JUDGMENT : T.V. THAMILSELVI, J. The appellants have filed this appeal to enhance the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neyveli, (Sub Court, Neyveli)in MCOP No.9 of 2018, dated 29.01.2024. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the 1st appellant is the mother of the deceased and is challenging the award in respect of the proportionate share of the award amount. He further submits that though the parents of the deceased are entitled to an equal share along with the daughter-in- law/petitioner in M.C.O.P. No.9 of 2018, the Tribunal has not apportioned the compensation equally. Therefore, the appellants have preferred this appeal challenging the said award. He also points out that the accident occurred in the year 2017, but the Tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.13,000/-, which, according to the appellant, ought to be enhanced. 3. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 27 years at the time of the accident and that he died leaving behind his wife and parents, the Tribunal fixed compensation. Though it was stated that the deceased was employed in Annamalai University, no documentary proof of income or employment certificate was produced. Furthermore, before the accident, the deceased himself had filed H.M.O.P. No. 24 of 2017 before the Subordinate Court, Panruti, seeking divorce. During the pendency of the said proceedings, he met with an accident and died. 4. The H.M.O.P. petition reveals that the deceased and the original claimant, Kalaiarasi/first respondent herein, got married in the year 2011 and had no issues out of the said marriage. From the year 2014 onwards, there arose misunderstandings between them, on account of which he had given a complaint on 05.06.2014 seeking reunion and settlement of issues. However, the first respondent was not inclined to live with him. She had also lodged complaints against the family members of the husband, which led him to suffer depression. Therefore, he approached the court seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and depression. Admittedly, during the pendency of the said proceedings, he died. Therefore, the facts clearly reveal that prior to the accident, there was a strained relationship between the deceased and his wife/first respondent, Kalaiarasi. Without considering these circumstances, the Tribunal awarded 60% of the compensation to the wife, which is illegal and liable to be set aside. 5. Admittedly, during the pendency of the said proceedings, he died. Therefore, the facts clearly reveal that prior to the accident, there was a strained relationship between the deceased and his wife/first respondent, Kalaiarasi. Without considering these circumstances, the Tribunal awarded 60% of the compensation to the wife, which is illegal and liable to be set aside. 5. Furthermore, as per the evidence, the deceased was engaged in contract-based work in Annamalai University. Yet, the Tribunal fixed his notional income at Rs.11,000. Considering that the accident occurred in the year 2017 and keeping in view the cost of living, this Court fixes the notional income at Rs.16,000. As per the H.M.O.P. petition, the deceased was aged about 35 years; therefore, 40% is added towards future prospects. In all other heads, the award passed by the Tribunal remains unchanged. 6. Calculation: Notional Income = Rs. 16,000/- - Future Prospects (40%) = Rs. 16,000 + Rs. 6,400 = Rs. 22,400/- - After 1/3 deduction = Rs. 22,400 - Rs. 7,467 = Rs. 14,933/- - Loss of dependency = Rs. 14,933 × 12 × 16 = Rs. 28,67,136/- 7. The following tabular column sets out the amounts awarded by the Tribunal and the enhanced amounts awarded by this Court under various heads: Sl.No. Heads Amount awarded by No the Tribunal (Rs.) Amount awarded by the High Court (Rs.) 1. Loss of dependency 23,29,600 28,67,136 2. Loss of Consortium 44,000 44,000 3. Loss of Estate 16,500 16,500 4. Loss of love and affection 50,000 50,000 4. Funeral Expenses 16,500 16,500 Total 24,56,600 29,94,136 Rounded off Rs.29,94,140 Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 24,56,600/- to Rs.29,94,140/-, which shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 8. Considering the fact that there was already a dispute between the husband and wife, the apportionment of compensation ordered by the Tribunal requires modification. Out of the total compensation, an amount of Rs.10,00,000 is awarded to the wife / Kalaiyarasi / first respondent, who is an M.Sc., B.Ed., graduate. The remaining balance amount shall be equally shared by the parents of the deceased / appellants (each entitled Rs.9,97,070/-). 9. In the result: i. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. ii. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.24,56,600/- to Rs.29,94,140/-. iii. The remaining balance amount shall be equally shared by the parents of the deceased / appellants (each entitled Rs.9,97,070/-). 9. In the result: i. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. ii. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.24,56,600/- to Rs.29,94,140/-. iii. The claimants are directed to pay the court fee for the enhanced compensation amount, if any. The Registry is directed to draft the decree only after receipt of the court fee. iv. The 3rd respondent / T.Sivakumaran and 6th respondent / Tata AIG Insurance Ltd., Salem, are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount of Rs.29,94,140 /- (after deducting the amount already deposited), together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit, to the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 9 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Subordinate Court, Neyveli) within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt or uploading of a copy of this order. v. On such deposit being made by the 3rd and 6th respondents, the claimants are at liberty to withdraw the same, as per the apportionment fixed by this Court, after following due process of law.