Ravikumar, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 23.02.2015 in O.P.(M.V) No.195 of 2013 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur. The petitioners, who are the legal heirs of the victim of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 24.09.2012, filed O.P.(M.V) No. 195 of 2013, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking a compensation of Rs.19,15,000/-. As per the impugned award, the Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.11,49,500/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. It is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation that the captioned appeal has been preferred.

2. A short narration of facts involved in the case is required for a proper disposal of the appeal. The victim, Sri. Ramakrishnan was riding his motor cycle bearing Registration No. KL 10-G-3262 from Kakkad to Kottakkal through Kozhikode-Thrissur National Highway on 29.09.2012. At the place of occurrence, it was hit by a motor car bearing Registration No. KL-10-Y-6215 driven by the 2nd respondent. On sustaining injury, Ramakrishnan was immediately taken to Al-Shifa Hospital, Perinthalmanna and from there he was shifted to MIMS Hospital, Kottakkal. Later, he was treated at Baby Memorial Hospital, Kozhikode. Thus, he remained as an inpatient for a period of 48 days under different spells. In fact, it was while undergoing treatment that he succumbed to the injuries. It is in the said circumstances that the appellants, who are his legal heirs, filed the aforesaid claim petition.

3. Before the Tribunal on the side of the appellants, the Doctor who treated the deceased was examined as PW1 besides getting marked Exhibits A1 to A24. No evidence, either oral or documentary was adduced by the respondents. After appreciating the evidence on record as also the rival contentions, the impugned award was passed by the Tribunal as mentioned herein before.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal has deprived just compensation to the appellants. In elaboration of the said contention, it is contended that the Tribunal had erroneously fixed the monthly income of the deceased and wrongly effected 1/3rd deduction from it while calculating compensation for loss of dependency. It is the contention that the deceased was a retired Sub Divisional Engineer from Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and was drawing a monthly pension of Rs.21,957/- at the time of the accident. He was then aged 65 years. However, the Tribunal took only Rs.12,000/- as monthly income for calculation purpose and then effected deduction of 1/3rd of the same towards personal and living expenses of the deceased which he would have incurred had he been alive. In short, for calculation purpose only Rs.8,000/- was taken into account by the Tribunal. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal ought to have taken the entire pension as monthly income for calculation purpose.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Insurance Company countered the said contentions and submitted that the Tribunal cannot be found fault with in not accepting the claim of the appellants regarding the monthly income of the deceased. The learned counsel further submitted that admittedly the deceased was a retiree and he was then drawing only a monthly pension of Rs.21,957/-. Since the 1st appellant is none other than the wife of the deceased, upon his demise she must have started drawing family pension. In the light of the aforesaid rival contentions, we will consider firstly the question whether the Tribunal had erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased for calculation purpose. True that loss of life of a family member is not ransomable as far as the family is considered. The essential consideration, which has to be kept in mind while granting compensation for loss of dependency is of the financial benefit of which the family can reasonably be said to have been deprived by the span of