JUDGMENT : M.B. Snehalatha, J. Claimants in OP(MV) No.710/2011 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mavelikkara [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’] have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. The O.P was filed by the claimants seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act . 3. The parties in this appeal shall be referred to by their rank in O.P. 4. On 22.03.2011 at 10.30 a.m, the victim, Unnikrishnan Nair who was a pedestrian was knocked down by a mini bus bearing registration No.KL-2-E-14 near TB Junction, Karuvatta. In the accident, the victim sustained serious injuries. Though he was taken to hospital and undergone treatment for 38 days, at Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha, he succumbed to the injuries on 29.04.2011. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R1, who was the driver of the mini bus. R2 is the RC owner of the mini bus and R3 is the insurer of the said vehicle. 5. Before the Tribunal, respondents 1 and 2 remained absent and they were set ex parte. 6. R3/insurance company filed written statement denying the negligence on the part of R1 and also stating that there was negligence on the part of the deceased. Though R3 admitted the existence of a valid policy, it was contended that the mini bus had no valid permit and fitness certificate at the time of the accident; and thus R2 violated the conditions of policy and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify R2. 7. By the impugned award, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.7,72,187/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 8. Alleging that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager and inadequate, claimants have come in appeal seeking enhanced compensation. 9. Heard both sides. Records perused. 10. Admittedly, the victim Unnikrishnan Nair met with a motor vehicle accident on 22.03.2011 and he succumbed to the injuries on 29.04.2011, while undergoing treatment. It is in evidence that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R1, who was the driver of the mini bus bearing registration No.KL-2-E-14. It is also an admitted case that the offending vehicle had valid insurance coverage with R3 insurance company. 11. It is in evidence that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R1, who was the driver of the mini bus bearing registration No.KL-2-E-14. It is also an admitted case that the offending vehicle had valid insurance coverage with R3 insurance company. 11. It is contended by the learned counsel for the claimants that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager; that the notional income taken by the Tribunal for assessing the compensation is very low; that the compensation awarded under all heads are on a lower side and inadequate and it is not a just and reasonable compensation as mandated by law. 12. Let us see whether the claimants are entitled to any enhanced compensation and if so, what is the quantum. 13. The case of the claimants is that the victim was a coolie by occupation and he was earning Rs.9,000/- per month. In the absence of any materials to prove the income, the learned Tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month, which according to the learned counsel for the claimants is very low. 14. The learned counsel for the claimants contended that going by the guidelines in the decision of the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ], the Tribunal ought to have taken at least Rs.8,000/- per month as notional income. 15. In Ramachandrappa [cited supra], the Hon’ble Supreme Court fixed the notional income of a coolie worker in the year 2004 as Rs.4,500/- per month. In Syed Sadiq and Others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd. [ (2014) 2 SCC 735 ] the Hon’ble Supreme Court fixed the notional income of a vegetable vendor in the year 2006 at the rate of Rs.6,500/- per month. 16. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ] the Hon’ble Supreme Court has recognized the principle that there would be incremental enhancement in the case of even self-employed individuals in the unorganized sector and with respect to an unspecified job of a coolie considering the increase in cost of living and economic advancement over the years, it can be safely assumed that even a coolie worker would be eligible for incremental addition of Rs.500/- in every subsequent year. 17. 17. Bearing in mind the above yardsticks, this Court is of the view that the notional income of the claimant herein can be taken at Rs.8,000/- per month for the purpose of awarding just compensation in the claim petition filed by claimants. 18. The victim was aged 53 years at the time of accident. Therefore, 10% of the income is to be added towards future prospects ( National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ]. If 10% is thus added to the notional monthly income, of Rs.8,000/-, his income would come to Rs.8,800/- ( Rs.8,000 + Rs.800). The victim had two dependents. Therefore, from the said income 1/3 rd is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased [ Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009(6)SCC 121)]. Thus, after deducting 1/3 rd of the income towards personal expenses, his monthly contribution to the family would be Rs.5,866/- [8,800- 2934]. Since the victim was aged 53, the multiplier applicable to him is 11. Accordingly, under the head loss of dependency claimants are entitled to Rs.7,74,312/- ( Rs.5,866 x12x11). 19. Taking into account the fact that he had undergone inpatient treatment for 38 days an amount of Rs.50,000/- is awarded under the head pain and suffering instead of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 20. Under the head bystander expenses, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.7,600/- for 38 days of inpatient treatment at Rs.200 per day, which is found to be very meager. At least Rs.300/- per day is to be awarded under bystander expenses. Hence, an amount of Rs.11,400/- is awarded for 38 days of inpatient treatment at the rate of Rs.300/- per day (300x38). 21. Under the head transport to hospital, including ambulance charges, an amount of Rs.5,000/- is awarded. 22. The victim was hospitalised for 38 days. Therefore, under the head extra nourishment an amount of Rs.5,000/- is awarded. 23. Under the head funeral expenses, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/-. In view of the guidelines of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (cited supra) claimants are entitled to only Rs.15,000/- under the said head with 10% increase in every three years. Hence claimants are entitled to Rs.18,150/-under the said head instead of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 24. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head loss of love and affection. Hence claimants are entitled to Rs.18,150/-under the said head instead of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 24. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head loss of love and affection. 25. In New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Somwati [ 2020(9) SCC 644 ] the Hon’ble Apex Court held that loss of love and affection is comprehended in loss of consortium and therefore there is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head. Therefore, the claimants are not entitled to any amount under the head loss of love and affection as a separate head. Instead, as per the guidelines of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case, the claimants 1 & 2 are entitled to consortium of Rs.40,000/- with 10% increase in every three years. The accident was on 22.03.2011, the award of the Tribunal was passed on 20.06.2017. Therefore, the claimants 1 & 2 are entitled to get Rs.48,400/- each towards consortium. Thus under the head loss of consortium an amount of Rs.96,800/- (48400x2) is awarded. 26. Under the head loss of estate, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/-. In view of the guidelines of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (cited supra) claimants are entitled to only Rs.15,000/- under the said head with 10% increase in every three years. Thus claimants are entitled to only Rs.18,150/- under the said head as against Rs.50,000/-. 27. Award of the Tribunal under all other heads needs no interference. 28. Since the offending vehicle had no valid fitness certificate, there was breach of policy condition and therefore, after payment of the amount the insurance company can recover it from the 2 nd respondent, as rightly held by the learned Tribunal. 29. In the result, M.A.C.A stands allowed with costs. The compensation payable to the appellants/claimants is as indicated in the tabular statement here below: 30. R1 to R3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount as enhanced by this Court with 8% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Apportionment of the award amount shall be as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 31. R1 to R3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount as enhanced by this Court with 8% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Apportionment of the award amount shall be as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 31. The 3 rd respondent/insurer is directed to deposit the award amount as enhanced by this Court in the Bank Account of the appellants within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 32. After payment of the award amount, R3 insurance company is entitled to recover the amount from R2. 33. The appellants shall produce the details of the bank account before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mavelikkara within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The deposit must be in terms of the directives issued by this Court in Circular No.3 of 2019 dated 06.09.2019 and clarified in O.M.No.D1/62475/2016 dated 07.11.2019 after deducting the liabilities, if any of the appellant towards tax, balance Court Fee and legal benefit fund.