JUDGMENT : 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellants-claimants being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the MACT, Bengaluru in MVC No.1935/2014 dated 13.01.2015. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and respondent. 3. Though the matter is listed for orders, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal. 4. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.04.2014, at about 7.30 a.m., when Yesa was waiting for bus on Old Madras Road, Suddangunte Palya Junction, Byappanahalli, Bengaluru, at that time, a BMTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-01-f-4494 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said Yesa and others and then to signal pole and stopped. As a result of which Yesa fell down and succumbed to fatal injuries on the way to the hospital. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the claimants appellants that the deceased was working as a House Keeping at HIPI Company and was earning Rs.10,000/-per month. For having lost bread earner, father and children of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the MVC Act. 5. In response to the notice, the respondent-Corporation filed objections by denying the contents of the petition. It was further contended that accident has occurred due to the mechanical defect i.e., failure of break of the bus and compensation claimed by the appellants was exorbitant and on these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. On the basis of the above, the Tribunal framed the following issues : (1) Whether the petitioners prove that, deceased-Yesa, W/o late Murali was died in RTA arising out of accident alleged to have been taken place on 18.04.2014 at about 7.30 a.m., on Old Madras Road, Suddangunte Palya junction, Byappanahalli, Bengaluru, due to rash and negligent driving of B.M.T.C. Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-01-F-4494? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation claimed? If so to what extent? (3) What Order or Award? 7. In order to prove the claim petition, the petitioner No.1 was examined as PW1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to P13. Respondent got examined the driver of the bus as RW1 and no documents were marked. After hearing parties to the lis, impugned judgment and award came to be passed. The accident in question is not disputed. 8. In order to prove the claim petition, the petitioner No.1 was examined as PW1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to P13. Respondent got examined the driver of the bus as RW1 and no documents were marked. After hearing parties to the lis, impugned judgment and award came to be passed. The accident in question is not disputed. 8. The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and the same requires to be enhanced. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent – Corporation contended that the compensation was awarded by taking into consideration the future prospects and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal even under the conventional heads is also on the higher side and there are no good grounds to enhance the compensation. 10. As could be seen from the records, it is the contention of the learned counsel for appellants that deceased was working as House Keeping at HIPI Company and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. In order to substantiate the said fact, they have produced notarized copy of the Job ID Card at Ex.P11 and six pay slips at Ex.P13. But they have not examined the author of the said documents. In the absence of proof of the said documents, Tribunal by taking notional income at the rate of Rs.7088/- per month, after adding 50% towards future prospects; after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and applying multiplier ‘16’ has awarded a sum of Rs.13,60,896/- towards ‘loss of dependency’. A sum of Rs.79,000/- has been awarded under the conventional heads. By going through the said judgment and award and other records, the Tribunal by taking into consideration the documents and the net salary of the deceased as Rs.7088/per month, after adding 50% towards future prospects; after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and applying multiplier ‘16’ has awarded just compensation towards ‘loss of dependency’ and compensation awarded under other heads also appears to be just and proper. However, the appellants have lost an young lady and the claimant Nos.2 and 3 are minor children and their father is predeceased, in that light, I feel that if globally an amount of Rs.30,000/is awarded in addition to the compensation already awarded it would meet the ends of justice. 11. However, the appellants have lost an young lady and the claimant Nos.2 and 3 are minor children and their father is predeceased, in that light, I feel that if globally an amount of Rs.30,000/is awarded in addition to the compensation already awarded it would meet the ends of justice. 11. In the light of the above discussions, appeal is allowed in part and the judgment and award dated 13.01.2015 passed in MVC No.1935/2014 is modified to the extent as indicated above. 12. Respondent corporation is directed to deposit the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and additional compensation awarded by this Court within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Registry is directed to draw the award accordingly.