JUDGMENT : SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J. This appeal is filed by the claimants in OP (MV) No.833/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal. 2. According to the claimants, on 17.03.2017 at about 01.15 p.m., while the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-40/E-4204 through the Perumbavoor– Aimury road, another motorcycle bearing registration No.KL- 7/H-3915 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motorcycle in which the deceased was riding and as a result, the deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries on 16.04.2017, while undergoing treatment. The claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs. 49,13,000/-, which is limited to Rs. 30,00,000/-. 3. Though notice was served on the first and second respondents, the owner and the rider of the offending vehicle respectively, they remained absent and were set ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the insurance policy, disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A11 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that the accident was due to negligence on the part of the second respondent and the claimants were awarded a sum of Rs. 20,71,400/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization against the third respondent insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, 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 claim enhancement mainly under the following heads: I. Notional Income/Loss of dependency The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, though an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was claimed as the notional monthly income of the deceased, who was running a Transporting Agency, the tribunal had taken the monthly income only at Rs. 9,000/-. The learned counsel relied on the documents produced along with I.A. No.1 of 2025, namely, the account statement relating to the bank account of the deceased. 25,000/- was claimed as the notional monthly income of the deceased, who was running a Transporting Agency, the tribunal had taken the monthly income only at Rs. 9,000/-. The learned counsel relied on the documents produced along with I.A. No.1 of 2025, namely, the account statement relating to the bank account of the deceased. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has not filed any objection to I.A. No.1 of 2025 filed on 24.08.2025. On a perusal of the documents produced along with the said application, it is seen that, till the date of death, the deceased had been maintaining a minimum balance of about Rs. 30,000/- in the account from the year 2016 onwards, though during certain months the balance had marginally fallen below Rs. 30,000/-. However, it is evident that there was sufficient balance in the account. Moreover, the learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that, from the year 2014 onwards, the deceased had been regularly paying an amount of Rs. 16,150/- every month towards vehicle loan repayment. Unless the deceased had sufficient income, he could not have regularly remitted such an amount towards the loan liability. The same is reflected in the statement produced. There is also no case for the respondent insurer that the wife of the deceased was employed at the time of his death. The tribunal, however, had fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 9,000/-. It is a fact that the documents produced along with I.A.No.1 of 2025 were not produced before the tribunal to prove the income of the deceased. Taking into consideration the account statement produced and the avocation of the deceased at the time of accident, I find it appropriate to re-fix the income as Rs. 15,000/-. Since the deceased was aged 51 years at the time of accident, the multiplier to be adopted is 11 and 10% towards future prospects is to be added to the income fixed, following the apex court decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [ 2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)]. Hence the monthly income for the purpose of awarding compensation under the head loss of dependency is re-fixed at Rs. 16,500/- (Rs. 15,000 x 10/100 + 15,000). Moreover, the deduction towards her personal and living expenses is 2/3 as there were three dependents. Hence the monthly income for the purpose of awarding compensation under the head loss of dependency is re-fixed at Rs. 16,500/- (Rs. 15,000 x 10/100 + 15,000). Moreover, the deduction towards her personal and living expenses is 2/3 as there were three dependents. Hence, following the apex court judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [ 2010(2) KLT 802 (SC)], the total compensation payable under the afore head is recalculated thus: Rs. 14,52,000/- (16,500 x 12 x 11 x 2/3). The tribunal had granted an amount of Rs. 8,71,200/- under the said head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of Rs. 5,80,800/ - under the head loss of dependency. II. Pain and sufferings The learned counsel for the appellants sought enhancement of compensation under the head pain and sufferings. The tribunal had already awarded an amount of Rs. 25,000/- under the afore head. The learned counsel further submitted that the deceased succumbed to the injuries one month after the date of the accident. Considering the fact that the compensation was awarded treating the case as a death case, I find that the tribunal has awarded a reasonable amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards pain and sufferings. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the same. 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. Since the appeal is of the year 2020, I find it reasonable to fix the interest @7% per annum on the enhanced amount. 7. Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is modified as follows: 10 Treatment expenses 11,00,000 9,74,200 (not modified) 9,74,200 11 Loss of consortium 3,00,000 40,000 40,000 (not modified) 40,000 40,000 Total amount (which is limited to) 49,13,000 30,00,000 20,71,400 5,80,800 26,52,200 Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the appellants/claimants are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs. 5,80,800/- (Rupees Five Lakh Eighty Thousand Eight Hundred Only) over and above the compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs. 5,80,800/- (Rupees Five Lakh Eighty Thousand Eight Hundred Only) over and above the compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs. 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 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. However, it is made clear that the enhanced compensation will not carry interest for the period of delay of 34 days in filing the appeal. The ratio adopted by the tribunal has to follow as regards the enhanced compensation also.