JUDGMENT : SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J. This appeal is filed by the 3 rd respondent insurer in O.P. (MV) No.753 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery. The respondents herein were the claimants before the tribunal. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: On 13.06.2017, at about 12.30 p.m., while the deceased was riding her scooter bearing registration No.KL-13Y-9585, a bus bearing registration No.KL-13V-9007 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit on the scooter whereby the deceased fell down, sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs. 36,25,000/- which is limited to Rs. 25,00,000/-. 3. The first and second respondents, being the owner and driver of the bus respectively, filed a joint written statement admitting the insurance coverage of the vehicle, but denying the negligence attributed to the second respondent in causing the accident. The third respondent - insurer filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy, disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. It was also contended that the driving licence of the deceased expired on 14.04.2017. Before the tribunal, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A6 and A7 (series) were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the second respondent and awarded a sum of Rs. 22,49,064/-, which is rounded to Rs. 22,49,100/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the third respondent - insurance company has come up in appeal. 4. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellant/insurance company and the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. 5. The learned standing counsel appearing for the Insurance Company challenged the award passed by the tribunal, mainly with respect to the fixation of the monthly notional income of the deceased at Rs. 16,650/-. The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that there was no clear evidence to prove that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs. 16,650/- per month and that the tribunal had fixed the income solely relying on Ext.A7 series documents. 16,650/-. The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that there was no clear evidence to prove that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs. 16,650/- per month and that the tribunal had fixed the income solely relying on Ext.A7 series documents. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, however, submitted that Ext.P7 series documents were not challenged by the insurance company. It was further submitted that the husband of the deceased was examined before the tribunal as PW2. Taking into consideration the afore-two aspects, the tribunal had fixed the income as Rs. 16,650/-. Considering the rival contentions raised by both sides and on a perusal of the impugned award, it is seen from paragraph 20 that the tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 16,650/- mainly for the following reasons; firstly, the tribunal relied on Ext.A7 series documents, which consisted of bills showing purchase of clothes from a garment shop. The owner of the garment shop was examined as PW1 and he deposed that the deceased used to purchase clothes from his shop and sell them door-to-door by taking a minimum commission of 25%. As per the bills produced, the total purchase for the month of May 2017 amounted to Rs. 66,602/-. Taking into account a 25% commission, the tribunal assessed the monthly income at Rs. 16,650/-. Secondly, the tribunal relied on the evidence of PW2, the husband of the deceased, wherein he had asserted that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 20,000/-. Though he was cross-examined, nothing was brought out in evidence to controvert the deposition of PW2. Thus the tribunal has come to the conclusion that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs. 16,650/-. The reasons stated by the tribunal are satisfactory and I do not find any reason to interfere with the monthly income fixed by the tribunal. 6. The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company also challenged the compensation awarded under the head loss of dependency. It was contended that the deduction towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased ought to have been 1/4th instead of 1/5th. Admittedly, there were only five legal heirs for the deceased. Hence, I find force in the argument put forward by the learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company. It was contended that the deduction towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased ought to have been 1/4th instead of 1/5th. Admittedly, there were only five legal heirs for the deceased. Hence, I find force in the argument put forward by the learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company. The deduction to be made towards the personal and living expenses ought to have been 1/4th, following the apex court judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [ 2017 (4) KLT 662 (SC)]. Since the deceased was aged 51 years at the time of accident, following the apex court decision in Pranay Sethi (supra), by adding 10% towards future prospects to the income fixed, the monthly income for the purpose of awarding compensation under the head loss of dependency is re-fixed at Rs. 18,315/- (Rs. 16,650 x 10/100 + 16,650) and the appropriate multiplier to be adopted is “11 ” Hence, following the apex court judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma (supra), the total compensation payable under the afore head is recalculated thus: Rs. 18,13,185/- (18,315 x 12 x 11 x 3/4). The tribunal had granted an amount of Rs. 19,34,064/- under the said head. Thus, there will be a deduction of Rs. 1,20,879/ - under the head loss of dependency. 7. The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company also challenged the compensation awarded under the head loss of estate. It was submitted that the tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs. 75,000/- under the head loss of estate, whereas the claimants were entitled only for an amount of Rs. 15,000/-. Following the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), I find that the claimants were entitled only for a total amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate. Hence, there will be a deduction of Rs. 60,000/- under the said head. 8. Though the appellant - insurer challenges the 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. 9. Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is modified as follows: Sl. 8. Though the appellant - insurer challenges the 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. 9. Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is modified as follows: Sl. No. Head of Claim Amount claimed (in Rs.) Amount awarded by the tribunal (in Rs.) Amount modified in appeal (in Rs.) Total compensation 1 Loss of earnings 10,00,000 - - - 2 Partial loss of earnings - - - - 3 Transport to hospital 50,000 5,000 (not modified) 5,000 Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the respondents/claimants are entitled only for a total compensation of Rs. 20,68,185/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Sixty Eight Thousand One Hundred and Eighty Five Only), with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs. The appellant 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 respondents/claimants shall furnish copies of the PAN Card, AADHAAR Card and bank details before the appellant 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 claimants at the earliest in accordance with law.