in both the petitions. 4. The third respondent/insurer ; the additional 4 th respondent/the owner of the motorbike ridden by the deceased ; the additional 5 th respondent, the legal heir of the rider of the motor bike and additional 6 th respondent/insurer of the motorcycle filed written statement. It was contended that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the rider of the bike. The 3 rd respondent/insurer admitted the policy. 5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A15 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners. RW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B1(b) were adduced by the respondents. 6. The 3 rd respondent/insurer admitted the policy. 5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A15 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners. RW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B1(b) were adduced by the respondents. 6. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and 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.7,34,000/- in OP(MV) No.793/2017 and Rs.1,84,500/- in OP(MV) No.794/2017 together with interest @ 7.5% 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 appeal. 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.292/2020 Notional income It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioners that the deceased a 19 year old, was studying for B.Sc Chemistry in MES Kalladi College, Mannarkkad. The deceased was a promising student. The notional income fixed by the Tribunal as Rs.6,000/- per month is quite low even going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Co. Ltd , (2011) 13 SCC 236 and hence needs to be appropriately enhanced. 8.1. The fact that the deceased was a B.Sc student is not seen disputed. In the light of the dictum in Ramachandrappa (Supra) and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the notional income can be fixed at Rs.12,000/- per month. Loss of consortium 9. Admittedly, the claim petitioners are the parents and siblings 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. 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 an amount of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium. No amount is seen awarded for loss of consortium. 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 an amount of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium. No amount is seen awarded for loss of consortium. However, an amount of Rs.50,000/- though under the wrong head of loss of love and affection is seen granted. As the claim petitioners are entitled to an amount of Rs.80,000/- they are entitled to the balance amount of Rs.30,000/-. 10. 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.10,000/- Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/- (No Modification) 2. Damage to clothing and articles Rs.1,000/- Rs.1,000/- Rs.1,000/- (No Modification) 3. Medical expenses Rs.50,000/- -- -- (No Modification) 4. Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- (No Modification) 5. Compensation for pain and suffering Rs.30,000/- -- -- (No Modification) 6. Compensation for loss of dependency Rs.18,00,000/- Rs.6,48,000/- Rs.18,14,400/- [(Rs.12,000/- + 40% of 12,000) x12x18x1/2] 7. Compensation for loss of estate Rs.50,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- (No modification) 8. Compensation for loss of love and affection Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.50,000/- Rs.80,000/- (loss of filial consortium to claim petitioners 1 & 2) Total Rs.21,66,000/- limited to Rs.20,00,000/- Rs.7,34,000/- Rs.19,30,400/- MACA No.295 of 2020 11. The claim petitioners who are the legal heirs of the deceased moved an application under Section 163(a) of the Act. The Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.1,84,500/- by fixing the annual income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- based on the second schedule to Section 163(a) . This according to the learned counsel for the claim petitioners is quite low and hence the same needs to be enhanced. In support of the argument, he relies on the dictums in Kishan Gopal v. Lala , 2013 KHC 4667 ; Master Jyothis Raj Krishna @ Jyothi Krishna v. Sunny George , 2025 (1) KHC 348 ; Vinod v. Suresh Kumar , 2023 KHC OnLine 191 ; Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali v. Shyam Kishore Murmu , 2021 KHC 6703 and an unreported decision of a Single Bench of this Court dated 02/02/2023 in MACA No.2540 of 2009 (Dr.P.J.Mathew v. P.Pradeep). It was submitted based on the aforesaid dictums that the annual income of the deceased must be fixed at least at Rs.30,000/-. It was submitted based on the aforesaid dictums that the annual income of the deceased must be fixed at least at Rs.30,000/-. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that the dictums in Kishan Gopal (Supra) ; Dr.P.J.Mathew (Supra) ; Master Jyothis (Supra) are decisions rendered under Section 166 of the Act and therefore the same cannot be applied to the facts of the present case as the claim petition is filed under Section 163 A. The deceased in the case on hand was 19 years old and not a minor. The decisions relied on by the claim petitioners are not applicable to the facts of the present case as they deal with cases of minors. Going by the second schedule, the notional income for computing compensation of people with no income prior to the accident can only be Rs.15,000/-. Therefore, there is no infirmity committed by the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court, goes the argument. 12. As per the second schedule to Section 163A, the annual income of the deceased is not to exceed Rs.40,000/-. As per paragraph 6 of the Schedule, the notional income for compensation with no income prior to the accident is Rs.15,000/-. The Apex Court in Kurvan Ansari (Supra) dealt with a case of a boy aged 7 years who died in an accident which occurred on 06/09/2004. The Tribunal based on the second schedule to Section 163A fixed the annual income at Rs.15,000/-. The Apex Court observed that despite repeated directions, the second Schedule had not been amended even after the lapse of several years. Therefore, fixing notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum for non earning members was held to be unjust and unreasonable and so the notional income of the deceased in the said case was fixed at Rs.25,000/-. 13. In the light of the aforesaid dictum, the notional income of the deceased can be fixed at Rs.25,000/- per annum. Hence, the amount towards loss of dependency would be Rs.25,000/- x 18 x2/3= Rs.3,00,000/-. 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. Transport to hospital Rs.10,000/- -- -- (No Modification) 2. Damage to clothing and articles Rs.1,000/- -- -- (No Modification) 3. Medical expenses Rs.5,000/- -- -- (No Modification) 4. 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. Transport to hospital Rs.10,000/- -- -- (No Modification) 2. Damage to clothing and articles Rs.1,000/- -- -- (No Modification) 3. Medical expenses Rs.5,000/- -- -- (No Modification) 4. Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/- Rs.2,000/- Rs.2,000/- (No Modification) 5. Compensation for pain and suffering Rs.30,000/- -- -- (No Modification) 6. Compensation for loss of dependency Rs.18,00,000/- Rs.1,80,000/- Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs.25,000/- x18x2/3) 7. Compensation for loss of estate Rs.50,000/- Rs.2,500/- Rs.2,500/- (No modification) 8. Compensation for loss of love and affection Rs.2,00,000/- -- -- (No Modification) Total Rs.21,66,000/- limited to Rs.20,00,000/- Rs.1,84,500/- Rs.3,04,500/- In the result, MACA No.292/2020 is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs.11,96,400/- (total compensation = Rs.19,30,400/-, that is, Rs.7,34,000/- granted by the Tribunal + Rs.11,96,400/- granted in appeal) and MACA No.295/2020 is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs.1,20,000/- (total compensation = Rs.3,04,500/- that is, Rs.1,84,500/- granted by the Tribunal + Rs.1,20,000/- 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 petitioners at the earliest in accordance with law after making deductions, if any. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.