C.T. Ravikumar, J.

These appeals arise from the award dated 20.10.2010 in O.P.(MV)No.1567/07 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'M.V. Act') seeking compensation for the death of one Sherly V. Sebastian occurred on 16.05.2007 in a motor vehicle accident, by the legal heirs of the deceased, who are respectively the widower and the minor daughter. The Tribunal passed the impugned award for an amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition (18.10.2007) till payment and also with a cost of Rs. 40,000/-. In fact, the Tribunal passed such an award for Rs. 30,00,000/- after arriving at a finding that the appellants are entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 37,57,500/- solely for the reason that they had limited their claim to Rs. 30,00,000/-. The former appeal has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation whereas the latter appeal has been preferred by the insurer of the offending vehicle viz., the third respondent in the former appeal contending that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal as per the impugned award under different heads are exorbitant and therefore, liable to be interfered with.

2. The deceased Sherly was the Acting Principal of St.Mary's Higher Secondary School, Pariyapuram in Perinthalmanna which is an aided school. She was a foot passenger when she met the accident that doomed her life. It occurred thus:- On 16.05.2007 at about 5.40 P.M. she was walking through Cheruthuruthi - Kulapully public road in Shornur Municipality. The offending vehicle which is a bus bearing Reg.No.KL 9J 432 driven by the second respondent knocked her down and its wheel ran over her body. She died instantaneously. In the claim petition it was averred that she was then aged 39 years and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 20,650/-. It was further stated therein that the appellants were then aged 40 years and 4 years respectively. It was in such circumstances that the aforesaid claim petition was filed seeking a compensation of Rs. 32,04,000/-, but limiting it to Rs. 30,00,000/-.

3. Obviously, no oral evidence was tendered by either side and on behalf of the appellants Exts.A1 to A9 were got marked. No documentary evidence was also adduced by the respondents. The Tribunal upon evaluating the evidence on record and appreciating the rival contentions passed the impugned award, as aforesaid. Parties to both the appeals are the same though their status differ. Since the appeals arise from the same award with divergent contentions they were heard jointly and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Hence, for the sake of convenience, they are referred to hereafter in this judgment in accordance with their respective status in the former appeal unless otherwise specifically mentioned. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent-insurer. Though notices were served on respondents 1 and 2 they have not chosen to enter appearance and to resist the appeals.

4. Essentially, the main contention of the appellants claimants is that the Tribunal went wrong in fixing the multiplicand for the purpose of calculating the compensation for loss of dependency. It is contended that at the relevant period the deceased was getting Dearness Allowance only at 40% of the Basic Pay and the same has since been enhanced to 78% and a pay revision order had also come into force in the year 2011. In short, according to the appellants, within a period of about 3 years since the death of Sherly V. Sebastian there occurred about 50% of increase in the salary attached to the post held by her. Therefore, according to them, the addition of 50% of the actual income reckoning the future prospects which the deceased would have had is inadequate and such addition ought to have been much more than that. It is to be noted that the claimants/ap