JUDGMENT : 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Divisional Controller – N.W.K.R.T.C. challenging the judgment and award passed by Principal Small Causes and MACT, Mysuru in MVC No.291/2015 dated 14.10.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 3. Though the appeal is listed for orders, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for both parties, the same is taken up for final disposal. 4. Brief facts of the case are that on 22.11.2014 at about 11.20 p.m., Sri. Kemparama was going on his bicycle from Jyothinagar side towards Malai Mahadeshwara Road near Jyothi Nagar Cross Junction in Mysuru city. At that time, the driver of the K.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing Reg. No.KA42F1458 drew the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to bicycle. As a result of the same, he fell down and the wheel of the bus ran over him and immediately, he was taken to the hospital and there the doctor declared him as dead because of the injuries suffered in the accident. 5. It is the contention of the petitioners that deceased was hale and healthy and he was working as a Head Cook in the Government Guest House, Mysuru and earning a sum of Rs.22,000/- p.m. For having lost the bread earner, wife, son and sisters who were dependants on the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 6. In pursuance of the notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared and respondent No.2 filed the written statement denying the petition averments. He further contended that the alleged accident has taken place due to negligent act of the deceased himself and the compensation claimed is exorbitant. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 7. On the above, the Tribunal framed the following issues: ISSUES “1. Whether the petitioners prove that deceased Kemparama died on account of road traffic accident arising out of use of vehicle Regn. No.KA42F1458, occurred on 22.11.2014 at about 11.20 p.m., due to the actionable negligent driving of its driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so, at what extent, from whom and at what proportion? 3. What Order or relief?” 8. In order to prove the case of the petitioners, petitioner No.1 got examined herself as PW1 and one more witness came to be examined as PW2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9. 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so, at what extent, from whom and at what proportion? 3. What Order or relief?” 8. In order to prove the case of the petitioners, petitioner No.1 got examined herself as PW1 and one more witness came to be examined as PW2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9. On behalf of the respondents, respondent No.1 – Driver got examined himself as RW1 and got marked Exs.R1 and R2. 9. After hearing both the parties to the lis, impugned judgment and award came to be passed by awarding total compensation of [Corrected vide Court order dated 20.7.2018] Rs.20,55,101/- with 6% interest. Assailing the same, appellant-Insurer is before this Court. 10. Main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellant are that the alleged accident has taken place at junction road at Jyothi Nagar Cross. The said bus was coming on the main road and the bicyclist who came from the cross road has without observing the vehicle has carelessly tried to cross the road and dashed to the moving bus. This aspect has not been properly considered and appreciated by the Tribunal while awarding the compensation. He further contended that as per the sketch, the alleged accident has taken place at a distance of 2 feet from the Northern edge of tar road and at a distance of 3 feet from Northern-Western edge of the tar road. That itself clearly goes to show that deceased came on bicycle through cross road and tried to enter the road negligently and dashed to the bus. This aspect has not been properly appreciated by the trial Court while awarding the compensation. He further contended that deceased was aged about 56 years and the appropriate multiplier will be “9” and the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are the major sisters and they are not dependants. By observing this, the trial Court has deducted 1/4th income towards personal expenses of the deceased which is also not justifiable. He further contended that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads is also on the higher side. On these grounds, learned counsel for the respondent – Corporation prays for allowing the appeal by reducing the compensation awarded and holding that the deceased has also contributed to the alleged accident. 11. He further contended that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads is also on the higher side. On these grounds, learned counsel for the respondent – Corporation prays for allowing the appeal by reducing the compensation awarded and holding that the deceased has also contributed to the alleged accident. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents – claimants even argued by contending that though the deceased was working as a Head Cook in Government Guest House at Mysuru and was having permanent salary of Rs.21,041/- and the same has been established but the Tribunal has not given any future prospects and has awarded the compensation on the lower side. He further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and the same may be confirmed by dismissing the appeal. He further contended that the rider of the bicycle was coming slowly and steadily on the correct side of the road but the driver of the bus in order to take the bus towards left turn, at that time, the alleged accident has taken place and not at the fault of the deceased. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 12. The accident in question is not in dispute as it could be seen from the case made out by the petitioners and the respondents. The alleged accident has taken place near Jyothi Nagar Cross Junction. 13. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant – Corporation that the bus was coming on the main road so as to proceed towards Mysuru Road and the deceased who came from Jyothi Nagar Cross from the side road and he came without observing carelessly and dashed to the moving bus and as a result of the same, the alleged accident has taken place. But the records which were made available by the learned counsel for Corporation depict the fact that the said bus was hired for the purpose of taking the students for tour and after finishing the tour program they came near tourist home and they were alighting the students and at that time, both buses were stopped on the main road and at that time, the security guard of the tourist home asked them to take the bus on the side road to stop and alight the students and at that time, the driver of the bus took the bus on the left side to stop the bus on the side road and in that context, the alleged accident has taken place. It is not the case that the bus was coming on the main road and at that time the alleged accident has taken place. If the bus has already been stopped and in order to park the said bus, the driver was taking the bus on the left side and when the deceased was coming on the bicycle and in that regard, they could have taken more care and caution in order to stop the bus on the side road. These aspects have not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court and said fact is not brought either by the petitioners or respondents before the said Court. However, the said fact has been made available in the records and in that light, the contention taken by the learned counsel for the respondents that deceased has also contributed to the accident and the same is liable to be rejected, it is rejected accordingly. 14. The second contention of the learned counsel for the [Corrected vide Court order dated 20.7.2018] appellant– Corporation are that compensation which has been awarded is on the higher side and same requires to be reduced. It is not in dispute that deceased was working as a Head Cook in Government Guest House, Mysuru and he was earning Rs.21,041/- and he has also paid PT of Rs.200/-. Hence, he was drawing total salary of Rs.20,841/-. 15. In that context, the Tribunal ought to have added 15% of future prospects as per the decision of Honble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 . 16. Hence, he was drawing total salary of Rs.20,841/-. 15. In that context, the Tribunal ought to have added 15% of future prospects as per the decision of Honble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 . 16. The Tribunal has only taken the income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.20,841/-, out of the said income, 1/4th has been deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and after taking the age of deceased as 55 years and after applying the multiplier as “11”, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.19,60,101/- towards loss of dependency. Under these circumstances, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal appears to be justifiable. But, at the time of deducting the personal expenses, the Tribunal has considered petitioner Nos.3 and 4 as dependants and deducted 1/4th of the total income towards personal expenses. In that light, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3rd of the total income towards personal expenses of the deceased as the petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are major sisters and are not dependants of the deceased. 17. Hence, the respondents – claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.17,96,272/-. Even as could be seen from judgment and award, the compensation awarded under the conventional heads appears to be on the higher side. In that light, [deleted vide Court order dated 20.7.2018] claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.17,96,272/-with 6% interest per annum as against [Corrected vide Court order dated 20.7.2018] Rs.20,55,101/-. 18. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and the judgment and award passed in MVC No.291/2015 is modified as indicated above. 19. The amount in deposit may be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal. The [deleted vide Court order dated 20.7.2018] Corporation is directed to deposit the remaining compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. As far as the disbursement of compensation amount is concerned, the same would be as per the award passed in the Tribunal.