JUDGMENT N.K. Patil, J.—These two appeals respectively by the parents of deceased and the wife and minor child of deceased are directed against the common judgment and award dated 13th July 2010, passed in MVC Nos. 2485/2009 and 3492/2009, by the XVIII Additional Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-4, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore (SCCH-4), (for short, 'Tribunal'). While the parents of deceased Basavaraj Togarsi have filed M.F.A. No. 1737/2011, seeking re-apportionment of the compensation awarded by Tribunal at 80% in favour of the wife and minor child and 20% in favour of the parents, on the ground that it is inadequate, the wife and minor child have filed M.F.A. No. 9426/2010, seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 14,70,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. awarded in favour of the claimants as against the claim made is inadequate. 2. Shri. K.A. Chandrashekara, learned counsel appearing for the parents of the deceased in M.F.A. No. 1737/2011 vehemently submits that the Tribunal grossly erred in not awarding reasonable compensation for the untimely death of the deceased and the income of the deceased taken by the Tribunal at Rs. 10,000/- per month is on the lower side and liable to be re-assessed, for the reason that as per Ex. P15, the deceased was appointed as Assistant Manager (Sales) in a Private Limited Company, offering a salary of Rs. 7,07,100/- per annum. But unfortunately, he died after completion of just one month service, on account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Therefore, he submits that the income of the deceased may be re-determined and reasonable compensation may be awarded towards loss of dependency as also under conventional heads. Further, he vehemently submitted that the Tribunal grossly erred in apportioning the compensation in the ratio of 80:20, i.e. 80% in favour of the wife and minor child of deceased and 20% in favour of the parents of deceased, when in fact, the Tribunal ought to have apportioned the compensation at least in the ratio of 50:50, in the interest of justice and equity. Therefore, he submits that the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is liable to be modified, by re-determining and re-apportioning the compensation. 3. Therefore, he submits that the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is liable to be modified, by re-determining and re-apportioning the compensation. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the wife and minor child of the deceased in M.F.A. No. 9426/2010 vehemently submitted that the Tribunal committed an error and illegality in not awarding reasonable compensation on account of the untimely and unnatural death of the deceased. He submits that, the Tribunal, without any justification, erred in taking the notional income of the deceased at only Rs. 10,000/- when in fact, as per Ex. P15, the deceased was working as a Assistant Manager (Sales) in a Private Limited Company and was on a probation for a period of six months and was offered a salary of Rs. 7,07,100/- per annum. But, unfortunately, before the expiry of the probationary period, the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident just after completion of one month of service. He submits that the deceased had a bright future as he had good experience in sales and also well qualified and had a fair chance of future increase in salary as per the terms and conditions of the appointment order. But, the Tribunal, without any justification has even failed to take at least the basic salary of deceased at Rs. 16,500/- per month as per Ex. P15. Further, he vehemently submitted that in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 2009 SC 3104 , 50% may be added to the income towards future prospects and deducting ¼th towards the personal expenses of the deceased, as the dependents are four in number, reasonable compensation may be awarded towards loss of dependency and also conventional heads. He also submits that the Tribunal is highly justified in apportioning the compensation in the ratio of 80:20 in favour of the wife and minor child of deceased and the parents of deceased respectively, for the reason that the wife was aged only about 28 years at the time of accident and the minor child Adithya was only 10 months old and she, being a single parent, has to shoulder the responsibility of her son all alone including moulding his career till he becomes major or self dependent. Therefore, interference in the apportionment ordered by Tribunal is not called for. 4. Therefore, interference in the apportionment ordered by Tribunal is not called for. 4. As against the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parents of deceased and wife and minor child of deceased, Shri. O. Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for Insurer vehemently submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable, inasmuch as the same is passed after due consideration of the entire material available on file, including the oral and documentary evidence, and rightly assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 10,000/-. He further submits that since the accident has occurred during January 2009, just after one month after joining duty, the question of taking at least the basic salary of deceased at Rs. 16,500/- as per Ex. P15 does not arise. Further, as per the said documentary evidence at Ex. P15, the deceased was under probation for a period of six months and he has died after one month of service. Since the probationary period was not yet completed and since the claimants have not produced an iota of document in support of the income, except Ex. P15, the income assessed by Tribunal at Rs. 10,000/- per month is just and proper and does not call for interference. Further, he submits that the Tribunal, in fact, erred in deducting ¼th towards the personal expenses of the deceased, when in fact, it ought to have deducted 1/3rd, for the reason that the father of the deceased was a Professor and not dependent on the deceased son and also the fact that the parents were living separately. Therefore, he submits, viewed from any angle, the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for interference by this Court. 5. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after going through the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal including the original records placed before us, the points that arise for our consideration in these two appeals are: I) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal calls for interference? II) Whether the apportionment ordered by Tribunal in favour of parents at 20% is just and proper? Re-Point I: The occurrence of accident and the resultant death of deceased Basavaraj Togarsi are not in dispute. II) Whether the apportionment ordered by Tribunal in favour of parents at 20% is just and proper? Re-Point I: The occurrence of accident and the resultant death of deceased Basavaraj Togarsi are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 33 years, working as Assistant Manager (Sales) at Designtech Systems Limited, Bangalore. It can be seen that as per Ex. P15, the deceased was on probation for a period of six months and was offered salary of Rs. 7,07,100/- per annum and other perks. In support of the said income, the claimants have examined the Officer of the Company, viz. Deputy General Manager, Designtech Systems Limited as PW 5. He has deposed that the deceased had studied Diploma in Mechanical Engineering, Post Diploma in Tool Design and drafting, B.A. and M.B.A. (Marketing and Finance) and had joined their Company as Assistant Manager (Sales) and his salary was fixed at Rs. 7,07,100/- per annum on 15-01-2009. In support of the same, Ex. P15 - appointment order is produced. The Tribunal has disbelieved the said income on the basis that the deceased was still under probationary period and the incentives were based on performance and it is too early to judge the performance of the deceased as he had completed only one month of service. But, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, it is seen that as per Ex. P15, the basic salary of deceased was Rs. 16,500/- per month and gross salary was Rs. 32,550/- with allowances. The other heads are conveyance allowance, House Rent allowance, City Compensatory Allowance etc. and the said allowances cannot be taken into consideration as they are given if a person had been alive and works for the Company. In the case on hand, the deceased has died just after one month of his appointment. As rightly observed by the Tribunal, it is true that the incentives are based on performance and it was too early to judge the performance of deceased, but, at the same time, the income of the deceased ought not to have been assessed at a notional income of only Rs. 10,000/- per month, especially, in the presence of documentary evidence at Ex. P15 coupled with the oral evidence of PW 5 and other relevant facts and circumstances of the case. 10,000/- per month, especially, in the presence of documentary evidence at Ex. P15 coupled with the oral evidence of PW 5 and other relevant facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, after re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, we can safely reassess the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 16,500/-, to meet the ends of justice. 6. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing Insurer, the claimants are not entitled to 50% enhancement towards future prospects in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in AIR 2009 SC 3104 , for the reason that admittedly, the deceased was under probation for a period of six months and his appointment was not yet confirmed. During the probationary period, just after completion of one month probationary period, the deceased, unfortunately has succumbed to the grievous injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Therefore, this is not a fit case to apply the ratio of law laid down by Apex Court in AIR 2009 SC 3104 regarding future prospects. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case including age, avocation and the oral and documentary evidence, particular Ex. P15, we re-assess the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 16,500/- per month, to meet the ends of justice and to safe guard the interest of both the claimants as also the insurer. The dependents are parents, wife and a minor son. Therefore, we deduct 1/4th towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, If ¼th (i.e. Rs. 4,125/-) is deducted from Rs. 16,500/- towards his personal expenses, the net income would be Rs. 12,375/- per month. Since the deceased was aged about 33 years, the proper multiplier applicable is 16' as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 2009 SC 3104 as rightly adopted by Tribunal. Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency would work out to Rs. 23,76,000/- (i.e. Rs. 12,375/- x 12 x 16') as against Rs. 14,40,000/- awarded by Tribunal and accordingly it is awarded. Further, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we award a sum of Rs. 45,000/- towards conventional heads, viz. loss of consortium, loss of estate, loss of love and affection and transportation and funeral expenses as against Rs. 30,000/- awarded by Tribunal. Thus, the total compensation would work out to Rs. 24,21,000/- as against Rs. Further, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we award a sum of Rs. 45,000/- towards conventional heads, viz. loss of consortium, loss of estate, loss of love and affection and transportation and funeral expenses as against Rs. 30,000/- awarded by Tribunal. Thus, the total compensation would work out to Rs. 24,21,000/- as against Rs. 14,70,000/- awarded by Tribunal. The enhancement of compensation would be Rs. 9,51,000/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the age of the parents and the fact that the other claimants are young widow and a minor child of deceased, to meet the ends of justice and to safeguard the interest of both parties, we deem it fit to apportion the enhanced compensation of Rs. 9,51,000/- in the ratio of 60:40, i.e. 60% in favour of the wife and minor child of deceased and 40% in favour of the parents of deceased. Accordingly, we award a sum of Rs. 5,70,600/- in favour of the wife and minor child of deceased and a sum of Rs. 3,80,400/- in favour of the parents of deceased. Re-Point II: It is the specific case of the parents of deceased that the apportionment ordered by Tribunal at 80% in favour of the wife and child of deceased and 20% in their favour is unreasonable and on the lower side and therefore, liable to be re-apportioned, for the reason that there is no rationale behind the said apportionment. To substantiate their case, learned counsel appearing for the parents of the deceased submitted that, the parents were senior citizens aged about 60 years and 70 years respectively as on the date of filing the claim petition and they were entirely dependent, on the deceased son as he was the only earning member in the family. Mere living separately by the deceased along with his wife and minor child cannot deprive their legitimate entitlement and the deceased cannot shirk his responsibility in looking after his parents by providing the day-to-day necessities including medical expenses and other incidental expenses. We find sufficient force in the submission of the learned counsel for the parents of deceased. Mere living separately by the deceased along with his wife and minor child cannot deprive their legitimate entitlement and the deceased cannot shirk his responsibility in looking after his parents by providing the day-to-day necessities including medical expenses and other incidental expenses. We find sufficient force in the submission of the learned counsel for the parents of deceased. But, after going through the relevant material available on file, it is noticed that the Tribunal has ordered the said apportionment on the ground that the father of the deceased was a retired Professor and getting reasonable pension to maintain himself and his wife and therefore, was not much dependent on the income of the deceased son. But, on the other hand, the wife and minor child were totally dependent on the income of the deceased. The said view taken by Tribunal is just and proper. However, in the preceding paragraphs, we have safeguarded the interest of the parents also in awarding 40% of the enhanced compensation of Rs. 3,80,400/- in their favour. Therefore, we do not propose to interfere in the apportionment ordered by the Tribunal in the compensation awarded by it. Hence, interference by this Court in the apportionment of compensation in the ratio of 80:20 i.e. 80% in favour of the wife and minor child of deceased and 20% in favour of the parents of deceased is uncalled for and the same stands confirmed. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeals filed by the claimants/appellants are allowed in part. The impugned common judgment and award dated 13th July 2010, passed in MVC Nos. 2485/2009 and 3492/2009, by the XVIII Additional Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-4, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore (SCCH-4), is hereby modified, awarding compensation of a sum of Rs. 9,51,000/- with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization, in addition to compensation awarded by Tribunal. The Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest thereon at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit by the Insurer, out of the 60% of enhanced compensation of Rs. 9,51,000/-, i.e. Rs. 5,70,600/-, awarded in favour of the wife and minor child of deceased, a sum of Rs. On such deposit by the Insurer, out of the 60% of enhanced compensation of Rs. 9,51,000/-, i.e. Rs. 5,70,600/-, awarded in favour of the wife and minor child of deceased, a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be deposited in Fixed Deposit in the name of the wife of the deceased -- Smt. Sanjana alias Mangala G., in any Nationalized/Scheduled Bank, for a period of ten years, renewable for ten years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the periodical interest. A sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be deposited in Fixed Deposit in the name of the minor son of deceased, in any Nationalized/Scheduled Bank, till he attains the age of 30 years, with liberty reserved to the natural guardian mother to withdraw the periodical interest, for his welfare till he attains 20 years and from 21 years, the son is entitled to withdraw the periodical interest. Remaining sum of Rs. 70,600/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the wife of deceased, immediately. Out of the 40% of enhanced compensation of Rs. 9,51,000/-, i.e. Rs. 3,80,400/-, awarded in favour of the parents of deceased, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be deposited in Fixed Deposit in the name of the mother of the deceased--Smt. Chandralekha Ganesh Togarsi, in any Nationalized/Scheduled Bank, for a period of five years, renewable for five years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the periodical interest. A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be deposited in Fixed Deposit in the name of the father of the deceased -- Dr. Ganesh Veerabasappa Togarsi, in any Nationalized/Scheduled Bank, for a period of five years, renewable for five years, with liberty reserved to him to withdraw the periodical interest. Remaining sum of Rs. 80,400/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of both the parents of deceased, in equal proportion, immediately. Office to draw the award accordingly