Judgment 1. This appeal is filed by the claimants of M.V.C. No. 118/2011, aggrieved by the inadequacy of compensation awarded by the learned Senior Civil Judge & Member, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hiriyur, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal) vide judgment and award dated 2nd April 2012. 2. The appellants are the wife, children and mother of deceased Gangarma @ Gangadhar, who died in a vehicular accident that occurred on 16.7.2011. On his death, they filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of Rs.30 lakhs. 3. Their case was 'on 16.7.2011 at 3.00 p.m., deceased along with others was travelling in an auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-16/A-461 from Hiriyur Town to Taluk Office for his personal work; The driver drove the auto rickshaw in a rash and negligent manner with high speed; near Vedavathi river bridge, the driver lost control of the vehicle and he dashed to the left side bridge; the inmates of the auto rickshaw sustained grievous injuries. The deceased died on the way to the hospital. He was hale and healthy at the time of the accident, aged 48 years. He was the sole bread-earner of the family. He was both agriculturist and a real estate agent earning handful income. 4. The petition was contested, however, it was brought on record that the vehicle in question was covered by the Insurance Company vide policy/Ex.R1. 5. The Tribunal considered the case of the appellant along with another claim petition filed by an injured of the same accident and disposed of both cases vide common judgment and award. 6. By working out the loss of dependency on the basis of a notional income of the deceased i.e., Rs.3,000/-per month, by deducting 1 /5th of the same towards the personal expenses of the deceased and by multiplying with the multiplier of 13' at Rs.3,74,400/- and further awarded Rs.40,000/-towards conventional heads and has awarded compensation of Rs.4,14,400/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 7. Smt.K.B.Jayalakshmi, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that, there was overwhelmed evidence on record that the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- per month, but the notional income of Rs.3,000/'- per month assumed by the Tribunal was too low; the amount awarded under the conventional heads also does not meet the loss suffered and actual expenses incurred by the family. 7. Smt.K.B.Jayalakshmi, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that, there was overwhelmed evidence on record that the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- per month, but the notional income of Rs.3,000/'- per month assumed by the Tribunal was too low; the amount awarded under the conventional heads also does not meet the loss suffered and actual expenses incurred by the family. The first appellant in the middle of her age lost the love, society and company of her husband; the appellants-2 to 4 in their formative age not only lost the love and affection of their father but also his guidance and support both financial and emotional; the fifth respondent at the fag end of her life is rendered helpless on the death of her only son. In that view of the matter, the amount of Rs.1,14.400/ awarded by the Tribunal may be adequately enhanced by just and reasonable amount. 8. In reply, Sri.D.Vijay Kumar, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company substantiates the impugned judgment and award as just and proper and submits that loss of dependency was worked out on notional income of Rs.3,000/-per month since there was no documentary evidence in respect of the income earned by the deceased and submits that the Tribunal on overall appreciation of the evidence on record has properly assessed the loss suffered by the appellants under conventional heads and the amount awarded is just and reasonable and the appeal is liable to be rejected. 9. After careful consideration of 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?" 10. The relationship of the appellants to deceased Ganganna @ Gangadhar, who died in the vehicular accident on 16.7.201-1 on account of rash and negligent driving of the auto rickshaw bearing registration No. KA- 16/A-461, which is covered by the first respondent/'Insurance company being an admitted fact, the question is about the income of the deceased, who was the sole earning member of the family. There is RTC extract evincing that he was an agriculturist by profession. There is RTC extract evincing that he was an agriculturist by profession. Though there is no documentary proof about his real estate business, however, having regard to the given circumstance of the case and the ate of the accident, both Counsel have submitted that the notional income of the deceased may be taken as Rs.6,000/- per month as against Rs.3,000/-adopted bv the Tribunal. Since the claimants are five in number, 1 / 4th shall be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, i.e., Rs.4,500/-(Rs.6000/- - Rs. 1,500/-). As the deceased was aged 48 yeas, the suitable multiplier is 13'. Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency comes to Rs.7,02,000/- (Rs.4,500/- xl2xl3). By awarding Rs.50,000/- to the first appellant towards loss of consortium, who has lost her husband in the middle of her age and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 10,000/-towards funeral and transport expenses, the total compensation worked out to Rs.8,22,000/- as against Rs.4,14,400/-awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, there will be enhancement of Rs.4,07,600/- for which the appellants are entitled for. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 2nd April 2012, m M.V.C. No. 118/2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & Additional M.A.C.T., Hiriyur, is hereby modified, awarding enhanced compensation of Rs.4,07,600/- interest at 8% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization. The first respondent/Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.4,07,600/- with interest at 8% 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. Immediately on such deposit, out of the enhanced compensation of Rs.4,07,600/-, Rs.2,00,000/-with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of first appellant/wife of the deceased, in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized/Scheduled Bank, for a period of ten years renewable by another ten years, with liberty to her to draw the interest accrued periodically. Further, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of fifth appellant/mother of the deceased, in Fixed deposit in any Nationalized/Scheduled Bank, for a period of ten years renewable by another five years, with liberty to her to draw the interest accrued periodically. Remaining amount of Rs. Further, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of fifth appellant/mother of the deceased, in Fixed deposit in any Nationalized/Scheduled Bank, for a period of ten years renewable by another five years, with liberty to her to draw the interest accrued periodically. Remaining amount of Rs. 1,07,600/- with proportionate interest shall be released in the names of first appellant/ wife of the deceased and fifth appellant/mother of the deceased, equally.