JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been filed by the petitioners in O.P.(MV) No.192/2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thalassery, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal, on account of the death of Smt. Bindu, who died in a motor accident that occurred on 21.11.2012. 2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that on 21.11.2012, at about 3.30 p.m., while the deceased Bindu was travelling in an autorickshaw bearing registration No. KL-58-D-8636 from Meruvambayi to Chattukappara and when the said autorickshaw reached Edayannur, a tipper lorry bearing registration No. KL-58-G-9398 came from the opposite direction driven by the first respondent, in a rash and negligent manner hit on the autorickshaw in which the deceased and some other passengers were travelling. Due to the impact of the hit, the autorickshaw was capsized and the deceased Bindu as well as the other passengers sustained serious injuries. Immediately after the accident, though the injured Bindu was rushed to the Hospital, she succumbed to the injuries, on the way to the hospital. 3. The owner cum driver of the tipper lorry bearing registration No. KL-58-G-9398 was arrayed as the 1st respondent, whereas, the insurer of the said lorry was arrayed as the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent insurer contested the petition and filed a written statement mainly disputing the quantum of compensation claimed in the petition. However, the 2nd respondent admitted the insurance coverage for the offending lorry. Petitioner’s evidence consists of Exts. A1 to A18. From the side of the fifth respondent, Ext.B1 was marked. 4. After trial, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent, the owner cum driver of the offending lorry. The 2nd respondent, being the insurer was held liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed at Rs.11,30,000/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded, the petitioners have come up with this appeal. 5. Heard Sri. V.P. Mohanan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Smt. Deepa George, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent Insurance Company and Sri. P. Jacob Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent Insurance Company. 6. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded, the petitioners have come up with this appeal. 5. Heard Sri. V.P. Mohanan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Smt. Deepa George, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent Insurance Company and Sri. P. Jacob Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent Insurance Company. 6. From the rival contentions raised from either side, it is gatherable that the main dispute that revolves around in this appeal is with respect to the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under various heads is too meager and not in consonance with the hardships and the loss suffered by the bereaved family of the deceased due to her untimely death. From a perusal of the award, it is gatherable that for the purpose of awarding compensation, the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/-. After making an addition of 50% to the said income towards future prospects, the tribunal finally assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 7,500/-. The case of the petitioners was that, during the period when the accident occurred, the deceased was working as a Sales Assistant in a Maveli Store and was getting a daily wage of Rs. 200/-. Anyhow, irrespective of the pleadings of the parties, it was incumbent upon the part of the tribunal to ensure that the compensation awarded is just, fair, and reasonable. In this regard, I am fortified by the decision in Rajesh & others v. Rajbir Singh & Others [ 2013 (3) KLT 89 (SC) ]. Evidently, the accident occurred in the year 2012. Therefore, in view of the principles laid down in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ] the tribunal ought to have assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,500/- However, the finding of the Tribunal that 50% of addition has to be made towards the future prospects is against the principle laid down in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [ 2017 (4) KLT 662 ]. In view of the principle enumerated in the above said decision, the Tribunal ought to have limited the addition towards future prospects at 40%. Hence the income of the deceased can reasonably and legally be assessed at Rs. 11,900/-. In view of the principle enumerated in the above said decision, the Tribunal ought to have limited the addition towards future prospects at 40%. Hence the income of the deceased can reasonably and legally be assessed at Rs. 11,900/-. The age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 37 years and applying the principle laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)], the multiplier applicable is 15. In view of that matter, the compensation to be awarded under the head of loss of dependency would come to Rs. 21,42,000/- [11,900 x 12 x 15]. As the total number of dependents is two, 1/3 rd of the said amount has to be deducted towards the deceased’s personal expenses. After deducting the said amount, the total amount awardable under the head of loss of dependency will come to Rs.14,28,000/- (Rs.21,42,000 - Rs. 7,14,000/-). Already an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- has been awarded under the head of loss of dependency. Therefore, the additional compensation for which the appellants are entitled under the head of loss of dependency will come to Rs.5,28,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs and Twenty Eight Thousand only) (Rs. 14,28,000 - Rs. 9,00,000). 7. The petitioners are none other than the husband and daughter of the deceased. Their close relationship with the deceased would definitely entitle them to get compensation under the head of loss of consortium. But the learned Tribunal omitted to award any amount under the said head. In view of the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) , both the petitioners are found entitled to get an award of Rs. 40,000/- each under the head of loss of consortium. Resultantly, the petitioners are entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs. 80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand Only) (Rs.40,000/- x 2) under the said head. However, a perusal of the award reveals that the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- under the head of love and affection. When a reasonable amount is awarded under the head of loss of consortium, the petitioners are not entitled to get any amount under the head of love and affection. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) has to be deducted from the total compensation awarded by the tribunal. 8. Under the head of funeral expenses an amount of Rs.25,000/- is seen awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) has to be deducted from the total compensation awarded by the tribunal. 8. Under the head of funeral expenses an amount of Rs.25,000/- is seen awarded by the Tribunal. In view of the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra), the petitioners are entitled only for an amount of Rs.15,000/-, under the head of funeral expenses. Hence, an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only)has to be deducted from the amount already awarded under the said head. 9. Moreover, the Tribunal has omitted to award any amount under the head of loss of estate. In view of the law laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra), I am inclined to award an amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) as additional compensation under the head of loss of estate. 10. Therefore, an amount of Rs.2,10,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ten Thousand only) (Rs.2,00,000/- + Rs.10,000/-) has to be deducted from the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal and Rs.6,23,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh Twenty Three Thousand Only) (Rs.5,28,000/- + Rs.80,000/- + Rs.15,000/-) is to be added towards the total compensation awarded. In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs. 4,13,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Thirteen Thousand only) (Rs.6,23,000 - Rs.2,10,000) with interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit, after deducting interest for a period of 84 days, i.e., the period of delay in preferring this appeal and as directed by this Court on 22.12.2021 in C.M. Appl. No.1/2018. The 2nd respondent insurance company is ordered to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest before the tribunal with proportionate costs within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.