JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. MFA No. 21386/2011 is preferred by the legal heirs and dependants of the deceased Suresh Hanumanth Naik who died in a motor accident that occurred on 25.06.2008, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional MACT, Yellapur dated 24.09.2010 passed in M.V.C. No. 85/2008. Whereas, MFA No. 21592/2011 is filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited., the insurer of the Tempo Trax bearing registration No. KA-31-4789. 3. As these two appeals, the first one, preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation and the other one filed by the insurer of the offending vehicle, arose out of the same accident and the Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No. 85/2008, they are clubbed together, heard and disposed of by this common judgment. 4. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to in these appeals, according to their rank before the claims Tribunal. 5. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are: That on 25.06.2008 at about 3.00 p.m. when the deceased Suresh Hanumanth Naik was proceeding towards Yellapur on his motor cycle bearing No. KA-31-J-7372 and when he reached near Dongrinal village, a Tempo Trax bearing No. KA-31/4789 came from opposite direction driven in a high speed and rash and negligent manner by its driver and dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased. As a result, he sustained severe head injuries and died on the way to the hospital. As per the averments made in the claim petition, the deceased was working as an LIC agent and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. Due to the untimely death of the deceased, the petitioners having lost the bread earner in the family, they filed a claim petition U/s. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the owner and insurer of the Tempo Trax, seeking compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- . 6. In support of their claim, the claimant No. 1 examined herself as PW-1, apart from examining PW-2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.13. On behalf of the respondent-insurer, no evidence either oral or document has been adduced. After evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 9,82,000/- under the following heads:- S. No. Headings Amount 1. Loss of dependency Rs. 9,60,000 2. Loss of consortium to the petitioner Rs. 10,000 3. On behalf of the respondent-insurer, no evidence either oral or document has been adduced. After evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 9,82,000/- under the following heads:- S. No. Headings Amount 1. Loss of dependency Rs. 9,60,000 2. Loss of consortium to the petitioner Rs. 10,000 3. Loss of love and affection towards petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 Rs. 5,000 4. Loss of transportation of dead body Rs. 2,000 5. Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000 Total Rs. 9,82,000 7. During the enquiry before the Tribunal the claimants have established the occurrence of accident, involvement of the offending vehicle, rash and negligent driving of its driver and its insurance coverage. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the dependants of the deceased Suresh Hanumanth Naik have preferred MFA No. 21386/2011, seeking enhancement of compensation. Whereas, challenging the quantum of compensation, the insurer has preferred MFA No. 21592/2011. 8. Sri. T.M. Nadaf, the learned counsel for the claimants in M.F.A. No. 21386/2011 has vehemently contended that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’ where the claimants have lost the deceased who was the source to eke out their livelihood. To substantiate his submission, the counsel is quick to point out that the deceased who was aged 37 years was by profession an agent in LIC and earning a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month by commission. As he was looking after the welfare of the family consisting the first claimant – the wife and the second and third claimants – the minor children, the income of the deceased requires to be re-assessed by considering the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 as well as the documents which have been produced by the claimants to establish their case for seeking compensation. It is further contended that the Tribunal also erred in not awarding reasonable compensation under the conventional heads. Due to the untimely death of the deceased, the appellants-claimants have lost the bread-winner of the family. Hence, the compensation under conventional head requires to be re-appreciated and modified, considering the evidence on record. He has further contended that Ex.P.10 and P.11 which are issued by the LIC indicates that the deceased was working as an LIC Agent. Due to the untimely death of the deceased, the appellants-claimants have lost the bread-winner of the family. Hence, the compensation under conventional head requires to be re-appreciated and modified, considering the evidence on record. He has further contended that Ex.P.10 and P.11 which are issued by the LIC indicates that the deceased was working as an LIC Agent. Further, the claimants have produced the income tax returns of the deceased for the assessment years 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and also account extract of the deceased maintained in Syndicate Bank. From the above document, it is seen that the income of the deceased was more than Rs. 15,000/- per month. Contrary to the said documentary evidence, the Tribunal has taken the monthly gross income of the deceased at Rs. 9,000/- and thereby committed an error in determining the compensation payable towards Loss of dependency. He further contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other conventional heads is also on the lower side. Further, drawing the attention of the court to Ex.P.6-the income tax returns for the assessment year 2006-2007, he submits that the income of the deceased for the said year was Rs. 1,53,000/- and if the same is divided by twelve, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs. 12,750/- per month. There was no reason for the Tribunal to disbelieve the documentary evidence. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh and Others vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, 2013 ACJ 1403. Further, having regard to the date of the accident, the avocation and the age of the deceased, the compensation awarded requires to be re-appreciated in this appeal keeping in view the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 as well as the documents which have been produced for establishing the case by the claimants. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the appeal filed by the claimants and seeks enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 9. On the other hand, Sri. Naganagouda R. Kuppelur, learned counsel for insurer in MFA No. 21592/2011 submits that the income tax returns of the deceased for the year 2004- 2005, 2005-2006 would reveal that the income of the deceased was only Rs. 37,000/- per annum. 9. On the other hand, Sri. Naganagouda R. Kuppelur, learned counsel for insurer in MFA No. 21592/2011 submits that the income tax returns of the deceased for the year 2004- 2005, 2005-2006 would reveal that the income of the deceased was only Rs. 37,000/- per annum. The deceased was not a regular employee of the LIC, but he was only an agent and that there was no specific income and that the commission paid by the LIC would vary from year to year and hence, in the absence of any proof of income, the Tribunal was not justified in taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 9,000/- per month to determine the compensation payable towards Loss of dependency and seeks reduction in the compensation awarded towards Loss of dependency. He submits that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under the loss of dependency at Rs. 9,60,000/- is exorbitant. However, he fairly submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other conventional heads is slightly on the lower side. 10. On a careful consideration of the submission made by the learned counsel for both the parties in both the appeals, and so also on a perusal of the impugned judgment and award, the point that arises for consideration is, whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. However, in this appeal, it is relevant to state that on 25.06.2008, at about 3.00 p.m. the deceased Suresh Hanumnth Naik met with an accident while he was proceeding towards Yellapur on his motor cycle bearing No. KA-31-J-7372. The offending vehicle being a tempo trax bearing Registration No. KA-31/4789 which had come from the opposite direction driven in high speed in a rash and negligent manner had hit him, as a result of which he had sustained injuries and had subsequently succumbed to the injuries. The deceased was aged about 37 years and by profession was an agent in LIC and due to his untimely death, claimants have lost the only bread-winner of their family and have suffered pain and mental agony and it has also affected the social as well as economic condition of the family consisting his wife and two minor children. The deceased was aged about 37 years and by profession was an agent in LIC and due to his untimely death, claimants have lost the only bread-winner of their family and have suffered pain and mental agony and it has also affected the social as well as economic condition of the family consisting his wife and two minor children. Therefore, taking into consideration the age of the deceased and also the avocation of the deceased as he being the agent of the LIC, the compensation awarded requires to be re-assessed keeping in view the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 as well as the documents produced as at Exhibits P1 to P13. Exhibits P10 and P12 which are produced by the LIC indicates that the deceased was by occupation an LIC agent. Apart from that, the claimants have produced the income tax return of the deceased which was maintained by him for the assessment year 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 and so also had maintained an account in Syndicate Bank. From the above documents, it could be assessed that the income of the deceased was more than Rs. 15,000/- per month. It is this contention which is taken by the learned counsel for the appellant for seeking enhancement. Whereas the Tribunal has taken the monthly gross income of the deceased at Rs. 9,000/- which is contrary to the said documentary evidence put forth and thereby committed an error in determining the compensation payable towards the head of loss of dependency. This contention was also taken by the learned counsel for the appellant during the course of his argument wherein he has sought for enhancement of the compensation under the head of loss of dependency as well as conventional heads. 11. In the case on hand, the occurrence of accident, involvement of the offending vehicle, rash and negligent driving of its driver, its insurance coverage on the date of accident and the death of the Suresh Hanumanth Naik is not in dispute. The only points for consideration are, whether the income of the deceased determined by the Tribunal at Rs. 9,000/- per month is just and proper and as to whether the Tribunal was justified in awarding just compensation under other conventional heads? 12. The only points for consideration are, whether the income of the deceased determined by the Tribunal at Rs. 9,000/- per month is just and proper and as to whether the Tribunal was justified in awarding just compensation under other conventional heads? 12. As regards the income of the deceased is concerned, admittedly as could be seen from Ex.P.10, the deceased who was aged 37 years as on the date of accident was a registered LIC agent. On a careful scrutiny of Exs.P6, P.7, P.8 the income tax returns and Ex.P.9, the statement of bank account maintained by the deceased in Syndicate bank would reveal that the net annual income of the deceased for the year 2004-05, 2005-06 was Rs. 37,000/- and Rs. 1,53,000/- for the year 2006-2007. This would indicate that the annual income of the deceased vary from year to year and there was fluctuation in his annual income. However, Ex.P.7 would indicate that his annual income was Rs. 1,53,000/- for the said particular year. Though the deceased was not a regular employee of the LIC, the income for the year 2006-07 was Rs. 1,53,000/-. There is some considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the claimants. Under such circumstances, having regard to the date of accident, avocation of the deceased, age of the deceased, however the interest of justice would be met if the average monthly income of the deceased is taken at Rs. 10,500/- per month. Having regard to the age of the deceased at 37, it would be just and proper to deduct 1/3rd towards his personal and living expenses. Thus, the claimants are entitled for Rs. 12,60,000/- (10,500 – 1/3 (3,500) = 7,000 x 12 x 15 = 12,60,000/-) towards, Loss of dependency. 13. Thus, it takes to the next question as to the compensation awarded under the other conventional heads. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh referred to supra and having regard to the fact that the deceased has left behind him his wife and two minor children who have permanently lost the love and affection of their father who was the bread earner in the family, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other conventional heads are on the lower side. The Hon’ble Apex had referred to the cases in Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Co. The Hon’ble Apex had referred to the cases in Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2012 ACJ 1428 (SC) and in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC). Apart from referring to the above cases regarding quantum in a fatal accident whether the person was self-employed or was engaged on fixed wages, the Apex Court had also referred to the case in Arati Bezbaruah vs. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India, 2003 ACJ 680 (SC) and to the case in General Manager, Kerala State Road Trans. Corp. vs. Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC) to enhance compensation under conventional heads in respect of a fatal accident in which the claimants were the widow and minor children of the deceased. 14. In this appeal, it is relevant to state that consortium is a right of a spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual relations. In this appeal, the first claimant is the wife of the deceased and the second and third claimants are minor children of the deceased. In this appeal they have sought for enhancement of compensation by urging various grounds. 15. Therefore, it would be just and proper to award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as against Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium, that means to say, an enhancement of Rs. 90,000/-. Further, I deem it proper to award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as against Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of love and affection, as a result of which the enhanced amount would be Rs. 95,000/-. 16. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards transportation of dead body. I deem it proper to enhance the same by a further amount of Rs. 3,000/- which comes to a total of Rs. 5,000/- under the said head. Further, as against Rs. 5,000/- granted towards funeral and obsequies is enhanced by a further sum of Rs. 15,000/- and the total amount under the said head thus comes to Rs. 20,000/-. Thus, the claimants/appellants in MFA 21386/2011 are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 14,85,000/- (Fourteen lakh eighty-five thousand only) as against Rs. 9,82,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 17. 5,000/- granted towards funeral and obsequies is enhanced by a further sum of Rs. 15,000/- and the total amount under the said head thus comes to Rs. 20,000/-. Thus, the claimants/appellants in MFA 21386/2011 are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 14,85,000/- (Fourteen lakh eighty-five thousand only) as against Rs. 9,82,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 17. On a re-appreciation of the entire material on record, in view of the discussion made supra, the appeal (MFA No. 21592/2011) filed by the Insurer of the offending vehicle is liable to be dismissed, inasmuch as the same is devoid of merit. For the reasons stated supra, the appeal (MFA No. 21386/2011) filed by the claimants requires to be allowed. 18. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurer in MFA No. 21592/2011 is dismissed. 19. The appeal filed by the claimants in MFA No. 21386/2011 is hereby allowed in part. In modification of the impugned judgment and award dated 24.09.2010 passed by the Addl. MACT, Yellapur in MVC No. 85/2008, the compensation payable to the claimants is enhanced from Rs. 9,82,000/- to Rs. 14,85,000/- (Rupees Fourteen lakh eighty-five thousand only). Thus, the enhanced compensation would come to Rs. 5,03,000/-. However, it is made clear that the impugned Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, insofar as it relates to rate of interest, deposit and apportionment is concerned, the same shall remain un-altered. The office to draw up the decree accordingly. The enhanced compensation amount in a sum of Rs. 5,03,000/- shall be deposited within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 20. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. There shall be no order as to the costs.