JUDGMENT : Shoba Annamma Eapen, J. Spoke. The original judgment dated 02.03.2026 is recalled. I have heard both sides and the appeal is disposed of as follows: 2. This appeal has been filed by the claimants in OP(MV) No.453 of 2006 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal. 3. The case of the claimants was that on 03.12.2001, while the deceased was accompanying the dead body of his brother in an ambulance bearing Reg.No.KL-IN-1153 driven by the third respondent in a rash and negligent manner, the ambulance hit against a tree, whereby he sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The claimants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.4,50,000/-. 4. The first respondent/owner of the offending vehicle filed a written statement, stating that the application is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The third respondent/driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte before the tribunal. The second respondent/insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. It was also contended that there was violation of permit conditions. Exts.A1 to A8 & B1 were marked. 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.2,12,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the second respondent being the insurer, as per the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anjana Shyam and Others (2007 KHC 5637), and the first respondent/owner to satisfy the remaining award amount. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants have come up in appeal. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants claims enhancement under the following heads: 6.1. Notional income - The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was a heavy vehicle driver by profession and was earning Rs.7,500/- per month, however, the tribunal has fixed the monthly income notionally only at Rs.2,500/-. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants claims enhancement under the following heads: 6.1. Notional income - The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was a heavy vehicle driver by profession and was earning Rs.7,500/- per month, however, the tribunal has fixed the monthly income notionally only at Rs.2,500/-. The learned counsel for the appellant relies on Ext.A7 driving licence as well as Ext.A8 salary certificate issued by the employer. However, no evidence, other than production of the above documents, has been adduced by the appellants to prove the income or avocation of the deceased. On a perusal of Ext.A7 duplicate driving licence, it is seen that the deceased was having a valid licence to drive heavy vehicles. Even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ], for an accident that occurred in 2001, the monthly income of a coolie is fixed at Rs.3,000/-. Thus, considering the fact that the deceased was holding a licence to drive heavy vehicles, I deem it appropriate to refix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/-. 6.2. Loss of dependency - As the monthly income of the deceased is refixed at Rs.5,000/-, compensation towards loss of dependency has to be recalculated. Since the deceased was in the age group of 50 to 60 years at the time of the accident, as per the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [ 2017(4) KLT 662 (SC)], 10% of the notional income has to be added towards future prospects; and thus, the income would be Rs.5,500/- (5000 + 500). 6.2.1. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the tribunal adopted the multiplier “8” following the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, which is unsustainable. The learned counsel, relying on Annex.A certificate, which was produced along with IA No. 1 of 2026, further submits that the deceased was 54 years old at the time of the accident. However, on a perusal of Annex.A certificate issued by the Headmistress of the Government HSS, Mulanthuruthy, it is seen that the certificate does not bear any date. The learned Standing Counsel for the insurer objected to the acceptance of the said document. However, on a perusal of Annex.A certificate issued by the Headmistress of the Government HSS, Mulanthuruthy, it is seen that the certificate does not bear any date. The learned Standing Counsel for the insurer objected to the acceptance of the said document. Since it is not clear as to when Annexure A certificate was issued, I decline to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant based on the said certificate. Therefore, as held in the impugned award, I deem it appropriate to consider that the deceased was in the age group of 56 to 60 years at the time of the accident. Accordingly, following Pranay Sethi (supra), I adopt “9” as the multiplier for assessing compensation towards loss of dependency. 6.2.2. Thus, following the judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [ 2010(2) KLT 802 (SC)], the appellants will be entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.3,96,000/- (5500 x 12 x 9 x 2/3) towards loss of dependency. Since the tribunal already awarded Rs.1,60,000/-, after deducting the same, there will be an additional amount of Rs.2,36,000/- under this head. 6.3. Loss of consortium/loss of love & affection - On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- to the wife for loss of consortium and Rs.7,500/- each to two daughters for emotional loss, totalling to an amount of Rs.30,000/-. Since there are three legal heirs, the appellants are entitled to get a compensation of Rs.40,000/- each, totalling to Rs.1,20,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that as per the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), they are also entitled to get 10% enhancement in a span of three years from 2017. Accordingly, the appellants are awarded a compensation of Rs.48,400/- each towards loss of consortium, totalling to Rs.1,45,200/- (48400 x 3). Thus, there will be an additional compensation of Rs.1,15,200/-. 6.4. Loss of estate - The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the tribunal has awarded only an amount of Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. As per the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), the compensation under conventional heads ought to have been Rs.15,000/- and further, 10% enhancement has to be given in a span of three years from 2017. Thus, following the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), I deem it appropriate to award to the appellants a total compensation of Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate. As per the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), the compensation under conventional heads ought to have been Rs.15,000/- and further, 10% enhancement has to be given in a span of three years from 2017. Thus, following the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), I deem it appropriate to award to the appellants a total compensation of Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate. Hence, the appellants will be entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs.15,650/- under this head. 6.5. Funeral expenses - The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. However, going by the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), the compensation under conventional heads ought to have been Rs.15,000/- and further, 10% enhancement has to be given in a span of three years from 2017. Thus, following the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), I deem it appropriate to award to the appellants a total compensation of Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses. Hence, the appellants will be entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs.13,150/-under this head. 7. Though the appellants claimed enhancement of compensation under other heads as well, on a perusal of the records available and the impugned award, I am not inclined to interfere with the same since it appears to be just and reasonable. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was travelling in an ambulance in which there were altogether 11 persons; and out of them, eight claims arose, including the claim relating to the deceased herein. It is further submitted that, in the remaining seven claims, the respondent insurer has satisfied the award amounts and sought only a right of recovery against the owner of the offending vehicle. Hence, the learned counsel, placing reliance on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. K. M. Poonam and Others [2011 KHC 4218], seeks disbursement of the award amount by the respondent insurer. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer submits that though the award amounts in the other claims have been satisfied, the tribunal has granted right of recovery to the insurer. The learned Standing Counsel also relied on Anjana Shyam (supra). 9. I am not considering the legal aspects involved in this case, especially, for the reason that seven claims in the very same accident were settled by the insurer. The learned Standing Counsel also relied on Anjana Shyam (supra). 9. I am not considering the legal aspects involved in this case, especially, for the reason that seven claims in the very same accident were settled by the insurer. Accordingly, considering the fact that the respondent insurer has satisfied the award amounts in all the other claim petitions in respect of the co-passengers in the offending vehicle and was granted only a right of recovery against the owner of the offending vehicle, I am of the view that the same method can be adopted in the present case also. 10. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that in the present case, the entire compensation awarded by the tribunal was satisfied by the first respondent/owner of the offending vehicle; and hence, the insurer need to pay only the enhanced compensation awarded by this Court in appeal. Since the entire compensation awarded by the tribunal in the present case has already been satisfied by the first respondent/owner, I am of the opinion that the insurer can be directed to pay the enhanced compensation awarded in this appeal, and a right of recovery can be granted to the insurer against the first respondent/owner of the offending vehicle. 11. The tribunal had applied the principles laid down in Anjana Shyam (supra) and directed the insurer to file a statement, stating details, after giving notice to the appellants. However, since the insurer has satisfied the award amounts in all the other claim petitions in respect of the co-passengers, the insurer is directed to satisfy the enhanced compensation granted by this Court and shall recover the same from the first respondent/owner of the offending vehicle. 12. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer has also raised a contention that there was a delay of 2353 days in filing the appeal and hence, the interest on the enhanced compensation for the period of delay of 2353 days in filing the appeal, may be excluded.. The learned counsel for the appellants, however, points out that this Court, while condoning the delay, had not imposed any condition to that effect. It appears that this Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal, leaving open the question regarding the entitlement of the appellants to interest on the additional compensation to be decided at the time of final hearing. It appears that this Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal, leaving open the question regarding the entitlement of the appellants to interest on the additional compensation to be decided at the time of final hearing. However, considering the fact that there was a huge delay of 2353 days in filing the appeal, I deem it appropriate to hold that the appellants will not be entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation for the period of delay. 13. Since the appeal is of the year 2015, I fix interest on the enhanced compensation @ 7% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization. The compensation awarded by the tribunal is enhanced as follows: Sl. No. Head of Claim Amount awarded by tribunal (in ) Rs. Modified in appeal (in ) Rs. Total compensation (in ) Rs. 1. Loss of dependency 160000 236000 396000 2. Transportation expenses 5000 - 5000 3. Funeral expenses 5000 13150 18150 4. Loss of estate 2500 15650 18150 5. Damage to clothes & articles 2000 - 2000 6. Pain and suffering 7500 - 7500 7. Loss of consortium to wife 15000 115200 145200 8. Emotional loss to daughters 7500 - 7500 Total 212000 380000 592000 Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified as follows: a) The appellants are awarded an additional compensation of Rs.3,80,000/- (Rupees three lakh eighty thousand only) over and above the compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs. b) 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 and recover the same from the first respondent/owner of the offending vehicle. c) The appellants 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. 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. d) The enhanced compensation will not carry interest for the period of delay of 2353 days in filing the appeal.