JUDGMENT : These two appeals are directed against judgment and award passed in MVC No.222/2014 by Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – XI, Bhadravathi on 06.04.2016. 2. MFA No.4612/2016 has been preferred by the insurer and MFA No.5782/2016 has been filed by the claimants seeking for reduction/enhancement of the compensation respectively. 3. By consent of learned Advocates appearing for parties, these appeals are taken up for final disposal since the accident is of the year 2013. 4. Claimants sought for payment of compensation of Rs.55,60,000/by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 contending interalia that their son deceased Sri Praveen was proceeding on his motorcycle on 19.02.2013 at about 9.20 p.m. and the offending vehicle namely, minibus driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver had dashed against the deceased and as a result of the impact, he fell down sustaining grievous injuries; on the way to the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries. Contending that accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of first respondent being the driver of the offending vehicle, they sought for compensation. 5. Insurer contested the claim by filing written statement and denying the averments made in the claim petition. It was specifically contended that compensation awarded by the tribunal was excessive. Tribunal, on considering the pleadings and evidence tendered by the claimants, by its judgment and award in question has awarded a sum of Rs.23,00,000/under the following heads: Sl.No. Heads Amount Rs. 1 Loss of dependency 22,81,925/ 2 Funeral expenses and transportation of dead body 10,000/ Total Rounded off to 22,91,925/ 23,00,000/ 6. We have heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and perused the records. 7. Learned Advocate appearing for the insurer would contend that tribunal erred in considering the future prospects of the deceased at 50% of his income though deceased was not permanently employed and had not obtained dealership for dealing in milk products on permanent basis. Hence, in the absence of any cogent, positive proof of income, tribunal could not have considered the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/per month. He would also submit that the deceased himself had contributed to the cause of the alleged accident to a greater extent and was the sole reason for the accident. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal. 8. He would also submit that the deceased himself had contributed to the cause of the alleged accident to a greater extent and was the sole reason for the accident. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal. 8. Per contra, learned Advocate appearing for the claimants would support the judgment and award passed by tribunal. 9. Having heard the learned Advocate appearing for the parties and on perusal of the pleadings and Exhibits, the certified copies of which has been made available by the learned Advocate appearing for claimants during the course of arguments, with the consent of learned Advocates appearing for the parties, these appeals are taken up for final disposal. The following point would arise for our consideration: “Whether judgment and award passed by the tribunal awarding compensation to the claimants in a sum of Rs.23,00,000/with interest @ 6% p.a. suffers from any infirmity calling for our interference?” 10. The accident in question is not in dispute. However, the manner in which accident occurred is being questioned by the insurer. Tribunal while arriving at a conclusion that accident in question had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the minibus bearing registration No.KA26B786 driven by first respondent has rightly noticed that charge sheet – Ex.P3 had been filed against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offences punishable under Section 304A read with Section 279 IPC and Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for rash and negligent driving. Neither the insurer nor the insured have questioned the filing of the charge sheet. Even otherwise, the spot mahazar – Ex.P4 would clearly disclose that deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle near the bypass road cross and was cautiously riding his motorcycle on the left side of the road and the offending vehicle coming from opposite direction had dashed against the motor cycle driven by the deceased and had caused the accident resulting in the rider of the motorcycle (deceased Sri Praveen) sustaining grievous injuries which resulted in his death. The finding recorded by the tribunal does not suffer from any infirmities whatsoever, as the same is based on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence. 11. Driver of the minibus – first respondent has not been examined by the insurer. Even the owner of the vehicle has also not been examined. The finding recorded by the tribunal does not suffer from any infirmities whatsoever, as the same is based on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence. 11. Driver of the minibus – first respondent has not been examined by the insurer. Even the owner of the vehicle has also not been examined. No contra material has been placed by the insurer to disbelieve the evidence tendered by the claimants establishing that driver of the offending vehicle had caused the accident. On the other hand, the charge sheet – Ex.P3 and the spot mahazar – Ex.P4 would clearly disclose that accident in question was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the minibus by the first respondent herein. Hence, contention raised by the insurer in this regard deserves to be rejected and accordingly it is rejected. 12. Now, turning our attention to the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, as already extracted herein above, tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.22,81,925/towards ‘loss of dependency’ to the claimants and Rs.10,000/towards ‘transportation of dead body and funeral expenses’. 13. Tribunal has considered the notional income of the claimant at Rs.12,000/per month and by adding 30% towards future prospects namely, Rs.3,600/, tribunal has taken monthly income at Rs.15,600/or annual income at Rs.1,87,200/and accordingly computed the compensation towards ‘loss of dependency’. From the perusal of the award, we notice that tribunal has presumed that if deceased Praveen was alive he was required to pay income tax of Rs.1,19,275/on the basis of his total income (Rs.8,10,000/+ Rs.1,44,000/= Rs.9,54,000/). The method of calculation as well as the figure arrived at by the tribunal at paragraph 19 of the judgment and award is erroneous for the following reasons: (a) the annual income is taken as Rs.1,87,200/and 50% is deducted towards personal expenses and if so deducted, the annual income would be Rs.93,600/. The appropriate multiplier is ‘17’ and it is rightly adopted. Thus, compensation payable would be Rs.93,600/x 17 = Rs.15,91,200/. Hence, this could have been awarded. However, tribunal has further added a sum of Rs.8,10,000/to the component of Rs.15,91,200/. No reasons are forthcoming. (b) When the tribunal has considered the income at Rs.12,000/and added 30% i.e., Rs.3,600/towards ‘future prospects’, ignoring the same, a different component constituting the income of the deceased could not have been adopted by the tribunal. 14. Hence, this could have been awarded. However, tribunal has further added a sum of Rs.8,10,000/to the component of Rs.15,91,200/. No reasons are forthcoming. (b) When the tribunal has considered the income at Rs.12,000/and added 30% i.e., Rs.3,600/towards ‘future prospects’, ignoring the same, a different component constituting the income of the deceased could not have been adopted by the tribunal. 14. The records of the tribunal would disclose that deceased was running a milk parlor after having obtained a licence and dealing in Nandini milk products of Shivamogga Milk Union Limited. This is evident from the agreement – Ex.P11 entered into between deceased Sri Praveen and Milk union. To establish this fact, claimants have examined the Marketing Manager Sri K.M.Manjunath as P.W.2. The said witness has also deposed that for the period 01.11.2012 to 30.11.2012 they had sold milk products of Rs.10,69,849/(as per MRP). He has also deposed that deceased Sri Praveen had been paid commission of Rs.1,01,041.03. He has further deposed that for December, 2012 and January, 2013 deceased Sri Praveen was paid commission of Rs.1,15,449.72 and Rs.1,12,260.74. The claimants have not produced income tax returns of the deceased. If the deceased was earning commission of Rs.1 lakh and odd as claimed, he would have definitely filed the income tax returns and as such, contention of the claimants that deceased was earning more than Rs.3,35,000/per month as commission from milk union cannot be accepted since it is without any proof. No evidence has been placed in proof of the income. 15. Though claimants have relied upon Account statement Ex.P12 of the Milk Union, same does not reflect the actual commission that has been paid to the deceased. Except the self serving statement of P.W.2, there is no material on record to establish the actual income of the deceased. However, the receipt issued by Shivamogga Milk Union dated 12.12.2012, 28.01.2013 and 19.03.2013 – Exs.P13, P14 and P15 would disclose that deceased had paid a sum of Rs.30,000/every month under three receipts to the milk union towards the rent and expenses. If it were to be so, income of the deceased could not have been anything less than Rs.25,000 to Rs.30,000/per month. In fact, tribunal while examining this aspect has held to the following effect: “14. If it were to be so, income of the deceased could not have been anything less than Rs.25,000 to Rs.30,000/per month. In fact, tribunal while examining this aspect has held to the following effect: “14. Taking into consideration of oral evidence of P.W.2, Ex.P12 to 14, it appears that, Praveen had earned net average income of Rs.30,000/per month during November 2012 to January 2013.” Rightly, tribunal has not considered this as the income, but on the other hand, has taken his notional income at Rs.12,000/per month and has added 30% towards future prospects. In the absence of any positive material produced to establish the income of the deceased, tribunal has adopted the guess work and it cannot be found fault with. 16. In view of the aforestated discussion, if the income of the deceased is considered at Rs.18,000/and 30% is added towards ‘future prospects’, the monthly income would be Rs.23,400/and by adopting the multiplier of ‘17’, compensation that becomes payable towards ‘loss of dependency’ would be Rs.47,73,600/and deceased being a bachelor, 50% has to be deducted and when so deducted, compensation becomes payable would be Rs.23,86,800/. Hence, in the absence of any cogent material to establish the income of the deceased, compensation awarded by the tribunal in a sum of Rs.22,81,925/cannot be found fault with and as such, same is hereby affirmed. Hence, we proceed to pass the following: JUDGMENT (i) MFA Nos.4612/2016 and 5782/2016 are hereby dismissed. (ii) Judgment and award passed by Prl. Sr. Civil Judge and JMFC & Addl. MACT11, Bhadravathi, in MVC No.222/2014 dated 06.04.2016, is hereby affirmed. (iii) Amount in deposit in MFA No.4612/2016 is ordered to be remitted back to the jurisdictional Tribunal by registry forthwith. (iv) Insurer shall deposit the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, as affirmed by us, inclusive of interest expeditiously at any rate within an outer limit of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.