JUDGMENT : This appeal has been filed by the claimants in OP(MV) No.108 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. The respondent herein was the third respondent before the tribunal. 2. The case of the appellants/claimants is that on 15.09.2016, while the deceased Kamalakshi was pillion riding in her son’s motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-57-M-8194 from Kakkur to Chelannur through Kozhikode- Balussery public road, a bus bearing Reg.No.KL-56-M-7127 driven by the second respondent, in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motorcycle ridden by her son, whereby Kamalakshi and her son sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The appellants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte before the tribunal. The respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, PW1 (wife of the rider of the motorcycle) was examined and Exts.A1 to A9 were marked on the side of the appellants/claimants. Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the respondents. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs.2,33,000/- as compensation under different heads against the third respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants have come up in appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants claims enhancement under the following heads:- 5.1 - Notional income - The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was aged 65 years and was a coolie at the time of accident and an amount of 10,000/- was claimed as her monthly income. But, the tribunal had not fixed any amount towards notional income. However, following the decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ], I find that the income of deceased Kamalakshi who was a coolie, can be fixed at Rs.10,500/- since the accident occured in 2016. But, the tribunal had not fixed any amount towards notional income. However, following the decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ], I find that the income of deceased Kamalakshi who was a coolie, can be fixed at Rs.10,500/- since the accident occured in 2016. Accordingly, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I deem it appropriate to fix the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,500/- 5.2 - Loss of dependency - The tribunal found that since the petitioners are not dependents, they are not entitled to any compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’. Here, it is a fact that the mother, who was aged 65 years, died in the accident and also the dependents who are the daughter, son and daughter-in-law (deceased son’s wife) are aged 37 years and 34 years and the two minor children of the deceased son are aged 13 years and 5 years. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shalumol [ 2021 (5) KLT 74 ], wherein this Court held that even if dependency is a relevant criterion to claim compensation for loss of dependency, it does not mean financial dependency is the ‘ark of the covenant’. It was further held that dependency includes gratuitous service dependency, physical dependency, emotional dependency, psychological dependency, and so forth, which can never be equated in terms of money. The first appellant, married daughter is a dependent following the judgment in Shalumol (supra). The other legal heirs, namely son, daughter-in-law and grandchildren, the legal heirs of the deceased son of Kamalakshi, also claim that they were also dependent on the mother for her services, care and support. Despite being only 65 years old, she was the pillar of the family. It may be true that financially, they were not dependent on the mother. But the dependency is not only financial, but also physical, emotional, and psychological. In National Insurance Company v. Birender and others [ MANU/SC/0028/2020 ], the Apex Court has held that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully dependent on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads. In the present case, the father of the appellants was no more and the mother being the only surviving parent, the children would have been dependent on the mother for her services. The bond between a mother and her children is eternal and unconditional. Regardless of their age, children often remain dependent on their mother emotionally and psychologically throughout their lives. It is unrealistic to assume that this dependence ceases to exist simply because the children have grown older. Hence, I find that the appellants are dependents of the deceased mother. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer submitted that there is no actual loss of dependency and hence, the court cannot follow deduction as held in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [ 2017(4) KLT 662 (SC) ] and the compensation, if any, has to be awarded under the head ‘loss of estate’ and not under ‘the loss of dependency’. Certainly, if the legal representatives are not dependents, then the claim for compensation shall be under the head loss of estate. Since, I have found that the appellants are dependents, there is no necessity to consider awarding compensation under the head ‘loss of estate’. I find that the appellants (daughter, son and daughter-in-law and her two minor children herein) are entitled for the compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’. Since there are three legal heirs (daughter-in-law and her two minor children can be treated as one dependent), the deduction to be made towards personal expenses will be 1/3. Hence, the total ? compensation under the said head is Rs.10500 x 12x 7 x = Rs. 5,88,000/-. 5.3 - Loss of love and affection/loss of consortium : Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that towards the head ‘love and affection’, the tribunal has already awarded Rs.1,00,000/-. Legal heirs being three in number, they are entitled to Rs.1,20,000/- , following the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [ 2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)]. Thus, there will be an additional compensation of Rs.20,000/- under the head loss of love and affection/loss of consortium. 5.4 - Mental Agony and Distress: Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company also brought to the notice of this Court that the tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head ‘mental agony and distress’. Thus, there will be an additional compensation of Rs.20,000/- under the head loss of love and affection/loss of consortium. 5.4 - Mental Agony and Distress: Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company also brought to the notice of this Court that the tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head ‘mental agony and distress’. It is further submitted that since compensation has been awarded under the head ‘loss of dependency’, the afore compensation paid under the head ‘mental agony and distress’ has to be deleted. I find force in the argument. Since, compensation is awarded under the head ‘loss of dependency’, the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded under the head ‘mental agony and distress’ has to be deleted. Accordingly, I delete Rs.1,00,000/- awarded under the head ‘mental agony and distress’. 6. Though the appellants claimed enhancement of compensation under other heads, 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. 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. Loss of dependency - - 5,88,000 5,88,000 2. Love and affection/loss of consortium 3,00,000 1,00,000 20,000 1,20,000 3. Mental agony and stress 3,00,000 1,00,000 -1,00,000 0 4. Transport to hospital 5,000 2,000 - 2,000 5. Damage to clothing 3,000 1,000 - 1,000 6. Loss of estate Nil 15,000 - 15,000 7. Funeral expenses 1,00,000 15,000 - 15,000 TOTAL 7,08,000 2,33,000 5,08,000 7,41,000 Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the appellants/claimants are awarded an additional compensation of Rs. 5,08,000/- (Rupees Five lakh Eight thousand 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. Out of the afore additional compensation, 1/3rd each shall be given to the first and second appellants and 1/3rd to appellants 3 to 5. The fourth appellant has already attained majority. The share of the fifth appellant, who is a minor, shall be deposited in a nationalised bank, until she attains majority. Out of the afore additional compensation, 1/3rd each shall be given to the first and second appellants and 1/3rd to appellants 3 to 5. The fourth appellant has already attained majority. The share of the fifth appellant, who is a minor, shall be deposited in a nationalised bank, until she attains majority. The respondent insurer 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 respondent insurer within a period of one month so as to enable the insurance company to make the deposit as ordered above. In case of failure to furnish details as above, it shall be open for the insurance company to deposit the said amount before the tribunal. Upon such deposit being made, the entire amount shall be disbursed to the appellants 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 190 days in filing the appeal.