JUDGMENT : N.K. Sudhindrarao, J. Learned counsel for the appellant submits notices to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 may be dispensed. Though this matter is posted for orders, with the consent of learned counsel for both parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 2. The appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by the learned Member, MACT, Mysuru in MVC No. 470/2013, wherein the claim petition filed came to be allowed in part and an amount of Rs. 10,48,600/- was awarded with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 3. MVC No. 470/2013 came to be disposed through a common judgment along with MVC No. 471/2013. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that MVC No. 471/2013 does not belong to the present MVC No. 470/2013. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, the parties hereinafter are referred with reference to their respective ranking before the Tribunal. 4. The claim petition came to be filed by Rangegowda husband of one Lakshmamma and two daughters. On 16.2.2013 at about 1.15 p.m. the first petitioner along with his wife were returning from Channarayapatna to their village on a Hero Honda motorcycle bearing No. KA-13/S-8947. By that time, the first respondent drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle on which the first petitioner and his wife were travelling, due to which the first petitioner suffered injuries and wife suffered serious injuries and succumbed to them at the spot. Due to her demise, compensation is claimed, on various counts including loss of dependency by her husband and children. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant and respondents submits that husband of deceased Lakshmamma has not preferred any appeal in respect of the injuries sustained by him. 6. Insofar as 3rd respondent Smt. Sheela is concerned, the Insurance Company opposes the petition contending that the accident occurred due to negligence that was contributed by petitioner No. 1 who incidentally is the husband of Lakshmamma. 7. Basing on the material propositions asserted by one and denied by the other respectively and on considering the relevant materials placed on record, the Tribunal framed the issues covering the accident, negligence, injuries sustained, disability, cause of death and entitlement for compensation and insofar as adducing evidence. The first petitioner-claimant got himself examined as PW.1 and Dr. Gangu Hiral as PW.2. The first petitioner-claimant got himself examined as PW.1 and Dr. Gangu Hiral as PW.2. Documents Exs. to 0 were filed including FIR, spot mahazar, sketch, wound certificate, copy of charge sheet, copy of inquest mahazar and related. Respondent Insurance Company got examined one Lakshman as RW.1. Exp. to were furnished. The appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company, the main point for consideration is ' quantum of compensation- . Death of Lakshmamma due to accident is not disputed and no violation of terms of licence or the insurance policy are raised. Thus, the aspect that would remain for adjudication is, economical status or earning capacity of Lakshmamma at Rs. 6,000/- per month and maintaining her family. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that Lakshmamma the wife of petitioner No. 1 was never earning to maintain the family rather she was depending on her husband. Amongst two daughters, one daughter is married, she is settled in her marital home. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that Lakshmamma maintaining her children. Though her one daughter was married, was living as a dependant. Learned counsel would further submit that, in rural segments women maintain their respective families by doing cattle rearing, milk vending and tailoring work. Having said that, the Tribunal has awarded compensation as under: Though the monthly income of the deceased is claimed at Rs. 40,000/- per month, the learned Member has considered at Rs. 6,000/-. Under the prevalent circumstance it cannot be said that a home maker while with an assignment cannot earn Rs. 6,000/- per month. Rs.6,000/- per month considering addition of 30% towards future prospects and thereafter 3rd to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. Net income is considered at Rs. 5,200/- per month. The age of the petitioner is 44 years. Multiplier applied is 14- . Hence, the petitioner is entitled to Rs. 8,73,600/- towards loss of dependency. Rs.1,00,000/- is granted towards loss of consortium. Rs. 25,000/- is granted towards funeral expenses. Rs. 30,000/- is granted to each of the petitioners towards loss of love and affection. Rs. 10,000/- is granted towards loss of estate. Rs. 10,000/- is granted towards transportation of dead body. Thus, in all, Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 10,48,600/-. 10. Rs.1,00,000/- is granted towards loss of consortium. Rs. 25,000/- is granted towards funeral expenses. Rs. 30,000/- is granted to each of the petitioners towards loss of love and affection. Rs. 10,000/- is granted towards loss of estate. Rs. 10,000/- is granted towards transportation of dead body. Thus, in all, Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 10,48,600/-. 10. Insofar as loss of dependency is concerned, Lakshmamma wife of the first petitioner is said to be a home maker, milk vendor and has done tailoring work and that is going to be considered for the purpose of computing notional monthly income as adding to regular income plus future prospects minus personal expenses. In this connection, it is to be seen that, in the instant case though learned Members has taken Rs. 6,000/- as monthly income of the deceased, does not appear to be applicable, as she was a home maker, she was also doing milk vending and tailoring work in her village. Considering these aspects with reference to the other circumstances, it is just and proper to limit the notional monthly income to Rs. 4,500/-. 11. No doubt, she is entitled for contribution for future prospects, that has to be added to the monthly income, subject to deduction of 3rd towards personal and living expenses. She was aged 44 years and applicable percentage of future prospects to the persons similarly placed is 30%. Thus, loss of dependency comes to Rs. 6,55,200/- (4500+1350-1950 x 12 x 14). 12. Insofar as funeral expenses at Rs. 25,000/- is concerned, that does not call for interference. Love and affection on this count the Tribunal has added Rs. 30,000/- cannot be forgotten when the person who died as a mother, definitely the untimely demise of a female member of the house throws more sorrow than a man. Thus, Rs. 30,000/- granted towards love and affection by the learned Members is not disturbed. Transportation of dead body does not arise, as Rs. 25,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses and dead body is buried. Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded by the learned Member towards loss of consortium is maintained. Though the claimants would submit that even coolie would get an amount of Rs. 200/- per day, in the instant case the person is of unique nature, wherein senior lady of the family died. She is the wife of her husband and mother of her two daughters. That circumstance is also visualized. Though the claimants would submit that even coolie would get an amount of Rs. 200/- per day, in the instant case the person is of unique nature, wherein senior lady of the family died. She is the wife of her husband and mother of her two daughters. That circumstance is also visualized. 13. Thus, the Court finds an amount of Rs. 8,10,200/- is granted to a married lady who left behind her husband, one married daughter and one unmarried daughter, who claimed to be dependants. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 29.12.2014 passed in MVC No. 470/2013 by the Principal Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mysuru, is modified by reducing the compensation from Rs. 10,48,600/- to Rs. 8,10,200/- (there will be reduction of Rs. 2,38,400/-). 15. The manner of disbursement of compensation gets proportionately reduced to the extent of reduction made by this Court. 16. Amount in deposit if any to be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal.