JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is filed by the appellants-claimants seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground of inadequacy. 2. Though this matter is listed for admission, with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is heard and taken up for final disposal. 3. Brief facts of the appellants-claimants before the Tribunal is that, on 8.4.2013 at about 5.30 p.m., while the deceased Hanumappa @ Hanumanth was waiting for the Bus on NH63 road, in front of Kirloskar Factory, Bevinahalli village, at that time, one Tata Magic bearing No.KA37/9608 came from Koppa side and stopped to pick up the passengers. While the deceased boarding the vehicle, the driver of the said vehicle moved the same rashly and negligently, as a result, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries on his head and succumbed to the injuries in the Hospital at Hospete. Prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and was doing agriculture and coolie work, thereby earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month, in order to maintain his family, who were wholly depending upon his income. Due to untimely death of the deceased, the family members of the deceased suffered mental agony and the claimants have lost love and affection of the deceased and also the only breadwinner of the family. Owing to death of the deceased in the accident, the claimants have filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.11,00,000/-. 4. After notice being served, the respondents have entered appearance through their respective counsel. Respondent No.1owner has not filed any written statement and respondent No.2insurer has filed written statement contending that the petition is not maintainable since as on the date of the accident, the driver of the vehicle in question was not having valid and effective driving licence. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has allowed the claim petition awarding compensation of Rs.6,16,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The respondent No.1owner of the offending vehicle was directed to pay the entire compensation amount to the claimants. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 5. The respondent No.1owner of the offending vehicle was directed to pay the entire compensation amount to the claimants. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that the Tribunal has grossly erred in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month, while awarding compensation under the head loss of dependency, though the deceased was doing agriculture and coolie work thereby earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month. He further submits that the Tribunal has committed grave error while deducting 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses of the deceased, since there were five dependents, 1/4th has to be deducted. The Tribunal has awarded a very meager compensation under the conventional heads. Hence, he prays for enhancement of compensation. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1owner of the offending vehicle submits that finding of the Tribunal that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the transport vehicle and hence, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the appellants is not sustainable and hence, it deserves to be set aside. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Civil Appeal No.5826 of 2011 in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED and connected with other Civil Appeals and Special Leave Petitions disposed of on 03rd July 2017, wherein it has held while answering the questions referred to the Bench as under: “(i) ’Light motor vehicle’ as defined in Section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in Section 2(21) read with section 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No.54/1994. (ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No.54/1994. (ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, ‘un-laden weight’ of which does not exceed 7500 kg and holder of a driving licence to drive class of “light motor vehicle” as provided in Section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the “un-laden weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under Section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form.” 7. Following the judgment passed in MUKUND DEWANGAN (supra), the liability saddled on the owner of the offending vehicle is set aside and entire liability is fastened on the respondent No.2Insurance Company, who is liable to pay the entire compensation amount to the claimants. 8. Insofar as the enhancement of compensation is concerned, I have gone through the original records of the Tribunal and also the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal. The occurrence of the accident on 8.4.2013 resultant death of the deceased Hanumappa @ Hanumanth is not in dispute. The deceased was aged about 35 years at the time of the accident, which is also not in dispute. It is the contention of the claimants that prior to the accident, the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month by doing agricultural work, but there is no iota of evidence to prove the same. The deceased was a resident of Shivapur village, Koppal Taluk & District. When there is no evidence to prove the income of the victim of the accident, it is for the Tribunal to assess the income taking into consideration date and place of the accident and also size of the family, who are dependents of the deceased/injured. The deceased was a resident of Shivapur village, Koppal Taluk & District. When there is no evidence to prove the income of the victim of the accident, it is for the Tribunal to assess the income taking into consideration date and place of the accident and also size of the family, who are dependents of the deceased/injured. In the absence of cogent evidence, in order to prove the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month, which in my view is on the lower side. It is no doubt true that the appellants were mainly depending upon the income of the deceased, who are wife, two minor children and also aged parents of the deceased. Normally, it is for the Court to approximately assess the income of the deceased, wherever the income has not been proved taking into consideration date of accident and also place of residence. In the instant case, there are five dependents. Under this circumstance, I assume that the deceased would have been earning at least Rs.300/per day, so as to feed his family members including himself. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another, 2009 ACJ 1298 , 1/4th has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, when there are 4 to 5 dependents,. Applying the same, the loss of dependency would work out to Rs.12,96,000/- (Rs.9,000 ¼ x 12 x 16). The same is awarded as against Rs.5,76,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 9. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads funeral expenses, loss of consortium and also loss of love and affection at Rs.10,000/-, Rs.5,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively are on the lower side, hence, the same are enhanced to Rs.40,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.75,000/- respectively, which would meet the ends of justice. 10. Thus, in all, the appellants-claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.15,11,000/- as against Rs.6,16,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellants-claimants is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the compensation is enhanced to Rs.15,11,000/- as against Rs.6,16,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 12. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellants-claimants is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the compensation is enhanced to Rs.15,11,000/- as against Rs.6,16,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 12. Respondent No.2Insurance Company is directed to pay the entire compensation amount with proportionate interest within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 13. The apportionment and release of the enhanced compensation amount shall be made as per the order of the Tribunal. 14. The enhanced compensation in favour of minor appellant Nos.2 and 3 shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized Bank of 1st appellant’s choice, in their names till they attain the age of majority, with permission to the appellant No.1mother to withdraw the interest accrued on it periodically.