Anil K. Narendran, J.

The appellants are the claimants in O.P.(MV) No. 580 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, an application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation on account of the death of one Rajeev in a motor accident occurred on 25.02.2010. The appellants are the wife, children and mother respectively of the deceased. On 25.02.2010, while the deceased was standing on the side of a public road, a tipper lorry bearing Registration No. KL-7/T-7668, owned, driven and insured by respondents 1 to 3 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased, resulting fatal injuries. Claiming a total compensation of Rs. 42,30,000/- under different heads, the appellants filed claim petition before the Tribunal.

2. Before the Tribunal, respondents 1 and 2 remained absent and they were set ex-parte. The 3rd respondent insurer alone filed written statement. On the side of the appellants Exts. A-1 to A-8 were marked. On the side of the respondents Ext. B-1 was marked. Both sides have not chosen to adduce any oral evidence. As per the order in I.A. No. 1672 of 2014, the Tribunal permitted the insurer to contest the matter under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

3. After considering the pleadings and the materials on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tipper lorry by the 2nd respondent. Under different heads, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 29,84,760/- and allowed the appellants to recover the said amount from the respondents, to be apportioned in the proportion 15:40:40:5, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. Since the vehicle was validly covered by a policy of insurance issued by the 3rd respondent insurer, the said respondent was directed to deposit the amount of compensation before the Tribunal together with interest. The 3rd respondent insurer was directed to produce one cheque for Rs. 41,673/- towards court fee in favour of the Tribunal and four cheques for the balance amount in favour of appellants 1 to 4 in the proportion 15:40:40:5, within one month from the date of award. On such production, the 1st appellant was permitted to withdraw Rs. 2,00,000/- retaining the remaining amount out of her share in fixed deposit for a period of three years, with liberty to withdraw quarterly interest. The Tribunal permitted the 4th appellant to withdraw her share in full. Since the 2nd and 3rd appellants are minors, the Tribunal ordered retention of their share in fixed deposit, till they attain majority. On attaining majority they are permitted to withdraw Rs. 3,00,000/- each, retaining the remaining amount out of their share in fixed deposit for a further period of three years, with liberty to withdraw quarterly interest.

4. Inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is the subject matter of this appeal.

5. We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants. The learned counsel would contend that the Tribunal grossly erred in not awarding just and reasonable compensation under various heads.

6. The pleadings and materials on record would show that at the time of accident the deceased was aged 39 years and was working as Shipwright at the Naval Base, Kochi. Ext. A-6 salary certificate issued by the Commanding Officer would show that, at the time of accident the total salary drawn by the deceased was Rs. 16,027/-. Out of the said sum, Rs. 3,043/- was towards overtime allowance. It is common knowledge that overtime allowance may vary from month to month depending upon the overtime duty performed by an employee. The appellants have not produced any documents to show that the deceased was earning overtime allowance on regular basis. In the absence of any reliable materials, the Tribunal deducted the overtime allowance of Rs. 3,043/- and reckoned the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 12,984/-. Ther