Ramachandran Nair, J.

Appeals are filed against the common award of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha granting compensation to the appellant for the death of this wife and for injuries sustained by him in the very same road accident.

2. The appellant, while traveling in a motorbike with his pregnant wife as pillion rider was knocked down by a bus which led to the death of his wife and injury to himself. Separate claims were filed by the appellant, one claiming compensation for the injury sustained by him and another claiming compensation for the death of his wife in the accident. The mother of the deceased got herself impleded as additional 4th respondent in the claim petition filed by the appellant claiming compensation for the death of his wife. The Tribunal awarded compensation in both the cases and by upholding the claim of the additional 4th respondent, namely, the mother of the deceased, a portion of the compensation was ordered to be paid to her. In the separate appeals filed by the appellant claiming enhanced compensation, the mother of the deceased though respondent also claims the same relief.

3. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant, Standing counsel for the Insurance Company and counsel appearing or additional 4th respondent, the mother of the deceased.

4. the first contention raised by counsel for the appellate is that the monthly income of the deceased fixed at Rs.2,000/- for fixing compensation is too low and unreasonable because the deceased was admittedly a State Government employee working as Assistant Grade II in the Kerala Public Service Commission. Counsel has produced salary certificate to the effect that the deceased was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.5,580/- at the time of the accident. Since salary certificate is a new evidence produced before us, in the normal course, we should remand the matter for the tribunal to consider it after giving an opportunity to the Insurance Company to raise their objection. However, since the employment of the deceased is undisputed and the amount stated in the salary certificate is realistic, we can safely accept it and consequently proceed to decide the case without remanding the same to the Tribunal. Even though appellant is also employed in a company and he may not be dependent on his wife in the strict sense of the word, it is seen that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for loss of dependency based on estimated income of appellant’s deceased wife is not contested by the Insurance Company. Therefore, it is a matter of substituting the actual income of the deceased with the income fixed by the Tribunal for the purpose of determining compensation for loss of dependency. Consequently compensation for loss of dependency will stand increased from Rs.4,32,000/- to Rs.12,05,280/- and after deducting one-third of the amount towards personal expenses, compensation for loss of dependency will come to Rs.8,03,520/-. Out of the said amount, one-third will be given to the mother of the deceased and the appellant will be entitled to the balance amount.

5. One important issue raised by the appellant in the appeal is that he is entitled to compensation for loss of the foetus on account of the death of his wife. Appellant’s wife at the time of the accident was admittedly four months’ pregnant and her death naturally led to the loss of the child which the appellant would have had, had his wife been alive. Since the appellant did not make any specific claim of compensation for loss of the foetus, the Tribunal had no occasion to consider the same. However, we feel when compensation was claimed for the death of a pregnant woman, the Tribunal ought to have taken into account the death of the foetus which automatically happens on the death of the pregnant woman. Decisions of this Court on entitlement of compensation for the death of the foetus are not consistent. Even though the matter is not discussed in detail, this Court in the decision in Ori