JUDGMENT : SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the legal heirs of the claimant in O.P (MV) No.688 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal. 2. According to the claimants, on 21.04.2017 at about 06.00 pm, while the deceased was riding a scooter bearing reg. No. KL-41/J-7156, a tipper lorry bearing registration No.KL-63-A-284 driven by the 2 nd respondent in front of the scooter had applied sudden brake in a rash and negligent manner and thereby the scooter hit behind the lorry. As a result of the accident, the deceased had sustained serious injuries and later succumbed to the injuries on the same day. The claimants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- limited to Rs. 50,00,000/-. 3. The 1 st respondent/owner and the 2 nd respondent/driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte before the tribunal. The 3 rd respondent/insurer filed a written statement admitting the validity of the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed and denying negligence. It was also contended that the deceased had no head gear and was riding the scooter in a careless manner. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A9 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of Rs. 18,59,490/- (97% of Rs. 19,17,000/-) as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs against the 3 rd respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle. 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/claimants and the learned standing counsel for the 3 rd respondent/insurer. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants seek enhancement mainly under the following heads: Notional income :- The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that though an amount of Rs. 35,000/- was claimed as the income of the deceased who was a welder by profession, the tribunal had taken only an amount of Rs. 9,000/-. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants seek enhancement mainly under the following heads: Notional income :- The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that though an amount of Rs. 35,000/- was claimed as the income of the deceased who was a welder by profession, the tribunal had taken only an amount of Rs. 9,000/-. It is further submitted that the First Information Statement also indicates that the deceased was a welder and sought for enhancement of the income fixed. It is further submitted that, even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011 (13) SCC 236 , the income of a Coolie, for an accident in 2017, is fixed as Rs. 11,000/-and sought for enhancement of income. On the other hand the learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that neither any evidence nor documents has been produced to prove that he was a welder. The First Information Statement is the first version given by the informant, wherein it is specifically stated that the deceased was a welder by profession. I find no reason to disbelieve the said assertion regarding the avocation of the deceased. Therefore, considering the fact that the deceased was a welder, in order to award just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate to refix the income at Rs. 13,000/-. Compensation for loss of dependency :- Since the deceased was aged 39 years at the time of accident, going by the judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC), 40% future prospects is to be added towards the monthly income for the purpose of calculating loss of dependency. By adding 40% future prospects towards the monthly income now fixed, the income would be Rs. 18,200/- (11,000 + 40% of 11,000) for awarding compensation under the head, loss of dependency. Accordingly, following Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC) and Pranay Sethi (supra), the total compensation payable under the head loss of dependency is recalculated thus: Rs. 24,57,000/- (18,200 x 12 x 15 x 3/4). Since the tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 17,01,000/-, there will be an additional amount of Rs. 7,56,000/ - under the head loss of dependency. 24,57,000/- (18,200 x 12 x 15 x 3/4). Since the tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 17,01,000/-, there will be an additional amount of Rs. 7,56,000/ - under the head loss of dependency. Loss of consortium/loss of love and affection :- On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- towards loss of consortium. Since there were five legal heirs, I find that the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs. 40,000/- each totalling to an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. 40,000 x 5) under the head loss of consortium. The tribunal has already awarded an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- under the said head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of Rs. 80,000/- under the head loss of consortium. The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was awarded by the tribunal under the head loss of love and affection. In New India Assurance Company v. Somwati and others, 2020 (5) KLT OnLine 1198 (SC), 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. Accordingly, I delete Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the tribunal under the head loss of love and affection. 6. On a perusal of the award and 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. 7. Contributory negligence :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal erred in attributing 3% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the accident occurred when the lorry suddenly applied brakes, causing the scooter ridden by the deceased to to hit on the rear side of the lorry. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that, if the deceased had maintained a safe distance from the lorry moving ahead, the accident could have been avoided. It was therefore contended that the tribunal was justified in attributing 3% contributory negligence to the deceased. I have gone through the award. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that, if the deceased had maintained a safe distance from the lorry moving ahead, the accident could have been avoided. It was therefore contended that the tribunal was justified in attributing 3% contributory negligence to the deceased. I have gone through the award. It is seen that the charge sheet was laid against the driver of the lorry and no negligence was attributed to the deceased therein. In the absence of any independent evidence adduced to establish contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, the tribunal was not justified in attributing 3% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Accordingly, the finding of the tribunal fixing 3% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased is hereby set aside. 8. Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is modified as follows: Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part as follows: 1. The finding of the tribunal as regards 3% contributory negligence against the deceased is hereby set aside. 2.The insurance company shall pay to the claimants, the remaining 3% of the award amount together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realization and proportionate costs. 3.The appellants/claimants are awarded an additional amount of Rs. 7,86,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs eighty six thousand only) over and above the amount awarded by the tribunal with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs. 4. The 3 rd 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. 5.The appellants/claimants shall furnish copies of the PAN Card, ADHAAR 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. 6. The ratio adopted by the tribunal has to follow as regards the enhanced compensation also.