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.608 & 684 of 2008 respectively on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Mavelikara, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by the common Award dated 26/11/2019. The respondents in both the appeals are respondents 1 to 3 respectively in the petition. In these appeals, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petitions. 2. According to the claim petitioners, on 06/10/2007 at 08:30 p.m., while the deceased and the claim petitioner in O.P. (MV) No.684/2008 were travelling in car bearing registration no.KL-2T-1061 driven by the first respondent through Alappuzha- Kollam NH 47 and when they reached Kayamkulam KSRTC bus stand, due to the rash and negligent driving of the latter, the car collided with lorry bearing registration no.KL-7L-7101, as a result of which they sustained grievous injuries. Though the deceased was immediately taken to the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries sustained. A sum of ? 6,00,000/- was claimed by the petitioners in O.P(MV) No.608/2008 and a sum of ? 5,00,000/- was claimed by the petitioner in O.P(MV) No.684/2008 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, but denied liability and negligence on the part of the first respondent/driver. It was contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the lorry driver. The age, occupation etc. of the deceased were disputed. It was also contended that the compensation claimed was quite excessive. 5. Before the Tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A19 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners. RW1 and RW2 were examined and Exts.B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the third respondent/insurer. 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 ? ? RW1 and RW2 were examined and Exts.B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the third respondent/insurer. 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 ? ? 5,53,800/- in OP(MV) No.608/2008 and 4,70,874/- in OP(MV) No.684/2008 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 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 9. The award of compensation by the Tribunal under the following heads is challenged by the claim petitioners - MACA No.1107/2020 ( OP(MV) No. 608/2008) Notional income It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioners that the deceased, a 21-year-old barber, was earning ? 8,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal fixed the notional income at ? 3,000/- which is quite low going by the the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd ., (2011) 13 SCC 236 . Hence, the amount needs to be appropriately enhanced. 9.1. It is true that there are no materials to prove the income that is claimed in the petition. However, going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa (Supra), the notional income of the deceased can be fixed as ? 6,000/- Transportation. 10. The accident occurred on 06/10/2007. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that initially he was taken to a hospital in Kayamkulam and thereafter to hospitals in Alapuzha and Ernakulam. Hence, the amount of ? 8,000/- that is granted is on the lower side, which needs to be appropriately enhanced. 10.1. The fact that he was taken to the aforesaid three hospitals is not disputed and therefore I find that an amount of ? 10,000/- as claimed would be just and reasonable. Hence, the same is awarded. Compensation for l oss of consortium and loss of love & affection. 11. Admittedly, the claim petitioners herein are the parents and two siblings of the deceased, who died a bachelor. Going by the dictums in Magma General Insurance Co. 10,000/- as claimed would be just and reasonable. Hence, the same is awarded. Compensation for l oss of consortium and loss of love & affection. 11. Admittedly, the claim petitioners herein are the parents and two siblings of the deceased, who died a bachelor. 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 parents are entitled to an amount of ? 40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium. No amount is seen awarded under loss of consortium. However, an amount of ? 40,000/- is awarded under compensation for loss of love and affection. It is well settled that when loss of consortium is awarded, no further amount can be awarded for loss of love and affection. Claim petitioners 1 and 2, the parents of the deceased, are entitled to a total amount ? 80,000/- towards loss of filial consortium. As only an amount of 40,000/- has been granted, they are entitled to a further amount of 40,000/- towards loss of filial consortium for which amount they are also entitled to two enhancements at the rate of 10%. ( 40,000+10%= 44,000; 44,000 +10% = 48,400/-). 12. The impugned Award is modified to the following extent: Sl. No. Head of claim Amount claimed (in )? Amount Awarded by Tribunal (in )? Modified in appeal (in )? 1. Transportation 10,000/- 8,000/- 10,000/- 2. Ambulance expense 3,000/- 3. Extra nourishment 5,000/- Nil Nil (No Modification) 4. Damage to clothing 1,000/- 1,000/- 1,000/- (No Modification) 5. Funeral expense 10,000/- 15,000/- 15,000/- (No Modification) 6. Medical expense 25,000/- Nil Nil (No Modification) 7. Bystander expense 3,000/- 1,200/- 1,200/- (No Modification) 8. Compensation for pain and sufferings 60,000/- 20,000/- 20,000/- (No Modification) 9. Compensation for loss of estate 40,000/- 15,000/- 15,000/- (No Modification) 10 Compensation for loss of consortium & loss of love and affection 50,000/- 40,000/- 88,400/- (40,000+48,400) 11 Dependency 6,00,000/- 4,53,600/- [(3,000+40%) x12x18x1/2)] 9,07,200/- [(6,000+40%) x12x18x1/2)] Total limited to 6,00,000/- 5,53,800/- 10,57,800/- In the result, MACA No.1107/2020 is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of ? 5,04,000/- (total compensation ? 10,57,800/- that is ? 5,04,000/- (total compensation ? 10,57,800/- that is ? 5,53,800/- granted by the Tribunal plus ? 5,04,000/- 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. The liberty given by the Tribunal to the third respondent/insurer to recover the amount from the second respondent/owner of the offending vehicle is confirmed. MACA No. 1268 /2020 (OP(MV) No. 684 /20 08 ) Notional income 13. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that the latter, an electrician-cum-plumber, was earning ? 6,000/- per month. The Tribunal has also accepted the said claim. However, the Tribunal when fixing the notional income for the purpose of computing compensation for permanent disability has taken the notional income as ? 3,000/- which is incorrect and hence the same needs to be corrected. 13.1. Taking into account the avocation of the claim petitioner, the notional income is fixed at ? 6,000/- per month. Loss of earnings 14. The materials on record show that the claim petitioner had sustained the following injuries: “1. fracture lower jaw 2. contusion B/L cheek 3. nasal and mandible deformity 4. contused laceration over lips 5. multiple laceration over face and extremities 6. segmental fracture mandible 7. epestaxies 8. contusion over forehead 9. head injury 10. contusion over spine and loss of 12 tooth in upper and lower jaws.” Therefore, in all probability, the claim petitioner might have been unable to work for a period of 6 months. Therefore, I find that he can be granted compensation towards loss of earnings for a period of 6 months, that is ? 36,000/- (6,000 x 6 months). Compensation for pain and sufferings 15. In the light of the injuries sustained, which include two fractures, I find that the amount of ? 50,000/- as claimed would be just and reasonable. Compensation for l oss of amenities in life 16. Though an amount of ? 20,000/- was claimed, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of ? 10,000/- only. Compensation for pain and sufferings 15. In the light of the injuries sustained, which include two fractures, I find that the amount of ? 50,000/- as claimed would be just and reasonable. Compensation for l oss of amenities in life 16. Though an amount of ? 20,000/- was claimed, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of ? 10,000/- only. The materials on record show that he lost 9 teeth in the accident and hence the amount of ? 20,000/- as claimed under this head would be just and reasonable. 17. The impugned Award is modified to the following extent: Sl. No. Head of claim Amount claimed (in )? Amount Awarded by Tribunal (in )? Modified in appeal (in )? 1. Loss of earnings 36,000/- 18,000/- (6,000 x 3) 36,000/- (6,000 x 6) 2. Transportation 15,000/- 10,000/- 10,000/- (No Modification) 3. Extra nourishment 15,000/- Nil Nil (No Modification) 4. Damage to clothing 1,000/- 1,000/- 1,000/- (No Modification) 5. Medical expense 3,00,000/- 2,86,734/- 2,86,734/- (No Modification) 6. Bystander expense 5,000/- 3,500/- 3,500/- (No Modification) 7. Compensation for pain and sufferings 50,000/- 25,000/- 50,000/- 8. Compensation for permanent disability 60,000/- 1,16,640/- (3,000x12x 18x18/100) 2,33,280/- (6,000x12x18x 18/100) 9. Compensation for loss of amenities in life 20,000/- 10,000/- 20,000/- Total 5,02,000/- limited to 5,00,000/- 4,70,874/- 6,40,514/- In the result, MACA No.1268/2020 is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of ? 1,69,640/- (total compensation ? 6,40,514/- that is, ? 4,70,874/- granted by the Tribunal plus ? 1,69,640/- 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. The liberty given by the Tribunal to the third respondent/insurer to recover the amount from the second respondent/owner of the offending vehicle is confirmed. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.