JUDGMENT : SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J. [MACA Nos.623/2013, 2022/2013, 2023/2013, 2025/2013, 2389/2013, 2390/2013] All these appeals arise from the very same accident that occurred on 12.10.2012 and against the common award in O.P.(MV) Nos 1212, 1232 and 1236 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. Since the cause of action is the same, these appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment. For brevity, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the tribunal. 2. M.A.C.A No.623 of 2013 is filed by the 3rd respondent/insurer of the lorry, in OP(MV)No.1236/2011 challenging the finding of the tribunal directing the insurer to pay the entire compensation awarded, though there was a finding of contributory negligence at the ratio 50:50 on the part of the driver of the car and the driver of the lorry. M.A.C.A Nos 2022 and 2023 of 2013 are filed by the 4 th respondent in OP(MV) Nos 1232 of 2011 and 1236 of 2011 challenging the finding of contributory negligence attributed to him. MACA No. 2025 of 2013 is filed by the claimant in OP(MV) 1212/2011, who is the fourth respondent in other original petitions seeking enhancement of compensation and challenging the contributory negligence attributed against him. M.A.C.A. Nos.2389 of 2013 and 2390 of 2013 is filed by the claimants in OP(MV) 1232 of 2011 and 1236 of 2011, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. 3. According to the claimants, on 15.07.2010 at about 9.00 am., while the claimant in O.P.(MV) No.1212 of 2011, Mr.Jospeh was driving the car bearing Reg.No.KL-7-BG-1062 carrying his wife Dr.Rebecca Thomas and daughter Ms.Betzie Joseph as passengers from north to south along M.C.Road and when they reached Nilamel junction, the car collided with the lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-2-F-684 driven by the 2 nd respondent in a rash and negligent, whereby they sustained serious injuries and his wife and daughter later succumbed to the injuries. The claimants/legal heirs approached the tribunal claiming compensation in the above claim petitions. 4. The respondents 1 to 3 are owner, driver and insurer of the lorry. The respondents 4 and 5 are the driver and insurer of the car. The respondents 1 and 4 were set ex- parte before the tribunal. The 2 nd respondent filed a written statement denying his negligence in causing the accident and disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. The respondents 1 to 3 are owner, driver and insurer of the lorry. The respondents 4 and 5 are the driver and insurer of the car. The respondents 1 and 4 were set ex- parte before the tribunal. The 2 nd respondent filed a written statement denying his negligence in causing the accident and disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. The 3 rd respondent filed a written statement admitting the policy but denying the liability. It was further contended that there were policy violations. The 5 th respondent filed a written statement admitting the policy but denying the liability. It was also contended that the insured failed to report the accident and did not produce the vehicle documents or the 4 th respondent’s driving licence for verification. Pws 1 to 4 were examined. Exts.A1 to A22 and Exts.X1 to X3 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of Rs.2,47,656/- in O.P.(MV) No. 1212 of 2011,Rs.3,00,000/- in O.P (MV) No.1232 of 2011 and Rs.11,88,000/- in O.P.(MV) No.1236 of 2011 as compensation under different heads after deduction of 50% contributory negligence, with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization against the respondents. Challenging the award in OP(MV) N0.1236/2011, the insurance company has come up in appeal with M.A.C.A. No.623 of 2013 and the claimants in the original petitions have come up in appeal dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation and challenging the finding of contributory negligence on the fourth respondent owner/driver of the car. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants in the respective appeals and the learned Standing Counsel for the respective insurance companies. MACA No.623 of 2013 6. In M.A.C.A. No.623 of 2013, the insurer has filed the appeal challenging the finding of the tribunal directing the insurer to pay the entire 60% of the compensation awarded for the claimants/sons, for the death of their mother, though there was a finding of contributory negligence at the ratio 50:50 on the part of the driver of the car and the driver of the lorry. The tribunal directed the insurer of the lorry to pay the entire 60% compensation to the claimants, without directing the insurer of the car to pay 50% of the compensation. 7. The tribunal directed the insurer of the lorry to pay the entire 60% compensation to the claimants, without directing the insurer of the car to pay 50% of the compensation. 7. According to the insurer, since the driver of the car was 50% negligent, the tribunal ought to have directed the insurer of the car to pay 50% of the compensation awarded to the claimants in the afore case. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants in the afore case submitted that as far as the death of the mother, who was a passenger in the car is concerned, the negligence on the part of the driver of the car and the driver of the lorry was composite and not contributory. The learned counsel for the claimants argued that the negligence being composite, the claimants can claim compensation from any of the tortfeasors and the driver of the lorry also being a tortfeasor, the direction of the tribunal, directing the insurer of the lorry to pay the entire compensation to the claimants is correct and no interference is called for. 8. The only contention raised by the insurer in this appeal is that they are liable only to pay 50% of the compensation awarded by the tribunal, since 50% contributory negligence was found on the part of the driver of the car. Even if this court finds that the negligence was contributory, then, they should be given the right to recover 50% of 60% compensation awarded to the claimants from the insurer of the car. 9. I find force in the argument. As far as the death of the mother of the claimants is concerned, she was a passenger in the car and if the driver was negligent, the contributory negligence can be found only against the driver and not against the passengers in the car. Since the accident occurred due to the hit by the lorry and the car, I find that as far as the passenger is concerned, the negligence is composite and not contributory. Since it is found that the negligence is composite, the claimants can recover the amount from either of the tortfeasors as held by the Apex Court in Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Since it is found that the negligence is composite, the claimants can recover the amount from either of the tortfeasors as held by the Apex Court in Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others [ 2015 (3) KHC 70 ], wherein it was held that claimant is entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tort feasors and to recover entire compensation as liability of joint tort feasors is joint and several. Hence, I find that the insurer of the lorry is entitled to recover 50% of the amount, from the insurer of the car, on payment of the entire 60% of the amount awarded by the tribunal and also the enhanced compensation if any awarded by this court. MACA Nos.2022 of 2013, 2023 of 2013 and 2025 of 2013 10. In M.A.C.A. Nos.2022 of 2013, 2023 of 2013 and 2025 of 2013, in OP(MV) Nos.1232 of 2013, 1236 of 2013 and 1212 of 2013, the owner-cum-driver of the car has filed the appeal challenging the finding of 50% contributory negligence attributed against him, the driver of the car and also for enhancement of compensation. The afore original petitions were filed for claiming compensation for the death of the daughter, wife and also for enhancement of compensation sustained to the appellant/driver of the car. The learned counsel submitted that the appellant was travelling from north to south and he was driving the vehicle very slowly and carefully and according to the learned counsel, the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the lorry driver, since the lorry was at a very high speed, in heavy rain. 11. The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurer of the lorry on the other hand contended that the charge sheet was drawn against the driver of the car. Even as per Ext.A15 scene mahazar, the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the car driver. The learned standing counsel further submitted that the road was having a total width of 10 meters and the middle line was drawn on the road at the scene. The tar road width was 5 meters on either side of the middle line and the accident spot was shown as 3.10 meters east from the western end of the tar road and 1.80 meters west to the middle line. The tar road width was 5 meters on either side of the middle line and the accident spot was shown as 3.10 meters east from the western end of the tar road and 1.80 meters west to the middle line. The learned counsel further submits that it is clear that the car which was going in the north -south direction came to the wrong side (western side) and hit the lorry which was going in the south-north direction and moving in its right direction, Hence, the learned counsel for the insurer submitted that the finding of contributory negligence at the ratio 50:50 by the tribunal need not be interfered with. 12. I have considered the contentions raised by both sides. 13. The issue to be decided is whether there was 50% contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the car in causing the accident. The insurer has not challenged the finding of 50% contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. Hence, that has become final. Admittedly, the car was moving in a north to south direction. As per the scene mahazar, the width of the road was 10 meters. The tar road has a width of 5 meters on either side of the middle line drawn. As per Ext.A15 scene mahazar, the accident spot is 3.10 meter east from the western end of the tar road. The lorry was moving from south to north which shows that the correct side of the lorry was the western side. The damages noted in Exts.A16 and A17 AMVI reports, also reveals that the accident was a head-on-collision. In the final report it is stated that the car somehow went off the road and dashed against the front side of the lorry. PW 1 during cross- examination had admitted that there was heavy rain during that time. Since, Ext.A20 refer report was drawn against the driver of the car, it was sufficient enough to hold that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the car. While examining PW1, he had denied that the accident occurred on the western side of the road. But the documents on record prove otherwise. Other than his oral evidence, there is nothing on record to prove that the accident occurred not on the western side of the road. While examining PW1, he had denied that the accident occurred on the western side of the road. But the documents on record prove otherwise. Other than his oral evidence, there is nothing on record to prove that the accident occurred not on the western side of the road. On the available evidence and documents on record, the tribunal found that there was contributory negligence at the ratio 50:50 on the part of the driver of the lorry and the car. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. As far as the passengers in the car are concerned, as found above, the negligence is composite and not contributory. 14. As regards the claim for enhancement of compensation, in M.A.C.A. No.2025 of 2013, the claim sought for enhancement was under the following heads: 15. The appellant/driver of the car, was aged 54 years at the time of accident and he was the Assistant General Manager (P&WO) of the Cochin Shipyard Ltd. His monthly income was Rs.90,000/-. 16. The learned counsel for the appellant claims enhancement mainly under the following heads :- Pain and sufferings :- Following were the injuries sustained: (1) CLW (Lt) eyebrow 8x5 cm,bone visualised, (2) Abrasion below chin (3) Lacerated wound 3 x 3 cm left leg (4) Abrasion Left leg, Lacerated wound 1 x 3 cm, between intordigits(L) hand (5) Contusion left arm, fracture calcaneum, (6) Soft tissue injury. The tribunal has awarded only an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and sufferings. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, I find that a total amount of Rs.60,000/- can be awarded under the said head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of Rs. 30,000/- under the afore head. Loss of amenities :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards the head loss of amenities, which is on the lower side. Considering the injuries sustained by him and the loss of enjoyment of life, I am inclined to grant an additional amount of Rs. 50,000/- totalling to an amount of Rs.60,000/- under the afore head. 17. Though the appellant claimed enhancement of compensation under the 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. 50,000/- totalling to an amount of Rs.60,000/- under the afore head. 17. Though the appellant claimed enhancement of compensation under the 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. Since the appeal is of the year 2013, I find that the interest can be fixed @ 7% for the enhanced amount. 18. Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is modified as follows:- 19. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the appellant/claimant is awarded an additional compensation of Rs. 40,000/- (50% of 80,000/-) (Rupees forty 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. The 3 rd respondent 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 claimant 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 appellant at the earliest in accordance with law. M.A.C.A No.2389 of 2013 20. The judgment in MACA No. 2389 of 2013 is recalled and corrected as per order dated 19.03.2026 in RP.No.33 of 2026. In M.A.C.A No.2389 of 2013, the claimants have filed the appeal dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants, being the minor siblings, were also dependents of the deceased Ms.Betzie Joseph. Their mother also died in the very same accident and hence sought compensation for the death of their sibling. The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that the tribunal has rightly found that the claimants cannot be considered as legal representatives and since their father was alive they were not dependent on the deceased Ms.Betzie Joseph and hence are not entitled for any compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act . 21. The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that the tribunal has rightly found that the claimants cannot be considered as legal representatives and since their father was alive they were not dependent on the deceased Ms.Betzie Joseph and hence are not entitled for any compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act . 21. I have considered the contentions raised by both sides. 22. In the connected cases M.A.C.A. Nos. 2022 of 2013, 2023 of 2013 and 2025 of 2013, I have found that there was 50% contributory negligence on the part of the appellant/4 th respondent in M.A.C.A. Nos. 2022 of 2013, 2023 of 2013 and claimant in MACA 2025 of 2013/father, in causing the accident. Since, the claimants are christians, the law of inheritance and succession, applicable is the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Section 42 of the Indian Succession Act reads as follows: “Where intestate’s father living. — If the intestate’s father is living, he shall succeed to the property.” As per Section 42 , PW1 alone inherits the estate of the deceased. 23. Since, the father is alive and the deceased, Ms.Betzie Joseph was also a student studying for MBBS at the time of accident, I find that the siblings cannot be considered as the dependents of the deceased. Rule 2(k) of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1989 defines legal representatives as follows: “Legal representative” means a person who in law is entitled to inherit the estate of the deceased if he had left any estate at the time of his death and also includes any legal heir of the deceased and the executor or administrator of the estate of the deceased. 24. Admittedly, the appellants herein will not come under the definition of legal representative hence the tribunal has rightly found that the appellants are not legal representatives of the deceased and are not entitled. Since the father is alive he alone will succeed to the estate of the deceased. Since the deceased was a student at the time of accident, it cannot be said that the claimants were financially dependent on the deceased. However, the father being the sole legal heir and the person succeeding to the property of the deceased, I find that the 4 th respondent is entitled to get compensation under the head loss of dependency. Since the deceased was a student at the time of accident, it cannot be said that the claimants were financially dependent on the deceased. However, the father being the sole legal heir and the person succeeding to the property of the deceased, I find that the 4 th respondent is entitled to get compensation under the head loss of dependency. However, the tribunal has awarded only a consolidated amount of Rs.6,00,000/- to the father of the deceased and 50% was deducted towards his contributory negligence. No appeal has been filed by the insurance company challenging the same. However, I find that he is also entitled to get compensation by adopting the multiplier method. 25. The learned counsel for the appellants claims enhancement mainly under the following heads :- Notional income :- The deceased Betzie Joseph was an MBBS student at the time of accident. The deceased mother of Betzie, who was doctor by profession had claimed only an amount of Rs.10,000/- as her monthly income on the basis of the salary certificate produced before the tribunal. However, considering the fact that the deceased Betzie was an MBBS student and the accident was of the year 2010, I find it appropriate to fix an amount of Rs.9,000/- notionally as the monthly income of the deceased. By adding 40% future prospects as per National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [ 2017(4) KLT 662 (SC)], to the income now fixed, the amount will be Rs. 12,600/- for awarding compensation under the head loss of dependency. Loss of dependency :- Since the notional income after adding 40% future prospects is re-fixed as Rs.12,600/-, following the judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [ 2010(2) KLT 802 (SC)], the compensation payable under the head is re- calculated thus: (12,600 x 12 x 18 x 1/2) Rs.13,60,800/-. Thus, there will be an amount of Rs. 13,60,800/- under the head loss of dependency. Funeral expenses :- The tribunal has not awarded any amount towards the head funeral expenses, whereas the appellants were entitled for an amount of Rs.15,000/-. Since the tribunal has not awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/-, following the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), I find that they are entitled for a total amount of Rs. 18,150 /- after adding 10% enhancement in a span of three years after 2017. Since the tribunal has not awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/-, following the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), I find that they are entitled for a total amount of Rs. 18,150 /- after adding 10% enhancement in a span of three years after 2017. Loss of estate :- The tribunal has not awarded any amount towards the head loss of estate, whereas the appellants were entitled for an amount of Rs.15,000/-. Since the tribunal has not awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/-, following the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), I find that they are entitled for a total amount of Rs. 18,150 /- after adding 10% enhancement in a span of three years after 2017. Pain and suffering :- Considering the fact that the injured succumbed to the injuries on the same day, I find it appropriate to award a total amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards the head pain and sufferings. Loss of consortium :- The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of consortium and since there is only one legal heir, the appellants are entitled to get an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. As per Pranay Sethi (supra), since the tribunal has not awarded any amount, they are entitled for 10% enhancement every three years after 2017. Hence, I find that the total consortium payable is Rs. 48,400/- (48400×1). 26. Though the appellants/claimants claimed enhancement of compensation under the 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. Since the appeal is of the year 2013, I find that the interest can be fixed @ 7% for the enhanced amount. 27. Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is modified as follows:- 28. Since in the connected appeal M.A.C.A Nos. 2022 of 2013 and 2023 of 2013, it is already held that there was 50% contributory negligence on the part of the 4 th respondent. I find that the 4 th respondent will be entitled to get 50% of the amount now awarded by the tribunal. The tribunal has already awarded an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. Hence, after deducting 50% of Rs.14,60,500/- the amount will be Rs.7,30,250/-. I find that the 4 th respondent will be entitled to get 50% of the amount now awarded by the tribunal. The tribunal has already awarded an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. Hence, after deducting 50% of Rs.14,60,500/- the amount will be Rs.7,30,250/-. Then further deducting Rs.3,00,000/- already awarded by the tribunal, from the amount of Rs.7,30,250/- now arrived at by this court, the amount payable to the fourth respondent will be Rs.4,30,250/- and thus the fourth respondent/father is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.4,30,250/- over and above the compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs. The 3 rd respondent 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 4 th respondent 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 appellant at the earliest in accordance with law. M.A.C.A. No.2390 of 2013 29. In M.A.C.A. No.2390 of 2013, the claimants have filed the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation, for the death of their mother. 30. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that while awarding compensation under the head loss of dependency, the tribunal omitted to add future prospects to the income fixed. The income fixed by the tribunal was Rs.10,000/- as claimed by the claimants. Considering the fact that the deceased was a doctor by profession and she was an RMO of the St.Jose Hospital, Vazhakkulam, I find that 30% future prospects ought to have been added to her income. Following the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [ 2017(4) KLT 662 (SC)], by adding 30% future prospects to the income now fixed, the amount will be Rs. 13,000/- for awarding compensation under the head loss of dependency. Following the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [ 2017(4) KLT 662 (SC)], by adding 30% future prospects to the income now fixed, the amount will be Rs. 13,000/- for awarding compensation under the head loss of dependency. Loss of dependency :- Since the notional income after adding 30% future prospects is re-fixed as Rs.13,300/-, following the judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [ 2010(2) KLT 802 (SC)], the compensation payable under the head is re- calculated thus: (13000 x 12 x 13 x 2/3) Rs.13,52,000/-. The tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.10,40,000/- under the head loss of dependency. Thus, there will be an additional amount of Rs. 3,12,000/- under the head loss of dependency. Funeral expenses :- Towards the head funeral expenses, the tribunal has awarded only an amount of Rs.10,000/-, whereas the appellants were entitled for an amount of Rs.15,000/-. Following the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), I find that the legal heirs are entitled for an enhancement of 10% in a span of three years after 2017. Thus, the total amount to be awarded under the afore head will be Rs.18,150/-. Since the tribunal has already awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/-, there will be an additional amount of Rs. 8,150/- under the afore head. Loss of estate :- Towards the head loss of estate, the tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/-. Following the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), I find that the claimants are entitled only for an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Therefore, there will be a deduction of Rs. 5,000/- under the afore head. Compensation for mental agony The learned standing counsel for the insurance company submitted that the tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards the compensation for mental agony, which is not payable. I find force in the argument. Considering the fact this is a compensation for death, I find that the compensation awarded under the head mental agony is a duplication of compensation paid under the head pain and sufferings. Accordingly, the afore compensation is deleted. Loss of love and affection/ L oss of co nsortium :- The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that towards the head loss of consortium, the tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/-. Since there were three legal heirs, they were entitled for a total amount of Rs.1,20,000/-. Accordingly, the afore compensation is deleted. Loss of love and affection/ L oss of co nsortium :- The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that towards the head loss of consortium, the tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/-. Since there were three legal heirs, they were entitled for a total amount of Rs.1,20,000/-. As per Pranay Sethi (supra), since the tribunal has awarded only an amount of Rs.30,000/-, they are entitled for 10% enhancement every three years after 2017. Hence, I find that the total consortium payable is Rs.1,45,200/- (48400×3). Thus, there will be an additional amount of Rs. 1,15,200/- under the head loss of consortium. The learned standing counsel for the insurance company submitted that towards the head loss of love and affection, the tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.40,000/-, which is against the principal laid down in the judgment in New India Assurance Company v. Somwati and others [2020 (5) KLT OnLine 1198 (SC)], wherein it has been held that once compensation is awarded under the head loss of consortium, no amount shall be awarded under the head loss of love and affection, as it would amount to duplication of compensation. Hence, I am inclined to delete Rs. 40,000/- awarded under the said head. 31. Though the appellants claimed enhancement of compensation under the 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. Since the appeal is of the year 2013, I find that the interest can be fixed @ 7% for the enhanced amount. 32. The insurer has not filed any appeal challenging the compensation awarded in this case. The appellants also have not raised a ground that no compensation is payable to the fourth respondent. Hence, I am inclined to grant compensation to the fourth respondent also. However, since the fourth respondent/husband was the one of the tortfeasor, and since the claimants are the minor children of the deceased, I find that the fourth respondent will be entitled to only 20% of the enhanced compensation now awarded by this court. Thus, the enhanced compensation payable to the claimants, i.e. two sons and the fourth respondent husband, shall be in the ratio 40:40:20 respectively. Thus, the enhanced compensation payable to the claimants, i.e. two sons and the fourth respondent husband, shall be in the ratio 40:40:20 respectively. However, the fourth respondent will be entitled for the enhanced compensation only after deducting 50% of the amount. 33. Since, the amount payable to the fourth respondent is granted after deducting 50% towards contributory negligence, the appellant insurer is not entitled to recover the same from the fifth respondent. 34. Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is modified as follows:- 35. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the appellants/claimants and the fourth respondent are awarded an additional compensation of Rs. 3,60,350/- (Rupees Three lakhs sixty thousand three hundred and fifty 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. The 3 rd respondent 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 50% from the 5 th respondent. The claimants and the 4 th respondent 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 appellant at the earliest in accordance with law. Accordingly, these appeals are disposed as follows: 1.M.A.C.A. No. 623 of 2013 is allowed in part. The appellant/insurer will be entitled to recover 50% of the amount awarded to the claimants, minor sons, from the insurer of the car in accordance with law. 2.M.A.C.A. No.2390 of 2013 is allowed in part and the appellants/claimants and the fourth respondent are awarded an additional compensation of Rs. 3,60,350/- (Rupees Three lakhs sixty thousand three hundred and fifty 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 at the ratio for the fourth respondent, out of 20% the fourth respondent will be entitled to get only 10% of the enhanced amount. 3,60,350/- (Rupees Three lakhs sixty thousand three hundred and fifty 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 at the ratio for the fourth respondent, out of 20% the fourth respondent will be entitled to get only 10% of the enhanced amount. As mentioned above, the insurer will be entitled to recover from the fifth respondent, the insurer of the car, 50% of 40% each awarded to the claimants in the afore appeal. 3.M.A.C.A Nos.2022 and 2023 of 2013 are dismissed. 4.M.A.C.A. No.2025 of 2013 is allowed in part and the appellant/claimant is awarded an additional compensation of Rs. 40,000/- (50% of 80,000/-) (Rupees forty 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. 5.M.A.C.A. No.2389 of 2013 is allowed in part and the fourth respondent is awarded an additional compensation of Rs. 4,30,250/- (Rupees four lakhs thirty thousand two hundred and fifty 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.