JUDGMENT : SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J. M.A.C.A. No.616 of 2013 is filed by the 1 st respondent, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘KSRTC’), in OP(MV) No.1955 of 2008 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The respondents herein were the claimants and respondents 2 and 3 before the tribunal. M.A.C.A. No.1102 of 2023 is filed by the claimants in the afore OP(MV) seeking enhancement of compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :- On 26.05.2008, while the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider in a motorcycle bearing No.KL 07/BF 6110 ridden by her husband along the Thalayolaparambu – Kottayam road, a KSRTC bus bearing No.KL 15/5619 driven by the 2 nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit on the rear side of the motorcycle and the deceased fell down and the left rear wheel of the bus ran over her body and she succumbed to the injuries. Her legal heirs approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.38,00,000/-. 3. Though notice was ordered to the 2 nd respondent, driver of the offending bus, he did not file any written statement. The 3 rd respondent, the conductor of the offending bus, remained ex parte before the tribunal. The 1 st respondent, KSRTC filed a written statement contending that the compensation claimed was on the higher side and also denied negligence on the part of the 2 nd respondent. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A10 were marked on the side of the claimants. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence on the part of the 2 nd respondent and awarded a sum of Rs.35,45,620/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate cost. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal the KSRTC as well as the claimants have come up in appeal. 4. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/KSRTC in M.A.C.A. No.616 of 2013 and the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants in M.A.C.A. No.1102 of 2023. 5. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal the KSRTC as well as the claimants have come up in appeal. 4. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/KSRTC in M.A.C.A. No.616 of 2013 and the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants in M.A.C.A. No.1102 of 2023. 5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for KSRTC submitted that the tribunal erred in calculating compensation under the head loss of dependency by not deducting income tax from the deceased’s net salary. The fact that the deceased was an employee of the Food Corporation of India and was drawing an amount of Rs.19,451/- as monthly income is admitted. It is submitted that the annual income of the deceased was Rs.2,33,412/-, out of which an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- was exempted from income tax and 10% of the balance amount of Rs.53,412/- ought to have been deducted towards income tax by the tribunal. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants also admitted that out of the annual income, an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- was exempted from tax and after deducting 10% of the balance amount towards income tax, the remaining amount would constitute the income of the deceased. 6. Accordingly, the annual income of the deceased is recalculated as follows :- Rs.2,33,412 - Rs.1,80,000 = Rs.53,412. 10% of Rs.53,412 is Rs.5,341/-. By deducting the said amount from the annual income (ie; Rs.2,33,412 - Rs.5,341), the amount will be Rs.2,28,071/-. Since the deceased was a permanent employee of the Food Corporation of India, by adding 50% towards future prospects, to the income fixed, the annual income would be Rs.3,42,106/- (Rs.2,28,071 + Rs.1,14,035). 7. The learned counsel for the claimants claims enhancement under the following heads: (i) Loss of dependency - Since the annual income of the deceased is refixed at Rs.3,42,106/-, compensation towards loss of dependency has to be recalculated. Since the deceased was aged 37 years at the time of accident, the multiplier adopted would be 15. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the tribunal has deducted 1/3 rd instead of 1/4 th towards personal and living expenses by not including the parents of the deceased. However, the parents, being aged, are also entitled to love, care and affection of the deceased and hence they are also to be added for considering the number of legal heirs. However, the parents, being aged, are also entitled to love, care and affection of the deceased and hence they are also to be added for considering the number of legal heirs. Hence, I find that the amount to be deducted towards personal and living expenses is 1/4 th and not 1/3 rd . Accordingly, following the judgments in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [ 2017(4) KLT 662 (SC)] and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [ 2010(2) KLT 802 (SC) ], the claimants will be entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.38,48,692/- (Rs.3,42,106 x 15 x 3/4) towards loss of dependency. Hence, there will be an additional amount of Rs.3,47,572/- under this head. (ii) Funeral expenses - On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.6,000/- towards funeral expenses. However, going by the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), the compensation under conventional heads ought to have been Rs.15,000/- and further, 10% enhancement has to be given in a span of three years from 2017. Thus, following the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), I deem it appropriate to award to the claimants a total compensation of Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses. Hence, the claimants will be entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs.12,150/- under this head. (iii) Loss of estate - It is seen that the tribunal has awarded only an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate. Following the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), the compensation under conventional heads ought to have been Rs.15,000/- and further, 10% enhancement has to be given in a span of three years from 2017. Thus, following the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), I deem it appropriate to award to the claimants a total compensation of Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate. Hence, the claimants will be entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs.13,150/- under this head. (iv) Loss of consortium - The learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that towards loss of consortium, the tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.10,000/-, whereas, they are entitled to get a compensation of Rs.40,000/- each, totalling to Rs.1,60,000/- since there were four legal heirs. It is further submitted that following the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), they are also entitled to get 10% enhancement in a span of three years from 2017. It is further submitted that following the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), they are also entitled to get 10% enhancement in a span of three years from 2017. Accordingly, the appellants are awarded a compensation of Rs.48,400/- each towards loss of consortium, totalling to Rs.1,93,600/- (48400 x 4). Since the tribunal already awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- under this head, there will be an additional compensation of Rs.1,83,600/-. (v) Loss of love and affection - The learned Standing Counsel for the 1 st respondent KSRTC submits that the tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection, which is impermissible and runs against the mandate in Pranay Sethi (supra). I find force in the submission of the learned Standing Counsel. 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). Therefore, the compensation awarded by the tribunal towards loss of love and affection is deleted. 8. Though the claimants claimed enhancement of compensation 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 since it appears to be just and reasonable. 9. Since the award is of the year 2012, I fix the interest on the enhanced compensation @ 8% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization. Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is modified as follows: Sl. No. Head of Claim Amount claimed (in Rs.) Amount awarded by the tribunal (in Rs.) Modified in appeal (in Rs.) Total compensation (in Rs.) 1. Transportation 2,500 2,500 Not Modified 2,500 2. Funeral expenses 7,500 6,000 12,150 18,150 3. Damage to clothings 2,000 1,000 Not Modified 1,000 4. Medical expenditure 2,500 Not allowed Not Modified NIL 5. Loss of dependency 36,35,500 35,01,120 3,47,572 38,48,692 6. Pain and sufferings 25,000 10,000 Not Modified 10,000 7. Loss of love and affection 75,000 10,000 -10,000 Deleted 8. Loss of consortium 50,000 10,000 1,83,600 1,93,600 9. Funeral expenses 7,500 6,000 12,150 18,150 3. Damage to clothings 2,000 1,000 Not Modified 1,000 4. Medical expenditure 2,500 Not allowed Not Modified NIL 5. Loss of dependency 36,35,500 35,01,120 3,47,572 38,48,692 6. Pain and sufferings 25,000 10,000 Not Modified 10,000 7. Loss of love and affection 75,000 10,000 -10,000 Deleted 8. Loss of consortium 50,000 10,000 1,83,600 1,93,600 9. Loss of estate Nil 5,000 13,150 18,150 Total 38,00,000 35,45,620 5,46,472 40,92,092 Accordingly, the appeals are allowed in part and the claimants are awarded an additional compensation of Rs.5,46,472 (Rupees Five Lakhs Forty Six Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy Two 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 KSRTC 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 KSRTC within a period of one month so as to enable KSRTC to make the deposit as ordered above. In case of failure to furnish details as above, it shall be open for KSRTC 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. However, it is made clear that the enhanced compensation will not carry interest for the period of delay of 3528 days in filing the appeal.