JUDGMENT : Shoba Annamma Eapen, J. This appeal is filed by the claimants in OP (MV) No.429 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondent herein is the second respondent before the tribunal. 2. According to the claimants, on 29.01.2017 at about 09.30 p.m., while the deceased was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-40/F-540 through Pazhamthottam – Vadavucode road, a car bearing registration No.KL-43/8307 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motorcycle and as a result, the deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries on 07.02.2017, while undergoing treatment. The claimants who are the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.88,00,000/-, which is limited to Rs.70,00,000/-. 3. Though notice was served on the first respondent, driver-cum-owner, he remained absent and was set ex parte before the tribunal. The second respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the insurance policy, disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A17 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 first respondent and the claimant was awarded a sum of Rs.50,58,911/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization against the second 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 the tribunal fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased, who was employed in a private company, at Rs.23,108/-, as a permanent employee, it added only 40% towards future prospects instead of 50%. It was further submitted that the employer of the deceased was examined as PW1 and had deposed that the deceased was a permanent employee. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the claimants, the tribunal ought to have added 50% towards future prospects instead of 40%. It was further submitted that the employer of the deceased was examined as PW1 and had deposed that the deceased was a permanent employee. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the claimants, the tribunal ought to have added 50% towards future prospects instead of 40%. The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company, however, submitted that the deceased was working in a private establishment and there is no other document other than the deposition of the employer that the deceased was a permanent employee. Considering the aforesaid facts, the deposition of PW1 that the deceased was an employee and he had also deposed about the prospects of the deceased employee if in employment, I find that the deceased can be considered as a permanent employee and following the apex court decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [ 2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)], I find it appropriate to add 50% towards future prospects to the income fixed, and accordingly, the monthly income for the purpose of awarding compensation under the head loss of dependency is re-fixed at Rs.34,662/- ( Rs.23,108 x 50/100 + 23,108). Since the deceased was aged 30 years at the time of accident, the multiplier to be adopted is “17 ” and the deduction towards his personal and living expenses is 1/4 as there were four 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.53,03,286/- (34,662 x 12 x 17 x 3/4). The tribunal had granted an amount of Rs.48,63,411/- under the said head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of Rs. 4,39,875/ - under the head loss of dependency. II. Loss of consortium/loss of love and affection The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that towards the head loss of consortium, the tribunal had granted only an amount of Rs.80,000/-. Following the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), since there were four legal heirs for the deceased, they are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- (40,000 x 4) under the head loss of consortium. The learned standing counsel for the Insurance Company however submitted that the tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- under the head loss of love and affection, which is impermissible and runs against the mandate in Pranay Sethi (supra). The learned standing counsel for the Insurance Company however submitted that the tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- under the head loss of love and affection, which is impermissible and runs against the mandate in Pranay Sethi (supra). Therefore, I deem it appropriate to adjust the compensation granted towards loss of love and affection with the compensation towards loss of consortium and thus, there will be an additional amount of Rs. 30,000/- under the said head. 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. 7. Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is modified as follows: Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the appellants/claimants are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs. 4,69,875/- (Rupees Four Lakh Sixty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Five Only) over and above the compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest @ 8% 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. Out of the enhanced compensation now awarded to the appellants, a consolidated amount of Rs.1,00,000/- shall be paid to the parents and the balance amount with interest shall be paid to the wife and child.