JUDGMENT : Shoba Annamma Eapen, J. The core issue to be decided is whether the daughter, who is the owner of the offending vehicle, should be considered a ‘dependent’ for the purpose of calculating deduction towards personal expenses in determining compensation under the head loss of dependency and the deduction to be made against personal and living expenses is whether on the number of the family members or on the number of dependent family members. 2. The appeal has been filed by the third respondent insurer in OP(MV) No.183 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants. The respondents 1 & 2 herein were the claimants, the third respondent herein was the second respondent/owner of the offending vehicle and the fourth respondent herein was the supplemental sixth respondent/mother of the deceased before the tribunal. 3. Cross Objection No. 66 of 2017 in the appeal has been filed by the claimants, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal. 4. The parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the tribunal. 5. The case of the claimants was that on 22.07.2013, while the deceased was pillion riding on a two-wheeler bearing Reg.No.KL-51-D-5285 ridden by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, it hit on the rear side of an another two-wheeler bearing Reg.No.KL-51-C-5082, which was stopped abruptly, whereby the deceased sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The claimants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ?20,00,000/-. 6. The first respondent/rider of the offending vehicle, remained ex parte before the tribunal. The second respondent/owner of the offending vehicle filed a written statement, denying negligence on the part of the first respondent/rider of the motorcycle. The third respondent/insurer of the offending vehicle filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. The fourth respondent/rider of the two-wheeler bearing Reg.No.KL-51-C-5082 filed a written statement, contending that she is an unnecessary party. The fifth respondent/insurer of the two-wheeler bearing Reg.No.KL-51-C- 5082 filed a written statement, denying the policy coverage and disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. The fourth respondent/rider of the two-wheeler bearing Reg.No.KL-51-C-5082 filed a written statement, contending that she is an unnecessary party. The fifth respondent/insurer of the two-wheeler bearing Reg.No.KL-51-C- 5082 filed a written statement, denying the policy coverage and disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. The supplemental sixth respondent/mother of the deceased filed a written statement, stating that she is a legal heir and dependent on the deceased and that she is entitled for compensation. PW1 & PW2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A21 were marked on the side of the claimants, and Ext.B1 on the side of the third respondent insurer. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the first respondent/rider of the two-wheeler bearing Reg.No.KL-51-D-5285 and awarded a sum of ?19,35,510/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization against the third respondent being the insurer. The third respondent insurer has come up in appeal, alleging that the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is excessive, whereas the claimants filed the cross objection dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation. 7. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/respondent insurer and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4/cross objectors/claimants. 8. The learned Standing Counsel for the insurer assailed the impugned award mainly with respect to the compensation awarded under the heads - loss of dependency, loss of love & affection and funeral expenses, whereas the learned counsel for the claimants sought enhancement of the income fixed by the tribunal as well as the compensation awarded towards loss of estate. 9. Notional income - The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the deceased, who was 49 years old at the time of the accident, was a licensed conductor and was earning ?21,000/- per month. However, the tribunal has fixed the monthly income notionally at ?10,500/-, which is on the lower side. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the insurer submitted that a bus conductor may not have work on all days and hence, the monthly income claimed by the claimants is on the higher side. In order to prove the income of the deceased, PW1/wife and PW2/employer were examined; and PW2/employer deposed that the deceased was being paid ?700/- per day. In order to prove the income of the deceased, PW1/wife and PW2/employer were examined; and PW2/employer deposed that the deceased was being paid ?700/- per day. However, the tribunal notionally fixed the monthly income only at ?10,500/- reckoning 15 working days in a month, which appears to be on the lower side. Considering the fact that the deceased was a licensed conductor, in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, I deem it appropriate to refix the monthly income of the deceased at ?12,500/-. 10. Loss of dependency - The compensation awarded towards loss of dependency is being challenged by the insurer on several grounds, which include: (1) Addition of 30% income towards future prospects (2) Deduction of 1/4th of the income towards personal and living expenses 10.1. The learned Standing Counsel for the insurer submitted that the deceased was 49 years old at the time of the accident, who was not a permanent employee, however, while assessing compensation towards loss of dependency, the tribunal added 30% of the income towards future prospects, which is unsustainable. I find force in the submission of the learned Standing Counsel. The deceased, being 49 years at the time of the accident and not a permanent employee, as per the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [ 2017(4) KLT 662 (SC)], future prospects to be added to the income is 25% and not 30%. Thus, by adding 25% future prospects to the refixed monthly income, the amount would be ? 15,625/- (12500 + 3125). 10.2. As regards the deduction towards personal expenses, which is the core issue in this case, the learned Standing Counsel for the insurer submitted that for assessing compensation towards loss of dependency, the income to be deducted towards personal expenses is 1/3rd and the tribunal went wrong in deducting 1/4th of the income towards personal expenses. The legal heirs are four in number, i.e., the wife, two daughters and mother. However, one of the daughters, who was the second respondent before the tribunal, was married and was the owner of the offending vehicle on which the deceased was pillion riding. The legal heirs are four in number, i.e., the wife, two daughters and mother. However, one of the daughters, who was the second respondent before the tribunal, was married and was the owner of the offending vehicle on which the deceased was pillion riding. The learned Standing Counsel pointed out that she being the owner/insured, cannot be a receiver and a giver since the insurer is indemnifying the owner in paying compensation; and the tribunal deducted 1/4th of the income towards personal expenses by including the second respondent/daughter also, who was the owner of the offending vehicle, which is against the principles laid down by the apex court in Pranay Sethi (supra). It was further submitted that she being the owner and insured of the offending vehicle, is not entitled to compensation. Moreover, she was married and since she had not raised a claim for compensation and had not adduced any evidence to prove that she was dependent on the deceased, the deduction of 1/4th of the income towards personal expenses is not legally sustainable. To substantiate the above contentions, the learned Standing Counsel relied on the judgment of the apex court in Deep Shikha & Another v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & others [2025 KHC 6472]. 10.3. The learned counsel for the cross objectors/claimants, on the other hand, submitted that though she is the owner of the offending vehicle and not a claimant, being one of the legal heirs of the deceased, she ought to have been considered as a family member and deduction of 1/4th towards personal expense is the appropriate method to be adopted. The learned counsel further argued that though the owner/daughter has not claimed any amount as compensation, while deducting income towards personal expenses, the total number of legal heirs/family members has to be taken into consideration and since the deceased had two daughters, wife and mother at the time of the accident, adopting 1/4th for deducting personal expenses is legally correct. The claimants other than the owner/daughter are eligible to get compensation by deducting 1/4th from the income fixed, is the argument of the learned counsel for the claimants. The learned counsel also relied on the judgments of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ayisha M. & others [2011:KER:23153] and also United India Insurance Co. The claimants other than the owner/daughter are eligible to get compensation by deducting 1/4th from the income fixed, is the argument of the learned counsel for the claimants. The learned counsel also relied on the judgments of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ayisha M. & others [2011:KER:23153] and also United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shalumol and others [ 2021(5) KHC 28 ], wherein it is held that married daughters are entitled for dependency compensation, and submitted that the deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses is the appropriate method to be adopted and the tribunal had correctly done so and no interference is required. 10.4. I have considered the rival contentions raised on both sides. Admittedly, the second respondent/owner of the offending vehicle is the daughter of the deceased. She being the owner of the offending vehicle, was arrayed as one of the respondents in the original petition. Moreover, no claim was raised by her for compensation for the death of her father. However, the tribunal, in paragraph No.14 in page No.7 of the award, found that the deceased was married and the number of dependent family members is four, and the deduction towards personal and living expenses should be one fourth in the light of the decision reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [ 2010(2) KLT 802 (SC) ]. The tribunal found accordingly neither going into the question of dependency nor the question that the daughter was the owner/insured. While awarding compensation for loss of dependency, the first and foremost question to be considered is whether the legal heirs were financially dependent on the deceased or not. The claim for loss of dependency is based on pecuniary loss suffered by the dependents. If the legal heirs are dependent on the deceased, they will qualify as dependent for the purpose of assessing compensation towards loss of dependency. But, in the present case, the daughter was the owner of the vehicle. However, the claimants in this case have not raised a claim for compensation for the married daughter/owner and they do not have a case that she was dependent. Though a written statement was filed by the owner/daughter, she did not raise a claim for compensation. 10.5. But, in the present case, the daughter was the owner of the vehicle. However, the claimants in this case have not raised a claim for compensation for the married daughter/owner and they do not have a case that she was dependent. Though a written statement was filed by the owner/daughter, she did not raise a claim for compensation. 10.5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurer raised another argument that the daughter being the owner is not entitled for any compensation since the insurer is indemnifying the insured daughter for the loss sustained to the family. It is trite law that one cannot be a recipient as well as a giver. Here, the daughter is the insured. 10.6. The learned counsel for the appellant countered the argument by submitting that even though the daughter is the owner of the vehicle, no compensation needs to be paid to her, but she being one of the family members, the claimants are entitled for the dependency compensation by deducting the amount towards personal and living expenses by adding her as a family member. 10.7. In Pranay Sethi (supra), the Constitution Bench of the apex court, after considering the analysis made in Sarla Verma (supra), which was reconsidered in Reshma Kumari & others v. Madan Mohan & another [2013 KHC 4253], held as regards deduction for personal and living expenses as follows: “.... Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six.” 10.8. In clause (vi) of paragraph 40 of the judgment in Reshma Kumari (supra), it is held as follows: “(vi) Insofar as deduction for personal and living expenses is concerned, it is directed that the Tribunals shall ordinarily follow the standards prescribed in paragraphs 30, 31 and 32 of the judgment in Sarla Verma, 2009 (6) SCC 121 , subject to the observations made by us in para 38 above.” 10.9. Thus, it is specifically stated that the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one- fourth if the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6. The deduction towards personal and living expenses is not based on the number of family members, but certainly on the number of the dependent family members. Hence, the argument of the learned counsel for the claimants that since the deceased had four legal heirs, the deduction ought to have been one fourth, is found against the claimants. 10.10. Next, in order to prove that the owner was a dependent married daughter, the learned counsel for the claimants relied on a judgment of this Court in Shalumol (supra) and submitted that married daughters are entitled to claim compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , and even if dependency is a relevant criterion to claim compensation for loss of dependency, it does not mean financial dependency is the ‘ark of the covenant’, and dependency includes gratuitous service dependency, physical dependency, emotional dependency, psychological dependency, and so on and so forth, which can never be equated in terms of money. The learned counsel for the claimants also relied on the decision of the apex court in Seema Rani & others v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & others [2025 KHC OnLine 7116], wherein major sons and married daughters were considered dependents for awarding compensation for loss of dependency. 10.11. The criteria to be decided is whether the family members are dependent or not, for which evidence is required. The judgment relied on by the claimants is not acceptable on the basis of the recent judgment rendered by the apex court in Deep Shikha (supra), wherein it was held that the married daughter can be considered as a legal representative, but she will not be eligible for compensation for loss of dependency unless it is proved that she is financially dependent on the deceased. Hence, in order to grant compensation for loss of dependency, the married daughter has to prove that she was dependent on her deceased father. In Seema Rani (supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the claimants, the major sons of the deceased were awarded compensation towards loss of dependency, finding that they were not self-sufficient and were dependents of the deceased. In Seema Rani (supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the claimants, the major sons of the deceased were awarded compensation towards loss of dependency, finding that they were not self-sufficient and were dependents of the deceased. Since the second respondent/daughter has no case that she was dependent on her deceased father, the above judgments relied on by the claimants have no application in this case. 10.12. The learned counsel for the claimants relied on an unreported judgment dated 28.06.2011 of the Division Bench of this Court in Ayisha M. (supra), wherein it was held that if in fact, the father, who was the tortfeasor, wanted a share in the amount of compensation, nothing precluded or prevented him from making such a claim; and hence, it was observed that even in cases where the father was the tortfeasor, if he wanted a share, nothing prevented him from claiming compensation. However, in the afore judgment, the question of law whether the father/tortfeasor can be considered as a dependent was not decided on merits. Hence, the judgment in Ayisha M. (supra) cannot be relied upon to decide the issue involved in this case. 10.13. One among the legal heirs was the owner/daughter. She being the insured and a non dependent, is not entitled for dependency compensation. As rightly argued by the learned senior Standing Counsel for the insurer, she cannot be a recipient as well as giver. The insurer is indemnifying the insured. Therefore, I find that the deduction of 1/4 towards personal expenses is not legally sustainable and accordingly, hold that the deduction to be made is 1/3rd. Thus, applying the above standards and following the judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma (supra), the claimants will be entitled to get a total compensation of ?16,25,000/- (15625 x 12 x 13 x 2/3) towards loss of dependency. Hence, there will be an additional amount of ?27,950/- under this head, since the income was refixed as ?15,625/- by adding 25% towards future prospects. 11. Funeral expenses - The learned Standing Counsel for the insurer submitted that the tribunal awarded an amount of ?25,000/- towards funeral expenses. However, going by the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), the maximum amount of funeral expenses ought to have been granted by the tribunal is ?15,000/-. Thus, there will be a deduction of ?10,000/- under this head. 12. 11. Funeral expenses - The learned Standing Counsel for the insurer submitted that the tribunal awarded an amount of ?25,000/- towards funeral expenses. However, going by the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), the maximum amount of funeral expenses ought to have been granted by the tribunal is ?15,000/-. Thus, there will be a deduction of ?10,000/- under this head. 12. Loss of estate - The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ?10,000/- towards loss of estate. Following the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), the compensation under conventional heads ought to have been ?15,000/- and further, 10% enhancement in a span of three years from 2017. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the claimants. Thus, following the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), I deem it appropriate to award to the claimants a total compensation of ?18,150/- towards loss of estate. Hence, the claimants will be entitled to get an additional compensation of ?8,150/- under this head. 13. Loss of consortium/loss of love & affection - The learned Standing Counsel for the insurer submitted that the tribunal awarded ?1,00,000/- each under the heads, loss of consortium and loss of love & affection, totalling to an amount of ?2,00,000/-. However, the tribunal was wrong in awarding compensation of ?1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, which is impermissible and runs against the mandate in Pranay Sethi (supra). Once compensation is awarded under the head of loss of consortium, no amount shall be awarded towards loss of love and affection as it amounts to duplication of compensation as held in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Somwati and others [2020 (5) KLT OnLine 1198 (SC). The learned counsel for the claimants, on the other hand, submitted that the tribunal awarded only ?1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, whereas the legal heirs being four in number, they are entitled to get ?40,000/- each, totalling to ?1,60,000/-. It is further submitted that following the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), they are also entitled to get 10% enhancement in every three years after 2017. Accordingly, the claimants are awarded a compensation of ?48,400/- each towards loss of consortium, totalling to ?1,93,600/- (48400 x 4). Since the tribunal already awarded an amount of ?1,00,000/- under this head, there will be an additional compensation of ?93,600/-. Accordingly, the claimants are awarded a compensation of ?48,400/- each towards loss of consortium, totalling to ?1,93,600/- (48400 x 4). Since the tribunal already awarded an amount of ?1,00,000/- under this head, there will be an additional compensation of ?93,600/-. Accordingly, the compensation of ?1,00,000/- awarded by the tribunal towards loss of love and affection is deleted and the claimants are awarded an additional compensation of ?93,600/- towards loss of consortium. 14. Though the insurer challenged the compensation awarded by the tribunal under other heads as well, on a perusal of the records available and the impugned award, I am not inclined to interfere with the same. Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is modified as follows: Sl. No. Head of Claim Amount claimed (in )? Amount awarded by the tribunal (in )? Modified in appeal (in )? Total compensation (in )? 1. Transportation charges 15000 5000 - 5000 2. Damage to clothing 1000 1000 - 1000 3. Funeral expenses 25000 25000 -10000 15000 4. Medical expenses 50000 47460 - 47460 5. Pain and suffering 50000 50000 - 50000 6. Loss of dependency 3042000 1597050 27950 1625000 7. Loss of consortium 100000 100000 93600 193600 8. Loss of love and affection 150000 100000 -100000 deleted 9. Loss of estate 50000 10000 8150 18150 Total 3483000 1935510 19700 1955210 Accordingly, the appeal and the cross objection are allowed in part. The claimants are awarded an additional compensation of ?19,700/- (Rupees nineteen thousand and seven hundred only) over and above the compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs. The appellant insurer shall deposit the said amount together with interest and costs within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The claimants shall furnish copies of the PAN Card, AADHAAR Card and bank details before the insurer within a period of one month so as to enable the insurance company to make the deposit as ordered above. In case of failure to furnish details as above, it shall be open for the insurance company to deposit the said amount before the tribunal. Upon such deposit being made, the entire amount shall be disbursed to the claimants at the earliest in accordance with law.