JUDGMENT : S.N. Satyanarayana, J. These two appeals are by the claimants in MVC Nos. 1711/2012 and 1712/2012 on the file of MACT No. VII, Bijapur. The first appeal in MFA No. 201538/1014 is by the parents, widow and children of Deceased-Timmanna Honnutagi seeking enhancement of compensation for the death of Timmanna Honnutagi. The second appeal is t the widow of Timmanna Honnutagi for the injuries suffered by her in the very same accident. 2. Brief facts leading to these two appeals are as under : The records would disclose that on 27-8-2012 at about 4.30 p.m., when deceased-Thimmanna Honnutagi was proceeding along with his wife-Jyothi as a pillion rider on motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-28-Q-2250 they met with an accident involving Jeep bearing registration No. KA-23/M-3598. The said accident is not in dispute. As a result of the accident, Timmanna Honnutagi died on the spot and his wife sustained certain injuries. Hence, two claim petitions came to be filed, one by the legal representatives of deceased-Thimmanna Honnutagi seeking compensation for his death and another by his widow Smt. Jyothi seeking compensation for the injuries suffered in the said accident. In the claim petitions common evidence was recorded and common documents which are relied upon by the parties is appreciated. Based on the material available on record, the Tribunal proceeded to allow the claim petition filed by the legal representatives of deceased-Timmanna Honnutagi by awarding compensation in a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- payable with interest at 6% per annum. Whereas, the claim petition filed by his wife Jyothi was allowed awarding compensation in a sum of Rs. 55,000/- payable with interest at 6% per annum. 3. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, these two appeals are filed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and as well as contesting respondent-in-surer of the Jeep for the reason that the Jeep insured with the second respondent is said to have caused the accident resulting in death of Timmanna Honnutagi and injury to his wife Jyothi. 5. On going through the material available on record, it is seen that the claimants have stated that Timmanna Honnutagi who was aged 36 years, was an agriculturist and from out of the income, he was taking care of his parents, wife and two children and that his income was in the range of Rs. 5. On going through the material available on record, it is seen that the claimants have stated that Timmanna Honnutagi who was aged 36 years, was an agriculturist and from out of the income, he was taking care of his parents, wife and two children and that his income was in the range of Rs. 10,000/- per month and he was also doing work as mason. However, they were not able to establish either avocation or income of Rs. 10,000/- per month. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal proceeded to take his income notionally at Rs. 4,500/- per month and took the loss of dependency to the family as th of the said amount and proceeded to award compensation in a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/-by adopting multiplier of 15 and the total compensation which was awarded included the compensation payable under conventional heads. So far as the claimant-Jyothi is concerned, with reference to certain simple injuries suffered by her, compensation in a sum of Rs. 55,000/- is awarded. The said compensation is on the lower side, inasmuch as, merely, Rs. 32,500/- is awarded as the amount which is spent by her towards her treatment for the injuries suffered in the accident. 6. On going through the material available on record, this Court feels that the compensation which is awarded to the legal representatives of the deceased-Timmanna Honnutagi is on the lower side for the reason that the accident is dated 27-8-2012. Though in the claim petition it is pleaded that the deceased-Timmanna Honnutagi was working as agriculturist and mason and was earning income of Rs. 10,000/- per month, the claimants have failed to establish the same. Therefore, normally, what should have been considered by the Tribunal as notional income for similarly placed persons would be taking the same at Rs. 6,500/- per month as is followed by this Court in the Lok-Adalath for deciding the compensation payable to the person who has suffered injury or death in or around the year 2012 where his income and avocation is not established. If the same analogy is applied to the case on hand, the income that is required to be taken is at Rs. 6,500/- per month. 7. In the instant case, the deceased was aged about 36 years and he had a long future ahead of him. If the same analogy is applied to the case on hand, the income that is required to be taken is at Rs. 6,500/- per month. 7. In the instant case, the deceased was aged about 36 years and he had a long future ahead of him. He had the responsibility of bringing up his two minor children who are aged 2 and 4 years as on the date of accident. Hence, it is not expected that his income would remain the same. Therefore, future prospects are required to be considered. Under normal circumstance, in Lok-Adalath, where the injured or deceased is not having permanent employment and he is doing avocation of business or coolie work, 25% of notional income is normally taken as future prospects if he is aged between 40 and 50 years. In the instant case, the deceased-Timmanna Honnutagi being aged about 36 years, taking 25% of Rs. 6,500/- as future prospects would be just and proper. 8. If that is taken into consideration, his notional income inclusive of future prospects would be Rs. 8,125/- per month or Rs. 97,500/- per annum. If 14th out of that is deducted towards his personal upkeep, the loss of dependency to the family would be Rs. 73,125/-per annum which is required to be multiplied by multiplier of 15 to arrive to the total loss of dependency to the family which is quantified at Rs. 10,96,875/- in this case. In addition to that, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded towards conventional heads which includes loss of love and affection; loss of consortium to the wife and funeral expenses. With this, total revised compensation to the claimants in MFA No. 201538/2014 would be Rs. 11,96,875/- or enhanced compensation in a sum of Rs. 5,46,875/- which the claimants would be entitled with interest at 6% per annum. Accordingly, the appeal in MFA No. 201538/2014 is allowed in part. 9. The enhanced compensation is ordered to be distributed among claimant Nos. 1, 2,4 and 5 in the following manner: A sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- each with proportionate interest is ordered to be deposited in the name of appellant Nos. Accordingly, the appeal in MFA No. 201538/2014 is allowed in part. 9. The enhanced compensation is ordered to be distributed among claimant Nos. 1, 2,4 and 5 in the following manner: A sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- each with proportionate interest is ordered to be deposited in the name of appellant Nos. 4 and 5 in any nationalized bank initially for a period of five years and it shall be renewed until each one of them attain age of 21 years and it is made clear that interest shall also get accumulated to the principle amount and the entire amount with proportionate interest shall be available to them at the age of attaining 21 years by each one of them. Out of the remaining amount of Rs. 46,875/- with proportionate interest, 50% each shall be released in favour of appellant Nos. 1 and 2. 10. Out of the enhanced compensation, no amount shall be reserved for appellant No. 3-Jyothi for the reason that she is gainfully employed and she is earning salary with her employment in the State Government. 11. So far as the second appeal which is filed by the claimant-Jyothi in MVC No. 1712/2012 is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the compensation awarded to her for the simple injuries at Rs. 55,000/- is just and proper. Therefore, question of considering this appeal for enhancement does not arise. Accordingly, the appeal in MFA No. 201539/2014 is dismissed.