ORDER : Miscellaneous First Appeal No.22061 of 2012 and Miscellaneous First Appeal Cross Objection No.100115 of 2014 are filed by the insurance company for reduction and by the claimants for enhancement respectively against the judgment and award dated 13th March 2012 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, iterinate Court at Byadagi in MVC No.601 of 2009. 2. Since both the insurance company and the cross objectors/claimants have challenged the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.601 of 2009, both the appeal and the cross objection are clubbed together and disposed of by this common order. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 13.09.2008 at about 9.00 a.m., when Shantavva was going to Byadagi for work from her house by walk on the left side of Byadgi-Bislahalli road and when she came near Ramagondanahalli cross, the rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA.27/R-68 came from Byadgi in a rash and negligent manner without following the traffic rules and regulation and dashed against Smt. Shantavva. In the said accident, Smt. Shantavva sustained grievous and fatal injuries and deep head injury. She was shifted to Government hospital for first aid treatment and thereafter was shifted to C.G. Hospital, Davanagere. On the way to C.G. Hospital, Davanagere, the injured Shantavva died. Hence, the claimants, who are the husband and the children of the deceased filed a petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation. 4. After service of notice, both the respondents appeared and filed objections. Respondent No.1 filed objections denying the averments made in the petition. He further stated that he was holding valid licence and the policy was in force. Hence, he prayed that the liability may be fixed on respondent No.2-insurance company. Respondent No.2 filed objections and has taken a contention that the rider of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and in toto, the age, occupation and the income of the petitioner was denied. It was further contended that the compensation claimed by the claimants is highly excessive, exorbitant and without any legal basis and the liability, if any, is subject to policy terms and condition and validity of the driving licence. Hence, it is not liable to pay the compensation. 5. It was further contended that the compensation claimed by the claimants is highly excessive, exorbitant and without any legal basis and the liability, if any, is subject to policy terms and condition and validity of the driving licence. Hence, it is not liable to pay the compensation. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: “1. Whether the petitioner proves that the deceased sustained injuries in the accident 13.09.2008 as stated in the petition? 2. Whether the respondent No.2 proves that the driver of the off ending vehicle was not having valid and effective D.L., on the date of the alleged accident? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled f or compensation? If so, what is the quantum and from whom? 4. What order or Award?” 6. The claimants, in order to establish their case, Sri. Gangappa Kabbur, husband of the deceased, examined himself as PW-1 and got marked eight documents as Exs.P-1 to P-8. On the other hand, the officer of the insurance company was examined as RW-1 and documents as per Exs.R-1 and R-2 were got marked. 7. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the documentary and oral evidence, has granted compensation of Rs.4,25,000/-with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. 8. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the insurance company has filed MFA No.22061 of 2012 seeking reduction of the compensation and the claimants have preferred MFA Crob.No.100115 of 2014 seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. IN MFA No.22061 of 2012 9. Sri G.N. Raichur, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company firstly contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in saddling the liability on the insurance company in spite of the evidence on record that the rider of the motorcycle was having a learner’s licence. He further contended that as per Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, a person driving/riding a vehicle with learner’s licence must accompany a person who is holding a driving licence. The Tribunal, without considering this aspect of the matter, has wrongly saddled the liability on the insurance company to pay the compensation. Secondly, he contended that since the children of the deceased were majors, they cannot be treated as dependants on the deceased for their livelihood. Hence, they are not entitled for compensation under the head loss of dependency. 10. The Tribunal, without considering this aspect of the matter, has wrongly saddled the liability on the insurance company to pay the compensation. Secondly, he contended that since the children of the deceased were majors, they cannot be treated as dependants on the deceased for their livelihood. Hence, they are not entitled for compensation under the head loss of dependency. 10. Per contra, Sri.Nagaraj J. Appannanavar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants contended that as on the date of the accident, the rider of the motorcycle was holding learner’s licence and the same was valid as on the date of the accident. RW-1 in his cross-examination has admitted that at the time of the accident, the rider of motorcycle was holding the licence. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MFA No.25279 of 2011 disposed of on 01.07.2015. He further contended that in the deposition of PW-1, it is his specific case that they were depending on the deceased for their livelihood and nothing worthwhile has been elicited in his cross-examination to discard the said version. Further, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in MFA No.31002 of 2012 disposed of on 29th July 2013. Hence, he sought to dismiss the appeal. 11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and award and the original records carefully. 12. It is not in dispute that Shantavva died due to the accident that occurred on 13.09.2008 on account of the rash and negligent riding by the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-27/R-68. As on the date of the accident, the rider of the motorcycle was holding learner’s licence and RW-1 in his cross-examination has admitted that that rider was holding a valid licence at the time of the accident. This Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Felix Correa reported in ILR 1989 Karnataka 441 at paragraph 15 has held as follows: “15. This Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Felix Correa reported in ILR 1989 Karnataka 441 at paragraph 15 has held as follows: “15. The condition that a person duly licenced to drive the vehicle should be by the side of such learner to be able to readily control or stop the vehicle is perhaps not made compulsory in case of a person holding Learner’s Licence in respect of a motor-cycle perhaps f or the reason that no such person could be accommodated on a two wheeler anywhere else than on its pillion if it has one. Therefore, the person sitting on the pillion could not be equated to the driver of a vehicle other than a two wheeler. Thus even where a person possesses a Learner’s Licence in case of a motor-cycle as in this case he becomes solely responsible for effectively driving or riding the vehicle, he is in sole control of it and therefore if a person driving a motorcycle under Learner’s Licence can be said to be a person “duly licensed” or holding a valid licence would be the next point f or consideration.” In similar circumstance, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court after following the above judgment in MFA No.25279 of 2011 disposed of on 01.07.2015 held that the insurance company is liable to satisfy the award. In view of the above said judgment, it is clear that a person holding learner’s licence could be said to holding a valid licence. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Ram v. Nirmala reported in (2018) 3 SCC 800 , relying on the decision in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 , at paragraph 6(iii) has held as under: 6. xxxx The following conclusion has been recorded in summation in the judgment: (SCC PP 341-42, para 110) “(iii) the breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of the driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2)(a) (ii) of Section 149, has to be proved to have been committed by the insured f or avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, f ake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver f or driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. Mere absence, f ake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver f or driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability to wards the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and f ailed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time.” In the present case, the insurer has only alleged in the objection statement that the driver of the vehicle was not having driving licence at the time of accident. But he has not produced any supportive proof or evidence to prove the same. Further, the insurer has not examined the rider of the vehicle and the insurer has not proved that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy. 14. In view of the aforesaid dictums by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the first contention of the insurance company is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. 15. So far as the second contention of the counsel for the insurance company that the children of the deceased are majors and hence they are not entitled to any compensation is concerned, PW-1 in his deposition has specifically stated that they were completely depending on the income of the deceased for their livelihood. Though PW-1 was cross-examined, nothing worthwhile has been elicited to discard his version. Therefore, it is clear from the material on record that the claimants were depending on the deceased Shantavva for their livelihood. Hence, the second contention of the insurance company is liable to be rejected and the same is accordingly rejected. 16. In view of the above said observations, MFA No.22061 of 2012 is dismissed as devoid of merits. IN MFA CROB NO.100115 OF 2014 17. Sri. Nagaraj J. Appannavar, learned counsel for the cross objectors/claimants contended that though the deceased was doing business and agriculture work thereby earning Rs.10,000/-per month, the Tribunal was not justified in taking the notional income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-per month. He secondly contended that the Tribunal has not granted any compensation under the head future prospects. Sri. Nagaraj J. Appannavar, learned counsel for the cross objectors/claimants contended that though the deceased was doing business and agriculture work thereby earning Rs.10,000/-per month, the Tribunal was not justified in taking the notional income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-per month. He secondly contended that the Tribunal has not granted any compensation under the head future prospects. He further contended that as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 5157, under the conventional heads such as loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium, the Hon’ble Apex Court has awarded compensation of Rs.70,000/-where as the Tribunal was not justified in granting only a sum of Rs.55,000/-under conventional heads. Hence, the learned counsel seeks to allow the cross-objection by modifying the impugned judgment and award. 18. Per contra, Sri. G.N. Raichur, learned counsel for respondent No.1-insurance company has contended that even though PW-1 in his deposition has stated that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/-per month, they have not produced any documents to establish their claim. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-per month. He further contended that since the claimants have not established the income of the deceased, they are not entitled for compensation under the head future prospects. Further, he contended that the Tribunal was justified in awarding the compensation under conventional heads and the same does not require any enhancement. Hence, on these grounds, the learned counsel sought for dismissal of the cross-objection. 19. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, though PW-1 has deposed that the deceased was doing business and agriculture work thereby earning Rs.10,000/-per month, they have not produced any documentary evidence to establish the income of the deceased. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal was left with no option but to assess the income of the deceased notionally. While assessing the notional income, the Tribunal was not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-per month. In catena of decisions, this Court in order to assess the monthly income of the deceased, in the absence of any documentary evidence, is relying on the income mentioned in the chart prepared for the purpose of Lok Adalat. In the instant case, the accident has occurred in the year 2008. In catena of decisions, this Court in order to assess the monthly income of the deceased, in the absence of any documentary evidence, is relying on the income mentioned in the chart prepared for the purpose of Lok Adalat. In the instant case, the accident has occurred in the year 2008. As per the chart, monthly income of the deceased is to be taken as Rs.4,250/-. 20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hem Raj v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2018 ACJ 5 has held that “there cannot be distinction where there is positive evidence of income and where minimum income is determined on guess work in the facts and circumstances of a case. Both the situation stands at the same footing.” 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Savita & Ors. v. The Divisional Manager reported in 2017 SC 1515 and in the case of Munusamy and others v. Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited reported in (2018) 2 Supreme Court Cases 765, has held that adding future prospects to established income of the deceased while determining the compensation must be done in all cases as per the ruling of five-Judge Bench in Pranay Sethi’s case even for the established income and notional income. 22. In view of the aforesaid dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, even for the notional income, the claimants are entitled for future prospects. 23. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the Pranay Sethi’s case with respect to awarding of future prospects to a self employed, at paragraph 61(iv) has held as under: 61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:- (i) xxx (ii) xxx (iii) xxx (iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.” 24. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.” 24. In the present case on hand, since the deceased was aged about 40 years at the time of the accident, as per Pranay Sethi’s case, 25% of the monthly income has to be added to the actual monthly income of the deceased towards future prospects and after deducting 1/3 of the monthly income of the deceased towards her personal expenses and by adopting multiplier of 15, as the deceased was aged 40 at the time of the accident, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.6,37,440/-(25% of 4,250/-= + 4250/-x12-1/3x15) under the head loss of dependency. 25. The Tribunal was not justified in awarding compensation of Rs.55,000/-under conventional heads. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), with respect to awarding of reasonable figures under conventional heads at paragraph 61(viii) has held as under: “61. xxxxx (i) to (vii) xxxx (viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/-and Rs.15,000/-respectively.” 26. Following the aforesaid dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the cross objectors/claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/-towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/-towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/-towards funeral expenses. Thus the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.70,000/-under conventional heads and the same is awarded. 27. After re-assessing the entire material on record, the claimants are entitled to the just compensation as follows: Rs. 1. Loss of dependency 6,37,440/- 2. Conventional Heads 70,000/- 3. Loss of love and affection 20,000/- Total 7,27,440/- Less: compensation Awarded by the Tribunal 4,25,000/- Enhanced compensation 3,02,440/- 28. Thus, the cross objectors/claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.3,02,440/-with interest at 6% per annum excluding interest for the delayed period of 705 days in filing the cross objection vide court order dated 05.07.2017. 29. Accordingly, MFA Crob No.100115 of 2014 is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 13.03.2012 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, iterinate Court at Byadgi, in MVC No.601 of 2009 is modified. 29. Accordingly, MFA Crob No.100115 of 2014 is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 13.03.2012 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, iterinate Court at Byadgi, in MVC No.601 of 2009 is modified. The insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation awarded by the Tribunal as well as the compensation enhanced by this Court before the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Apportionment of compensation is as per the order of the Tribunal. MFA No.22061 of 2012 is dismissed. Registry is directed to transfer the amount, if any, in deposit to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. MFA Crob. No.100115 of 2014 is allowed in part.