Judgment : N.K. Patil, J. 1. This appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment and award dated 7th January 2010, passed in MVC No.75/2008 (old No.1341/2008), by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) & J.M.F.C., K.R.Pet, (for short, 'Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs.3,71,000/-awarded in favour of the claimants as against their claim for Rs.30,00,000/-, is inadequate. 2. The facts in brief are that, the claimants are the wife, four children and parents of the deceased C.K. Boregowda. They filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that, at about 7:50 P.M, on 16-06-2008, when the deceased Boregowda was riding a Motor Cycle, bearing Registration No.KA-54/E-2685, on K.R. Pet- Channarayapatna road near Bhagyalakshmi Petrol Bunk, K.R. Pet, at that time, DCM Toyota Maxi Cabbearing Registration No.KA-25/6102, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came and dashed against the Motor Cycle in which, the deceased was proceeding. Due to the impact, the deceased Boregowda fell down and died on the spot. 3. It is the case of the appellants that, the deceased was aged about 42 years, a progressive agriculturist and also doing milk vending business by supplying 20 litres of milk every day and growing sugarcane crop in 5.16 guntas of wetland owned by him, and earning a sum of Rs.30,000/-per month and was hale and healthy prior to the accident. He was the sole earning member in the family and on account of the untimely death of the deceased, the appellants have lost the love and affection, inspiration and guidance, apart from social, financial and moral support and therefore, it is their case that they have to be compensated reasonably. 4. On account of the death of the deceased, the appellants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 7th January, 2010. 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.3,71,000/- 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 appellants are in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation. 5. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants are in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation. 5. We have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and heard the learned counsel appearing for appellants and also the Insurer, for quite some time. 6. Learned counsel appearing for claimants/appellants vehemently submitted that, the Tribunal grossly erred in taking the income of the deceased at only Rs.3,000/-per month at the rate of Rs.100/- per day. He submits that the claimants have stated that the deceased was aged about 42 years and a progressive agriculturist and also doing milk vending business by supplying 20 litres of milk every day and growing sugarcane crop in the 5.16 guntas of wetland owned by him. But, the Tribunal, without any valid reasons, has assessed the income of the deceased at only Rs.3,000/- per month. It ought to have assessed at least between Rs.6,000/- and Rs.7,000/- per month. Therefore, the monthly income assessed by Tribunal is liable to be re-assessed. Further, he submitted that the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/5th towards the personal expenses of the deceased, considering the large number of dependents and the fact that he was the sole earning member in the family and awarded reasonable compensation towards loss of dependency. He also vehemently submitted that the Tribunal further erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards the conventional heads. Therefore, he submitted that, the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal may be modified accordingly. 7. R1 is represented by a counsel and R-2 Insurer is served and un-represented. 8. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the appellants, and after careful perusal of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arise for our consideration in this appeal is, Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable? The undisputed facts of the case are the occurrence of accident and the resultant death of the deceased. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 42 years and a progressive agriculturist and also doing milk vending business. It is stated that he was supplying 20 litres of milk every day and growing sugarcane crop in the 5.16 guntas of wetland owned by him. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 42 years and a progressive agriculturist and also doing milk vending business. It is stated that he was supplying 20 litres of milk every day and growing sugarcane crop in the 5.16 guntas of wetland owned by him. In support of the same, the claimants have produced the RTC extracts, totally numbering 9, Weighment Ticket, in all 6 Nos and Milk Dairy Car, in all 18 Nos, to establish they the deceased possessed the land, was growing sugarcane crop and also supplying milk to the Milk Dairy. But, it should be noted that the said land continues to exist and benefit can be derived out of it. But, it can be seen that the Tribunal is also not justified in assessing the income of the deceased at only Rs.3,000/-per month. The same is on the lower side and needs to be re-assessed. The accident is of the year 2008 and the deceased was aged about 42 years and a progressive agriculturist and also doing milk vending business. Therefore, having regard to the age, avocations and also the year of accident, we re-assess the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. Further, even though the claimants are six in number, all the children were major except one and the dependents were only wife aged about 38 years, minor child aged about 17 years and aged parents of deceased aged about 75 years and 68 respective, at the time of accident, i.e. in all four persons. Therefore, we deduct 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased as against 1/3rd deducted by Tribunal and also as against 1/5th pointed out by learned counsel appearing for claimants. Accordingly, If 1/4th (i.e. Rs.1,500/-) is deducted from Rs.6,000/- towards his personal expenses, the net income would be Rs.4,500/-per month. Further, it is stated that the deceased was aged about 42 years as on the date of accident. Therefore, for the said age, the proper multiplier applicable is 14' as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court Sarla Verma's case ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ) as rightly adopted by Tribunal. Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency would work out to Rs.7,56,000/-(i.e. Rs.4,500/- x 12 x 14') as against Rs.3,36,000/- awarded by Tribunal. 9. Further, the Tribunal erred in awarding only Rs.35,000/-towards conventional heads. Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency would work out to Rs.7,56,000/-(i.e. Rs.4,500/- x 12 x 14') as against Rs.3,36,000/- awarded by Tribunal. 9. Further, the Tribunal erred in awarding only Rs.35,000/-towards conventional heads. But, as per the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra), we award a sum of Rs.45,000/- under the conventional heads, , viz. loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of estate and transportation of dead body and funeral expenses as against Rs.35,000/-awarded by Tribunal. Thus, the total compensation payable to claimants works out to Rs.8,01,000/- as against Rs.3,71,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. There would be enhancement of compensation by a sum of Rs.4,30,000/-with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. 10. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by appellant is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 7th January 2010, passed in MVC No.75/2008 (old No.1341/2008), by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) & J.M.F.C., K.R.Pet, is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs.8,01,000/-as against Rs.3,71,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced sum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. Thus, there would be enhancement of compensation by a sum of Rs.4,30,000/-with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.4,30,000/-, with interest thereon at 6% per annum, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. Immediately on such deposit by the Insurance Company, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of first appellant - wife of deceased, in Fixed Deposit, in any scheduled/ Nationalized Bank, for a period of ten years, renewable by another ten years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the periodical interest. A sum of Rs.50,000/-each with proportionate interest shall be invested in the names of appellant Nos.2, 3, 4, and 5 - children of deceased, in Fixed Deposit, in any scheduled/ Nationalized Bank, for a period of five years, renewable by another five years, with liberty reserved to them to withdraw their respective periodical interest, as the 5th appellant also would have been major by now. A sum of Rs.50,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of seventh appellant - mother of deceased, in Fixed Deposit, in any scheduled/ Nationalized Bank, for a period of three years, renewable by another three years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the periodical interest. Remaining sum of Rs.80,000/-with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant Nos.1, 6 and 7, in equal proportion, immediately. Office to draw award, accordingly.