JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the appellant –Oriental Insurance Company and perused the records. 2. The insurance company has preferred this appeal, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded in the impugned judgment dated 23.02.2016, passed by the MACT & Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (SCCH-19) in M.V.C.No.1966/2015 seeking reduction in the compensation awarded by the tribunal, on the grounds urged therein. 3. The facts of the case are that on 26.04.2015 at about 1.30 p.m., when the deceased Yuvaraj was proceeding in his motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA-03-HT-3328, on Budigere Cross towards Bhudigere road near Jyothipura Gate, opposite to Bharath Petrol Bunk, a tempo bearing Registration No.KA-50-4131 which was driven in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and at a high speed, had dashed the motor cycle of the deceased causing the accident. As a result of the impact, the deceased was thrown away from his motor cycle and sustained grievous injuries on his vital parts and though was admitted to Sathya Sai Hospital, and thereafter shifted to NIMHANS Hospital, he was declared to be brought dead. As a result of the accident, the claimants having lost their bread-winner of the family and the love and affection of their son, they had filed a petition before the MACT, Bengaluru in MVC.1966/2015 claiming compensation for the death of the deceased. Respondent No.3 is the owner and the appellant is the insurer of the offending vehicle. After service of summons, the Insurance Company filed its written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. Based upon the pleadings, the Tribunal had framed issues and answered Issue No.1 in the affirmative and Issue No.2 partly in the affirmative. 4. The tribunal, after evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence had held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligence of the offending vehicle. During the enquiry before the tribunal, the claimants have established the occurrence of the accident, actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and its insurance coverage with the appellant herein. It is stated that the deceased Yuvaraj was working as a mason as well as a tailor and was said to be earning Rs.1,000/-per day. PW-1 in her evidence, has stated that the deceased being a mason and tailor, was earning Rs.500/-per day. It is stated that the deceased Yuvaraj was working as a mason as well as a tailor and was said to be earning Rs.1,000/-per day. PW-1 in her evidence, has stated that the deceased being a mason and tailor, was earning Rs.500/-per day. However, no evidence was let in of the employer of the deceased to substantiate and establish the income of the deceased. Further, the age of the deceased was taken at 31 years, relying on Exhibit P-7, the ration card, which is not disputed. Hence, the notional income of the deceased was taken at Rs.7,000/-per month to award the compensation. Taking his income at Rs.7,000/-and since he was aged 31 years, the Tribunal had added 50% of his income towards ‘future prospects’ and arrived at an income of Rs.10,500/-per month. Further, since he was a bachelor, 50% of the said amount was deducted towards ‘personal and living expenses’ of the deceased and finally, an amount of Rs.5,250/-per month was arrived as the income of the deceased to calculate the compensation towards ‘Loss of dependency’. Taking the monthly income at Rs.5,250/-and applying multiplier ‘16’, the compensation towards ‘Loss of dependency’ was arrived at Rs.10,08,000/-(5,250 x 12 x 16) and a total compensation of Rs.10,88,000/-was awarded with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization under the following heads: Sl No Headings Amount Rs. 1 Loss of dependency Rs.10,08,000/- 2 Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/- 3 Loss of love and affection Rs. 30,000/- 4 Loss of estate Rs. 25,000/- TOTAL Rs.10,88,000/- 5. Though the learned counsel for the appellant – Insurance Company has urged several grounds for interference of the impugned award, he submits that he does not press all the grounds urged and would be satisfied if the main discrepancy is taken care of. In that, the Tribunal after taking the notional income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/-per month, has proceeded to add 50% towards his ‘future prospects’. It is borne out from the records as well as the evidence of PW-1 that the deceased Yuvaraj was working as a mason and a tailor and was earning Rs.500/-to Rs.1,000/-per day. But however, cogent and convincing evidence has not been produced with regard to the proof of his income. It is borne out from the records as well as the evidence of PW-1 that the deceased Yuvaraj was working as a mason and a tailor and was earning Rs.500/-to Rs.1,000/-per day. But however, cogent and convincing evidence has not been produced with regard to the proof of his income. His income ought to have been substantiated by examining his employer or establishing the income by some other approved means. Hence, it cannot be believed by the court that the deceased had an ‘established income’, in order to grant 50% of his income towards ‘future prospects.’ The circumstance as to when future prospects have to be added to the income of the deceased, has been clearly pronounced by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 . The relevant paragraph reads as under: “24. In Susamma Thomas, this Court increased the income by nearly 100%, in Sarla Dixit, the income was increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruah the income was increased by a mere 7%. In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. [Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words `actual salary' should be read as `actual salary less tax']. The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculations being adopted. Where the deceased was selfemployed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances.” (emphasis supplied) In view of the opinion rendered in the above decision, it is inferred that the Tribunal should not have added 50% towards his future prospects. Hence, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the judgment of the Tribunal requires to be re-visited on this aspect. Hence, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the judgment of the Tribunal requires to be re-visited on this aspect. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence on record has rightly assessed the income of the deceased and awarded just and fair compensation, which does not call for interference and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 7. On a careful evaluation of the material on record, and in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant being justified, I find that an amount of Rs.3,500/-(50%) added towards ‘future prospects’ is found to be incorrect and hence the same needs to be interfered with. As a result, the notional income of the deceased is hereby taken at Rs.7,000/-per month. The other aspects namely the multiplier adopted at ‘16’ and deducting 50% towards personal and living expenses of the deceased since he was a bachelor, is left undisturbed. Further, the compensation awarded by the tribunal under other conventional heads is also just and reasonable and does not call for interference. The judgment requires to be re-visited only on the aspect of ‘future prospects’, which addition made by the Tribunal at 50% of his income, shall be omitted. If the same is applied, the compensation towards ‘loss of dependency’ would come to Rs.6,72,000/-(Rs.7,000/-x 1/2 x 12 x 16) as against Rs.10,08,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. As a consequence, the total compensation would come to Rs.7,52,000/as against Rs.10,88,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. In modification of the impugned judgment and award dated 23.02.2016 passed by the MACT & Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru in M.V.C.No.1966/2015, the compensation payable to the claimants is reduced from Rs.10,88,000/-to Rs.7,52,000/. Appellant insurer shall deposit the compensation with interest before the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The amount already deposited, shall be adjusted. As per the apportionment ordered by the Tribunal, the same shall be disbursed to the claimants, on proper identification. However, the impugned judgment and award, in so far as it relates to the rate of interest, apportionment and deposit is concerned, shall remain unaltered. The statutory amount deposited before this court and the lower court records shall be transmitted to the tribunal forthwith. However, the impugned judgment and award, in so far as it relates to the rate of interest, apportionment and deposit is concerned, shall remain unaltered. The statutory amount deposited before this court and the lower court records shall be transmitted to the tribunal forthwith. There shall be no order as to the costs. Office to draw the decree accordingly.