JUDGMENT : The present appeal is preferred by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 12.5.2015 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional MACT, Udupi, sitting at Kundapura in MVC.No.264/2014. 2. Heard. Appeal is admitted. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.2.2014 at about 3.30 p.m. one Chandra Gonda was proceeding on motorcycle bearing Regn.No.KA-20-EE-6654 along with pillion rider Nagaraj Gonda. When they were proceeding towards Bhatkal, an Ambulance bearing Regn.No.KA-07-G-425, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle from behind the back, as a result of which, the said Ambulance hit to an autorikshaw bearing Regn.No.KA-20-B-3779 and a goods rikshaw bearing Regn.No.KA-20-A-7152, as a result of the same, the said Chandra Gonda died on the spot. The claimants being the parents and sisters of the deceased Chandra Gonda having lost the sole bread earner, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act before the Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.35,60,000/-. The claimants in their claim petition contended that the deceased was hale and healthy. He was doing rubber tapping work and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. 4. In pursuance of the notice issued by the Tribunal, the owner of the offending vehicle i.e., first respondent in the claim petition remained absent and he was placed exparte. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed their objections denying the contents of the petition by contending that deceased himself stopped the motorcycle all of a sudden in the middle of the road and as a result of the same the alleged accident has taken place and the driver of the Ambulance was not having any valid and effective licence as on the date of the accident and the liability of the Insurance Company is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. In order to prove the case of the claimants, petitioner No.1-appellant No.1 herein has examined himself as PW.1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to P14. On behalf of the Insurance Company, no evidence was led and no documents were marked. After hearing both the parties, the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.7,25,600/- in favour of the claimants. In order to prove the case of the claimants, petitioner No.1-appellant No.1 herein has examined himself as PW.1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to P14. On behalf of the Insurance Company, no evidence was led and no documents were marked. After hearing both the parties, the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.7,25,600/- in favour of the claimants. Assailing the same, the claimants are before this Court in the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation. 6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side when the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased only at Rs.7,000/- per month and awarded the meager compensation. He further contended that the compensation awarded towards future prospects is also on the lower side and therefore he prays for enhancement of compensation. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent-Insurance Company has vehemently argued by contending that though the claimants have produced Ex.P8, it does not substantiate the fact that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. In that light, the Tribunal by taking notional income at Rs.7,000/- has awarded the compensation which is just and reasonable. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is also just and proper. The sisters of the deceased were already major at the time of his death. The deceased was aged about 25 years and he was at the marital age, then under such circumstances, he could have got married within few years and hence the question of granting compensation towards future prospects does not arise at all. On these grounds he prays for dismissal of the appeal by confirming the impugned judgment and award. 8. In so far as the contention of the appellants that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by doing rubber tapping work is concerned, they produced Ex.P8 and they also got examined PW.2-Manjunath Shetty. Since no documentary evidence has been produced to substantiate the said fact, the Tribunal by taking notional income of Rs.7,000/- per month and after adding 20% towards future prospects and after deducting 50% of the income towards his personal expenses and applying the proper multiplier of ’14’ has awarded Rs.5,88,000/- towards loss of dependency. Since no documentary evidence has been produced to substantiate the said fact, the Tribunal by taking notional income of Rs.7,000/- per month and after adding 20% towards future prospects and after deducting 50% of the income towards his personal expenses and applying the proper multiplier of ’14’ has awarded Rs.5,88,000/- towards loss of dependency. Though under the normal circumstances the compensation awarded is just and proper, in the absence of any documentary evidence, the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the year of the accident and wages prevailing during the said year. Since the accident is of the year 2014, notional income of Rs.8,500/- is the yardstick which is being taken in Lok Adalat for settlement of cases. If Rs.8,500/- per month is taken into consideration, by adding 20% towards future prospects and after deducting 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased and after applying the proper multiplier of ‘14’, the claimants are entitled to Rs.9,99,600/- towards loss of dependency. 9. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 , an amount of Rs.30,000/- is also entitled to be awarded to the claimants under the conventional heads. In that light, the appellants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.10,29,600/-. 10. Since the Tribunal has already awarded an amount of Rs.7,25,600/-, after deducting the said amount, the claimants are entitled an additional amount of compensation of Rs.3,04,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 12.5.2015 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional MACT, Udupi, sitting at Kundapura in MVC.No.264/2014 is modified to the extent as indicated above. Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and enhanced compensation awarded by this Court with interest thereon within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Award shall be drawn accordingly.