JUDGMENT : (C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, J.) The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No.1081 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, are the appellants herein. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal). 2. The O.P. was filed under under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the parents, widow and children of deceased Kunhikoya, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 10.08.2007. According to the petitioners, on 10.08.2007, at about 10.30 p.m, while the deceased was riding pillion on a motorcycle, a lorry driven by the 1 st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the motorcycle, and as a result of which, the deceased fell down and sustained injuries and he succumbed to the injuries on the same day. 3. The 1 st respondent is the driver, the 2 nd respondent is the owner, and3 rd respondent is the insurer of the lorry. The 4 th respondent is the rider, 5 th respondent is the owner and the 6 th respondent is the insurer of the motorcycle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. was Rs.6,37,000/-. 4. In the written statement filed by the 3 rd respondent, it is contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 4 th respondent. 5. On the other hand, in the written statement filed by the 6 th respondent, it was contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1 st respondent. 6. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimonies of PWs1 to 3, Exts.A1 to A5, B1 and B2. After evaluating the evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 4 th respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs.5,00,500/- against the 5 th respondent, on the ground that the policy does not cover a pillion rider. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded, the petitioners have preferred this appeal. 7. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following: i) Whether the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1 st respondent or the 4 th respondent. ii) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. 8. Heard Sri. P.K. Mohamed Jameel, the learned counsel for the appellants, Sri. 7. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following: i) Whether the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1 st respondent or the 4 th respondent. ii) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. 8. Heard Sri. P.K. Mohamed Jameel, the learned counsel for the appellants, Sri. Sreekumar (Chelur), the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent, Sri. A.R. George, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3 rd respondent, Sri.K.Rakesh, the learned counsel for the 4 th respondent, and Sri.P.M.M. Najeeb Khan, the learned Standing Counsel for the 6 th respondent. 9. The learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent argued that as per Ext.B1 charge sheet, the police after investigation found that the accident occurred due to negligence of the 4 th respondent. 10. On the other hand, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, from the evidence of PWs 2 and 3, it is revealed that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1 st respondent. He has also relied upon Annexures R4(b) and R4(c), depositions of PWs 2 and 3 in CC No. 337/2009 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Perinthalmanna as well as the judgment dated 01.12.2023 in CC No.760/2016, acquitting the 4 th accused. 11. It is argued by the learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent that the judgment of the criminal court is not binding on this Court. 12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of this Court in Ajeesh v. Vibitha Varghese (2024 (6) KHC 115), and would argue that in a case where the Tribunal while awarding compensation to the claimant relied on a final report in criminal proceedings which ended in acquittal, the decision of the criminal court become relevant.In paragraph 12, the learned Single Judge observed as follows: “12. It is true that the decision of the criminal court does not have a bearing on the findings rendered by the Tribunal. But the said principles apply only in cases where the acquittal in criminal cases is pressed into service for avoiding the liability of tort. It is now settled that the degree of proof required to be advanced for proving negligence in criminal law is more than what is required in civil action. But the said principles apply only in cases where the acquittal in criminal cases is pressed into service for avoiding the liability of tort. It is now settled that the degree of proof required to be advanced for proving negligence in criminal law is more than what is required in civil action. However, in a case where the Tribunal while awarding compensation to the claimant relied on a final report in criminal proceedings which ended in acquittal, the aforementioned principle may not apply. In National Insurance Company Ltd Vs Chamundeswari [ 2021(5) KLT 724 (SC)], the Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the question as to the evidentiary value of the FIR and other documents to prove the contributory negligence and held that only if evidence available with the Tribunal runs contrary to the FIR, then the above FIR has to be looked into. No strait jacket formula can be applied. In this context, it is pertinent to note that apart from FIR and final report, no evidence was available before the Tribunal and the Tribunal had relied on Ext.A5 final report for the purpose of fastening the contributory negligence of 50% on the side of the claimant.” 13. The law is well settled that the judgments of the criminal courts are not binding on civil courts. In the instant case, in order to prove the negligence on the part of the 4 th respondent, the Tribunal has solely relied upon Ext.B1 final report filed by the Police, after investigating the crime registered in respect of the accident involved in this case. In the above circumstance, the fact that the above criminal proceedings ended in acquittal is also relevant, along with other evidence. In this case, there is the oral testimonies of PWs 2 and 3 to the effect that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the lorry driver. It is true that, during the cross examination, PW2 deposed that he looked into the place of occurrence only after hearing the noise of the accident. However, there is no such discrepancy in the evidence of PW3. PW3 in clear terms deposed that he had seen the accident and that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the lorry driver. No contra evidence was adduced by the 3 rd respondent. However, there is no such discrepancy in the evidence of PW3. PW3 in clear terms deposed that he had seen the accident and that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the lorry driver. No contra evidence was adduced by the 3 rd respondent. Annexures R4(b) and R4(c), depositions of PWs 2 and 3 in CC No. 337/2009 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Perinthalmanna also substantiates the above conclusion. Therefore, in the light of the evidence of PWs2 and 3 and Annexure R4, it can be seen that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1 st respondent. In the above circumstances, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 4 th respondent. 14. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, he was working abroad during the relevant period. To substantiate the said contention, he has relied upon Ext.A4 passport. On a perusal of Ext.A4, it can be seen that the deceased returned to India only on 04.04.2007, about four months before the date of accident. However, he has not adduced any evidence to prove the income he derived from his employment abroad. 15. In this case, the Tribunal has fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.3,500/-. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ], even the notional income of a coolie during the year 2007 will come to Rs.6,000/. 16. In the above circumstances, the Tribunal was not justified in fixing the notional income of the deceased at Rs.3,500/-, far below that of a coolie. Since it is revealed that the deceased came to India, just 4 months before the date of the accident, there is every reason to believe that he was working abroad. However, they could not prove the income of the deceased by adducing reliable evidence. In the above circumstances, I hold that the notional income of the deceased is liable to fixed as that of a coolie at Rs.6,000/-. 17. Since the deceased has left behind five dependents and he was aged 36 years, 40% of the income is liable to added towards future prospects and the multiplier to be applied is 15. Further, ¼ th of the income is liable to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. 17. Since the deceased has left behind five dependents and he was aged 36 years, 40% of the income is liable to added towards future prospects and the multiplier to be applied is 15. Further, ¼ th of the income is liable to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. Therefore, the loss of dependency will come to Rs.11,34,000/- (Rs.8400 x 15 x 12 x 3/4). 18. Towards, loss of consortium, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/-. Towards love and affection, another Rs.10,000/- was awarded. Towards loss of estate, only Rs.5,000/- was awarded. Towards Funeral Expense, Rs.3,000/- was awarded. Towards pain and sufferings, nothing was awarded. 19. In the light of the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra), the appellants are entitled to get a consolidated sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, and each dependent is entitled to get a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium, with an increase of 10% in every three years. Therefore, towards loss of estate and funeral expense they are entitled to get a sum of Rs.18,150/- each. Towards loss of consortium, the petitioners together are entitled to get a sum of Rs.2,42,000/- (48,400 x 5). 20. Since compensation for loss of consortium was given, further compensation for love and affection cannot be granted, in view of the decision in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Somwati and Others, (2020)9 SCC 644 . Therefore, Rs.10,000/-, awarded towards love and affection is to be deducted. 21. Towards the head ‘pain and sufferings’, nothing was awarded by the Tribunal. Considering the facts, they are also entitled to get a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and sufferings. 22. No change is required, in the amounts awarded on other heads, as the compensation awarded on those heads appears to be just and reasonable. 23. Therefore, the petitioners/ appellants are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.14,37,300/-, as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below, for easy reference. Sl. No. Head of Claim Amount awarded by Tribunal (in Rs.) Amount Awarded in Appeal (in Rs.) 1 Loss of dependency 4,72,500/- 11,34,000 2 Loss of consortium 10000 2,42,000 3 Loss of love and affection 10000 Nil 4 Loss of estate 5000 18,150 5 Funeral expenses 3000 18,150 6 Pain and sufferings Nil 25,000 Total 5,00,500/- 14,37,300/- Enhanced Amount =9,36,800/- 24. No. Head of Claim Amount awarded by Tribunal (in Rs.) Amount Awarded in Appeal (in Rs.) 1 Loss of dependency 4,72,500/- 11,34,000 2 Loss of consortium 10000 2,42,000 3 Loss of love and affection 10000 Nil 4 Loss of estate 5000 18,150 5 Funeral expenses 3000 18,150 6 Pain and sufferings Nil 25,000 Total 5,00,500/- 14,37,300/- Enhanced Amount =9,36,800/- 24. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part, and Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.14,37,300/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Three Hundred Only), less the amount already deposited, if any, along with interest as ordered by the Tribunal, from the date of the petition till deposit/realisation, excluding interest for a period of 173 days, the period of delay in filing the appeal, with proportionate costs, within a period of two months from today. On depositing the said amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount to the petitioner, excluding court fee payable, if any, without delay, as per rules.