JUDGMENT 1. These two appeals are respectively by the claimants and the insurer being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated 07.09.2011 passed in MVC No. 1041/2005 on the file of the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III and II Addl. District Judge, D.K., Mangalore, (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal' for short), for enhancement and reduction of compensation, respectively. By its judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 26,51,571/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization as against the claim made by the claimants on account of the death of the deceased-D. Manjunatha in the road traffic accident. It is contention of the claimants that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and requires enhancement. Whereas, the learned counsel for insurer contends that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is disproportionate to the source of income of the deceased and also the Tribunal has erred in not fixing contributory negligence reasonably on the part of the driver of the taxi hired by the deceased. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, claimants have presented MFA No. 11293/2011 and insurer has presented MFA No. 11535/2011. 2. In brief, the facts of the case is as under: Claimants 1, 2. and 3 are none other than the wife, daughter and the son of the deceased and they have filed a claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act claiming compensation against the insurer and owner of the offending vehicle, contending that, when the deceased was travelling on 12.03.2005 in a hired taxi bearing Registration No. KA-19/AE-4554 to go to Mapusa, he met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. KA-01/D-2391. 3. It is case of the claimants that the deceased was aged about 46 years and hale and healthy as on the date of accident and he being a bank employee was drawing a salary of Rs. 25,470/- as per Ex. P10-Salary Certificate and looking after the claimants. He was the only earning member in the family. Due to his untimely death, the 1st claimant has lost her husband at the young age and the 2nd and 3rd claimants have lost security, guidance and inspiration in life. His death has affected the social and economic condition of the claimants. P10-Salary Certificate and looking after the claimants. He was the only earning member in the family. Due to his untimely death, the 1st claimant has lost her husband at the young age and the 2nd and 3rd claimants have lost security, guidance and inspiration in life. His death has affected the social and economic condition of the claimants. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after appreciating the oral evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 and RWs. 1 to 3 and documentary evidence marked at Exs. P1 to 16 and Exs. R1 to 7 and considering the age, avocation and number of the dependents of the deceased, has allowed the claim petition in part and awarded the compensation of Rs. 26,51,571/- under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal the claimants have presented the appeal, for enhancement of compensation and the insurer has presented the appeal for reduction of compensation and also for fixing reasonable contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the taxi. 4. The submission of Sri P. Karunakar, learned counsel appearing for the claimants at the outset is that, the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding reasonable compensation towards loss of dependency To substantiate the same, he pointed out and submitted that in the light of the decision reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 , while calculating the income of the deceased, the future prospects at 30% may be added to the income and after deducting income tax and professional tax, compensation may be re-determined by awarding reasonable compensation by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 5. As against this, Sri P.B. Raju, learned counsel appearing for the Insurer inter alia at the outset submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not fixing any contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the taxi hired by the deceased. From the sketch it is crystal clear that there is negligence on the part of the driver of the Taxi also. Further he submitted that the compensation awarded is disproportionate to the source of income of the deceased. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to modified. 6. From the sketch it is crystal clear that there is negligence on the part of the driver of the Taxi also. Further he submitted that the compensation awarded is disproportionate to the source of income of the deceased. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to modified. 6. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for consideration is: Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? 7. It is not in dispute that the deceased died in the road traffic accident. Further it is not in dispute that, the deceased was aged about 46 years and hale and healthy at the time of accident and he being a Bank employee was drawing a salary of Rs. 25,470/- per month and looking after the welfare of the claimants as he was the only earning member in the family. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the claimants, in the light of the decision in Sarla Verma's case another 30% is to be added towards future prospects of the deceased. As per Ex. P10 we have taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 25,470/- and per annum it works out to Rs. 3,05,640/-. If 30% i.e. Rs. 91,692/- towards future prospects is added to the income of the deceased, it comes to Rs. 3,97,332/-. Out of which, if income tax at 20% i.e. Rs. 79,466/- is deducted it works out to Rs. 3,17,866/-. Further, claimants are 3 in number, therefore 1/3rd is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. If, 1/3rd is deducted, it comes Rs. 2,11,911/-. As the deceased was aged about 46 years at the time of accident the appropriate multiplier applicable is 13. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled towards loss of dependency at Rs. 27,54,843/- (Rs. 2,11,911/- x 13) Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, a sum of Rs. 65,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads, such as loss of love and affection, loss of estate, loss of consortium, transportation and funeral expenses is just and reasonable and does not call for interference. In all, the claimants are entitled for Rs. 2,11,911/- x 13) Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, a sum of Rs. 65,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads, such as loss of love and affection, loss of estate, loss of consortium, transportation and funeral expenses is just and reasonable and does not call for interference. In all, the claimants are entitled for Rs. 28,19,843/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 8. There will be enhancement of Rs. 1,68,272/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation. 9. The submission of Sri P.B. Raju, learned counsel appearing for the insurer regarding contributory negligence cannot be accepted for the reason that the Tribunal after due and critical evaluation of the records available on file has held 100% negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry as it is crystal clear from the sketch that the lorry has come towards extreme right side of the road as per Ex. P2, which shows full negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. There is no fault in the finding of the Tribunal in holding 100% negligence on the part of the driver of lorry. Therefore, interference by this Court in the same is also not called for. Hence, the submission of the learned counsel is rejected. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, the appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part and the appeal filed by the insurer is dismissed as devoid of merits. Impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dated 07.09.2011 in MVC No. 1041/2005 is hereby modified. The total compensation payable comes to Rs. 28,19,830/- as against Rs. 27,54,830/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,68,259/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realisation, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Out of the enhanced compensation, Rs. 50,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, in the name of the 1st claimant for a period of ten years and renewable for another ten years, with liberty to her to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on it. Out of the remaining amount, Rs. Out of the enhanced compensation, Rs. 50,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, in the name of the 1st claimant for a period of ten years and renewable for another ten years, with liberty to her to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on it. Out of the remaining amount, Rs. 50,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of 3rd claimant till he attains the age of 30 years with liberty to the 1st claimant to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on it till he attains the age of 21 years and thereafter he is at liberty to withdraw the interest accrued on it periodically. The remaining Rs. 68,259/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the 1st claimant, immediately, on deposit by the Insurer. The amount in deposit by the appellant-insurer in MFA No. 11535/2011 shall be transferred to the jurisdictional Tribunal, immediately. Sri H.S. Lingaraju, learned counsel is permitted to file Vakalath for R6 in MFA No. 11535/2011 within four weeks from today. Draw the award, accordingly.