Judgment : N.K. Patil, J. 1. These two appeals respectively by the claimants and the Corporation are directed against the same judgment and award dated 4th August 2012, passed in MVC No.3111/2011, by the XII Additional Small Causes Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, (for short, 'Tribunal'). 2. While the claimants have filed the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation awarded by Tribunal in their favour is inadequate and needs to be enhanced; the Corporation has filed the appeal seeking to set aside the liability fastened on it, on the ground that the accident has occurred on account of the sole negligence on the part of the deceased. 3. The facts in brief are that, the claimant No.1 is the wife, claimant No.2 is the minor daughter and claimant No.3 is the mother of deceased, Prakash. They filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that, at about 05:15 A.M, on 20-05-2011, when the deceased Prakash was sitting at the left side rear portion of the KSRTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-19/F-2585, he met with an accident, on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said KSRTC Bus, when he drove the same on Mangalore-Bangalore NH-48, highway road in a direction from Bangalore to Mangalore in high speed, near Bollukallu within the limits of Peraje village in Bantwal Taluk and hit the left side rear portion against a road side palm tree. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained grievous head injuries and died instantaneously at the spot. 4. It is the case of the claimants that, the deceased Prakash was aged about 40 years and working as a Teacher at Government Higher Primary School, Paduvanagere, drawing salary of Rs.20,000/- per month and hale and healthy prior to the accident. On account of the untimely death of the deceased, the claimants have lost the sole earning member in the family; the first claimant has lost her life partner, the minor daughter has lost the love and affection, inspiration and guidance and the mother has lost the social, financial and moral support and therefore, they have to be compensated reasonably. 5. On account of the death of the deceased, the claimants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation against the Corporation. 5. On account of the death of the deceased, the claimants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation against the Corporation. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 4th August, 2012. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs.21,43,774/- (including the interim compensation of a sum of Rs.15,000/- received by the claimants from Corporation), under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of payment. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants are in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation; whereas the Corporation is in appeal seeking to set aside the liability fastened it, on the ground that the accident occurred on the negligent act of the deceased himself and hence, the Corporation is not liable to indemnify the award. 6. We have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal filed by both claimants and Corporation and also the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and heard the learned counsel appearing for the claimants and the Corporation. 7. Shri. R.L. Udaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for claimants vehemently submitted at the out that, the Tribunal grossly erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards conventional heads, for the reason that the claimants are entitled to higher compensation under the said heads as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ). Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is liable to be modified by enhancing reasonable compensation. 8. As against this, Shri. D. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Corporation vehemently submitted that the Tribunal grossly erred in fastening liability on the Corporation and coming to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the KSRTC Bus belonging to the Corporation, when in fact, the accident occurred solely on account of the negligent act of the deceased himself. To substantiate the said submission, he submitted that RW1, the driver of the Bus has deposed that, on the incident day, he was driving the Bus on its scheduled trip from Bangalore to Kundapur via Udupi and Mangalore and when he approached near Bollukallu of Peraje village in Bantwal Taluk, there came a Tanker Lorry being driven by its driver from opposite direction on the wrong side of the road, i.e. right side of the road in high speed and on seeing the said vehicle, he took his Bus towards extreme left side on the foot path in order to avoid direct collision and in doing so, the left rear portion of the KSRTC Bus brushed against a road side palm tree and as a result, the deceased who was sleeping on the seat at the left rear portion of the Bus by projecting his head and hand through window sustained severe head injuries and died at the spot. Therefore, he submitted that, the driver of the opposite coming Tanker Lorry and the deceased are responsible for the occurrence of accident. Further, he submitted that the reasoning given by the Tribunal for fastening liability on the Corporation cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside on the ground that the deceased died due to his own negligent act in putting his head in the window and that the driver of the Bus took the Bus to the extreme left in order to avoid head-on collision and greater impact. Therefore, he submitted that liability fastened on the Corporation is liable to be set aside and the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal be modified accordingly. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, after careful perusal of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and after going through the original records made available on file, the points that arise for our consideration in these two appeals are: I] Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of KSRTC Bus? II] Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable? Re-Point I]: Occurrence of accident and the resultant death of the deceased Prakash in the road traffic accident are not disputed. Further, it is not disputed that the claimants are none other than the wife, minor daughter and mother of deceased. II] Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable? Re-Point I]: Occurrence of accident and the resultant death of the deceased Prakash in the road traffic accident are not disputed. Further, it is not disputed that the claimants are none other than the wife, minor daughter and mother of deceased. It is further not disputed that, on the relevant date and time of accident, the deceased was travelling in the KSRTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-19/F-2585. When the said KSRTC Bus was moving on Mangalore-Bangalore NH-48 highway road, in a direction from Bangalore to Mangalore in high speed, near Bollukallu, within the limits of Peraje village in Bantwal Taluk, the driver of the said Bus moved the Bus abruptly towards extreme left side of the high way road in order to give way to opposite coming vehicle and in doing so, the left side rear portion of the said KSRTC Bus hit against a road side palm tree. Due to the impact, the deceased Prakash who was sitting at the left side rear portion of the said KSRTC Bus sustained severe head injuries and died instantaneously at the spot. 10. It is the specific case of claimant No.1, PW1, the wife of the deceased Prakash that the deceased succumbed to the grievous head injuries in the road traffic accident on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the KSRTC Bus belonging to the Corporation. To substantiate the said stand, she placed reliance on Ex.P3-spot Mahazar, Ex.P6- IMV Report and Ex.P9 -charge sheet. The Tribunal, after due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has elaborately discussed each and every oral and documentary evidence at paragraphs 9 and 10 of its judgment and fastened the liability on the Corporation. 11. It is specifically observed by the Tribunal that the contents of Ex.P3- spot Mahazar and Ex.P7- sketch would disclose that the accident occurred near Bollukallu of Peraje village on Mangalore- Bangalore NH-48 high way road within the limits of Bantwal Taluk and the said high way is stated to be in east-west direction and is a two way road of width 22 ft. There is a mud foot path of 4 ft. on either side of the said road. There is a mud foot path of 4 ft. on either side of the said road. Undisputedly, the KSRTC Bus was proceeding along the said high way road in a direction from Bangalore to Mangalore at the time of happening of the incident. According to RW1, the driver of KSRTC Bus, he moved the Bus towards extreme left side on the foot path in order to give way to a Tanker Lorry which was coming from opposite direction on the wrong side of the road in rash and negligent manner. It is further observed that near the place of accident, the said high way road in a direction from Bangalore-Mangalore is down-gradient. It means that the said road in a direction from Mangalore - Bangalore is up-gradient. If that is so, it is difficult to accept the evidence of RW1, that the Tanker Lorry which was coming through up-gradient road, came in high speed on the wrong side of the road. If really, the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said Tanker Lorry, the Corporation or at least the driver of the Bus belonging to the Corporation should have lodged a counter complaint against the driver before the jurisdictional Police and impleaded the driver, owner and insurer of the said vehicle as parties to the claim petition. But the evidence on record does not indicate that, RW1 the driver of the KSRTC Bus or the Corporation have lodged any such counter complaint against the driver of the said Tanker Lorry. Further, the Corporation also has failed to examine any such independent eye witnesses, viz. the passengers of the said Bus to corroborate the evidence of RW1, the Bus driver and to rebut the evidence of PW1. In the absence of any such independent witnesses, the only self-interested testimony of RW1 cannot be taken as a gospel truth. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver of the KSRTC Bus alone was responsible for the cause of accident, resulting in the death of the deceased Prakash. Ex.P4 -post mortem report discloses that there is severe injuries on the face of the deceased and a crush injury on the neck of the deceased which corroborates the evidence of PW1 and that the death of the deceased is due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Ex.P4 -post mortem report discloses that there is severe injuries on the face of the deceased and a crush injury on the neck of the deceased which corroborates the evidence of PW1 and that the death of the deceased is due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has recorded a specific finding of fact, holding that, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of KSRTC Bus, the deceased sustained grievous head injuries and succumbed to the same at the spot and therefore, the Corporation is liable to indemnify the award. The said finding, in our view, is just and proper and therefore, the submission of the learned counsel appearing for Corporation is rejected and we hold that the Tribunal is highly justified in fastening the liability on the Corporation to indemnify the award and interference in the said finding is not called for. Re-Point II] : So far as quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal is concerned, it is seen that, occurrence of accident and the resultant death of deceased Prakash are not in dispute. Claimants are none other than the wife, minor daughter and mother of deceased. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 45 years at the time of accident as per documentary evidence at Ex.P22 and working as a Teacher in Government Primary School, drawing salary of Rs.15,041/-per month, as per Exs.P14 and P20, salary slips for the month of April 2011. The accident has occurred in the month of May 2011. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in assessing the said income, which is relevant. Further, as could be seen from the judgment, the Tribunal is justified in adding 30% of the gross income towards future prospects of the deceased as per the law laid down in Sarla Verma's case ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ). Accordingly, if 30% (i.e. Rs.4,512/-) is added to the aforesaid salary of the deceased, the total income comes to Rs.19,553/-per month. Out of this, if Rs.200/- is deducted towards professional tax, the income comes to Rs.19,353/-and per annum it comes to Rs.2,32,236/-. The Tribunal, after deducting the income tax at the rate of 10% on Rs.52,236/-, {i.e. Rs.2,32,236/- (-) Rs.1,80,000/-} as per the assessment year 2012-13, has arrived at the net income of the deceased at Rs.2,27,012/- per annum. Out of this, if Rs.200/- is deducted towards professional tax, the income comes to Rs.19,353/-and per annum it comes to Rs.2,32,236/-. The Tribunal, after deducting the income tax at the rate of 10% on Rs.52,236/-, {i.e. Rs.2,32,236/- (-) Rs.1,80,000/-} as per the assessment year 2012-13, has arrived at the net income of the deceased at Rs.2,27,012/- per annum. Out of this, since there are three claimants, i.e. the wife, minor daughter, and the mother of deceased, 1/3rd towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased is to be deducted as per Sarla Verma's case (supra). Accordingly, if 1/3rd (i.e. Rs.75,671/-) is deducted from it, the net income comes to Rs.1,51,341/-. Further, as the deceased was aged about 45 years as per Ex.P22, at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier applicable is 14', in view of the aforesaid judgment. Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency would work out to Rs.21,18,774/- (i.e. Rs.1,51,341/-x 14'). The said compensation arrived at by Tribunal towards loss of dependency is just and proper and does not call for interference. 12 Further, so far as compensation awarded towards conventional heads is concerned, we are of the considered view that a sum of Rs.25,000/-awarded under the conventional heads is on the lower side and liable to be enhanced. It can be seen that the claimants are all womenfolk, namely wife, minor daughter and aged mother and on account of the untimely and unnatural death of the deceased, who was working in a secured job, they are totally displaced and in serious financial crisis. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we award a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards loss of consortium; Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate; Rs.10,000/-to each claimant towards loss of love and affection and Rs.10,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses as against Rs.25,000/- awarded by Tribunal towards conventional heads. Thus, the total compensation would work out to Rs.21,78,774/- as against Rs.21,43,774/- awarded by Tribunal, with interest at 8% per annum, on the enhanced sum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. The enhancement of compensation would be Rs.35,000/-with 8% interest per annum. 13 In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by the Corporation is dismissed as being devoid of merit and the appeal filed by claimants is allowed in part. The enhancement of compensation would be Rs.35,000/-with 8% interest per annum. 13 In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by the Corporation is dismissed as being devoid of merit and the appeal filed by claimants is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 4th August 2012, passed in MVC No.3111/2011, by the XII Additional Small Causes Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs.35,000/-, with interest at 8% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization, in addition to the compensation awarded by Tribunal. The Corporation is directed to deposit the remaining compensation as ordered by Tribunal and also the enhanced compensation of Rs.35,000/-, with interest thereon at 8% per annum, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. Immediately on such deposit by the Corporation, the entire sum shall be released in favour of claimant No.1. Office to draw award, accordingly. The statutory amount in deposit by the Corporation in the appeal filed by it is directed to be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal, forthwith.