JUDGMENT : SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants in O.P.(MV) No.1320 of 2011 on the files of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The respondents herein are the respondents before the Tribunal. 2. According to the claimants, on 24.04.2011 at about 2.30 pm, when the deceased Prahladhan was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-48-795 through Koottupatha – Arangottukara public road and when he reached near Irumbakassery, a bus bearing registration No.KL-10-V-1094 driven by the 1 st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle. Due to the impact of the hit, Prahladhan sustained severe injuries and succumbed to the injuries on 25.04.2011. The claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Prahladhan approached the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of ?16,00,000/-. 3. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle who were arrayed as 1 st and 2 nd respondents respectively remained ex parte before the tribunal. The 3 rd respondent, insurer, contested the petition and filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy and contended that at the time of the accident, the 1 st respondent did not have a valid driving licence and the 2 nd respondent had violated the policy condition. Further, they disputed the quantum of compensation claimed and the age of the deceased. Exts.A1 to A7 and Ext.B1 policy were marked. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ?7,72,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation with proportionate costs against the 3 rd respondent, being the insurer. The tribunal granted the right to recover the amount from respondents 1 and 2. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners have come up with this appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants sought enhancement mainly under the following heads:- I. Notional Income:- The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants claimed an amount of ?9,000/- as the income of the deceased who was a coolie and the Tribunal took only ?5,000/- as notional income. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants sought enhancement mainly under the following heads:- I. Notional Income:- The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants claimed an amount of ?9,000/- as the income of the deceased who was a coolie and the Tribunal took only ?5,000/- as notional income. The learned counsel further submitted that even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236 , the monthly income of coolie ought to have been taken at ?8,000/-, since the accident is of the year 2011 and sought for enhancement of income fixed. Accordingly, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra) and in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate to re-fix the notional monthly income at ?8,000/-. Since the deceased was aged only 24 years at the time of accident, following the apex court judgement in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC), by adding 40% future prospectus to the income fixed, the total income to calculate dependency is ?11,200/- (8,000/-x40/100=3,200/-+8,000). II. Loss of dependency :- The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in paragraph 13 and 14 of the award, the Tribunal had found that the deceased was aged 24 years. However, the multiplier was wrongly adopted as ‘17’ instead of ‘18’. I find some force in the argument. On a perusal of the afore paragraphs, it is seen that the age of the deceased was found to be 24. Hence, following the judgment in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC) , the multiplier to be adopted is ‘18’. Since the deceased was a bachelor, deduction towards personal expenses must be taken as one half. Accordingly, since the monthly income together with future prospectus has been re-fixed as ?11,200/-, the compensation payable under the head of loss dependency, following the apex court judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma (supra), is calculated as ?12,09,600/- (11,200 x 12 x 18 x 1/2). The Tribunal has awarded an amount of ?6,80,000/- under the afore head. After deducting the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of loss of dependency, the appellants are entitled to get an additional compensation of ?5,29,600/- under the said head. III. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of ?6,80,000/- under the afore head. After deducting the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of loss of dependency, the appellants are entitled to get an additional compensation of ?5,29,600/- under the said head. III. Funeral Expenses :- On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the Tribunal has awarded only an amount of ?5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Following the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), the appellants are entitled to a total amount of ?15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Since the afore amount was not awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants are entitled for 10% enhancement in every three years after 2017. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled for a total amount of ?18,150/- under the head funeral expenses. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of ?13,150/- as compensation under the afore head. IV. Loss of Estate:- the Tribunal has already awarded ?50,000/- under the afore head. Following the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) , I find that the appellants are entitled only for ?15,000/- under the said head. Therefore, there will be a deduction of an amount of ?35,000/- (50,000-15,000) towards the head loss of estate. V. Loss of consortium/loss of love and affection:- The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of consortium. On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the tribunal awarded ?75,000/- towards loss of love & affection. However, the tribunal was wrong in awarding compensation towards loss of love and affection, which is impermissible and runs against the mandate in Pranay Sethi (supra). 6. Since the deceased was a bachelor, the mother alone was entitled for compensation under the head of loss of consortium. Considering the facts, I find that since the other legal heirs are the siblings of the deceased, they are not entitled for loss of consortium. Accordingly, I am of the view that the mother is entitled to a total amount of ?40,000/- as compensation under consortium. Therefore, the compensation of ?75,000/- awarded by the tribunal towards loss of love and affection has to be adjusted to loss of consortium, and therefore an amount of ?35,000/- will be deducted 7. Accordingly, I am of the view that the mother is entitled to a total amount of ?40,000/- as compensation under consortium. Therefore, the compensation of ?75,000/- awarded by the tribunal towards loss of love and affection has to be adjusted to loss of consortium, and therefore an amount of ?35,000/- will be deducted 7. Regarding the right of recovery granted to the insurer, for the reason that there was no valid driving licence for the driver of the vehicle insured with them. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/the owner of the vehicle submitted that the original driving licence was produced before the Tribunal and I.A.No.5370/2019 was filed for setting aside ex parte award and I.A.No.5371/2019 was filed for condoning the delay in filing the petition for setting aside the ex parte award. Though the trial court records were called for by this Court and the I.A.No.5370/2019 was forwarded by the Tribunal to this Court, the original of the driving licence is not seen in the trial court records, which is alleged to have been produced by the owner and driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. Accordingly, I find that the issue regarding the liability to pay the compensation amount has to be remanded back to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration. However, the insurance company shall pay the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal as well as the enhanced amount by this Court to the appellants/claimants herein. 8. Though the appellants claim enhancement of compensation under other heads as well, on a perusal of the records available, I am not inclined to interfere with the compensation awarded by the tribunal under other heads since it appears to be just and reasonable. Since the appeal is of the year 2019, I find it appropriate to fix the interest @ 8% on the enhanced amount. 9. Since the appeal is of the year 2019, I find it appropriate to fix the interest @ 8% on the enhanced amount. 9. Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is modified as follows: S. No Head of Claim Amount claimed Amount awarded by the tribunal Modified in appeal Total compensation 1 Transport to hospital - 1,000 (not modified) 1,000 2 Damage to clothings - 1,000 (not modified) 1,000 3 Funeral expenses - 5,000 13,150 18,150 4 Compensatio n for pain and sufferings 1,50,0 00 10,000 (not modified) 10,000 5 Compensatio n for loss of estate - 50,000 (-)35,000 15,000 6 Loss of consortium - - (-)35,000 40,000 7 Compensatio n for loss of love and affection - 75,000 8 Loss of Dependency - 6,80,000 5,29,600 12,09,600 TOTAL 16,00, 000 *8,22,000 4,72,750 12,94,750 *(50,000 already received u/s 140 of MV act, and after deducting the said amount claimants are allowed ?7,72,000/-) Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of as follows: 1. The 3 rd respondent/insurance company is directed to pay an additional amount of ?4,72,750/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Seventy two Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty only) as well as the amount awarded by the Tribunal to the appellants with 8% interest from the date of petition within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment so as to enable the insurance company to make the deposit as ordered above. 2. The issue regarding the liability to pay the compensation amount alone is remanded back to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration. 3. The owner, driver as well as the insurance company will be free to adduce evidence before the Tribunal regarding their liability afresh, if any. It is made clear that the Tribunal need not revisit the quantum of compensation awarded to the appellants. 4. The Registry is directed to return the trial court records as well as the I.A.No.5370/2019 along with the document, filed before this court, to the Tribunal. 5. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 24.10.2025. The Tribunal shall consider the matter regarding the liability alone and dispose of the matter as expeditious as possible.