JUDGMENT : This appeal has been filed by the Corporation, being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and A.M.A.C.T. VI, Shivamogga, in M.V.C. No.1197/2014, dated 01.07.2017. 2. Heard. Though the case is listed for Orders, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal. 3. The accident in question is not in dispute so also, involvement of the offending vehicle. It is the case of the claimants that on 27.07.2014, Kumara was riding the motorcycle bearing reg. No.KA15/L7225 and one Siddu @ Siddaraju was a pillion rider. When they reached Bhadravathi byepass, the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing reg. No.KA11/F0284 came from Tarikere side in a rash and negligent manner and without any indication, suddenly took a right turn near Jayashri Circle. On account of the sudden turn of the KSRTC bus, though Kumararider of the motorcycle applied brake, the motorcycle went ahead and hit the said bus and as a result, he died on the spot. It is the case of the claimants that deceased Kumara was hale and healthy and was an agriculturist and was earning Rs.15,000-00 p.m. For his loss, his parents filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. It is the contention of the appellant Corporation that the accident has occurred in the junction and at the time when the KSRTC bus was taking a turn into the bus stand. Without observing the basic rules, the rider of the motorcycle i.e., deceased Kumara came and hit the hind portion of the said bus and as such, he has contributed to the alleged accident and the Tribunal has not considered the said fact while deciding the case. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant Corporation that though there is no permanent or settled income, the Tribunal has added 30% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects, which is also not sustainable in law. On these grounds, he prayed for allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal. On these grounds, he prayed for allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants/respondent Nos.1 and 2 vehemently argued by contending that a criminal case has been registered against the driver of the KSRTC bus and the driver of the said KSRTC bus has also not filed any complaint against the deceased for having contributed to the alleged accident. The sketch and other records, which have been produced would clearly indicate that the driver of the KSRTC bus was rash and negligent at the time when the alleged accident has taken place. He further contended that the Tribunal by rightly appreciating the evidence and the documents on record has come to the conclusion that the driver of the KSRTC bus was rash and negligent while driving and there are no good grounds to interfere with the finding given by the Tribunal. He further contended that the deceased was doing agriculture and was earning Rs.15,000-00 p.m. However, the Tribunal by taking the notional income at the rate of Rs.7,500-00 p.m. and by adding 30% towards future prospects has rightly awarded the compensation. In order to substantiate these contentions, he has also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Nagar Mal and Ors. Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors.; in Civil Appeal No.448/2018. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 5. As could be seen from the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal, it is the contention of the claimants that the deceased was working as an agriculturist and was earning Rs.15,000-00 p.m. But, in order to substantiate the said contention, no documents have been produced except the ration card and I.D. card. In the absence of supporting material, the Tribunal by taking the notional income of Rs.7,500-00 p.m. and adding 30% of the income towards the future prospects and after deducting 50% towards the personal expenses of the deceased and after applying the multiplier of ‘18’, has awarded a compensation of Rs.10,53,000-00. Though under normal circumstances, the compensation awarded appears to be justifiable, but, while taking the future prospects, the Tribunal has not kept into view the ratio laiddown by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Though under normal circumstances, the compensation awarded appears to be justifiable, but, while taking the future prospects, the Tribunal has not kept into view the ratio laiddown by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi; reported in AIR [2017] SC 5157. Even by referring the said decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Muniswamy and others Vs. Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Road Transport Corporation has clarified that there can be some degree of difference as regards the percentage that is meant for or applied to in respect of the legal representatives who claim on behalf of the deceased who had a permanent job than a person who is selfemployed or on a fixed salary. But not to apply the principle of standardization on the foundation of perceived lack of certainty would tantamount to remaining oblivious to the marrows of ground reality. Therefore, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that degree test is imperative. Unless the degreetest is applied and left to the parties to adduce evidence to establish, it would be unfair and inequitable. The degreetest has to have the inbuilt concept of percentage. Taking into consideration the cumulative factors, namely, passage of time, the changing society, escalation of price, the change in price index, the human attitude to follow a particular pattern of life, etc. In that light, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that future prospects has to be adopted as stated therein. But, in the instant case on hand, no such degreetest has been applied to the future prospects. However, as could be seen from the impugned Judgment and Award, the accident is of the year 2014 and the Tribunal ought to have kept into view the income prevailing during the said period, minimum wages which was existing on that day. As could be seen from the records, it indicates that as on the date of the accident, the notional income of Rs.8,500-00 p.m. is the yardstick, which has been normally adopted in settlement of cases before the Lok Adalat. 6. The ration card which has been produced at Ex.P9 indicates the age of the deceased was 29 years. In that light, the appropriate multiplier would be ‘17’. 6. The ration card which has been produced at Ex.P9 indicates the age of the deceased was 29 years. In that light, the appropriate multiplier would be ‘17’. If the income of the deceased is taken at the rate of Rs.8,500-00 p.m., after deducting 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased and after applying the multiplier of ‘17’, the claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.8,67,000-00 [Rs.8,500 x 50% x 12 x 17] towards loss of dependency. Even as could be seen from the impugned Judgment and Award, an amount of Rs.50,000-00 has been awarded under conventional heads. But, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court quoted supra, the claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.30,000-00 only under conventional heads. In that light, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.8,97,000-00 with interest as against Rs.10,53,000-00 and while depositing, the Corporation is also directed to deduct Rs.50,000-00 out of the total compensation as the same has been paid to the claimants as an interim compensation. 7. The second contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant Corporation is that the alleged accident has occurred in the junction when the driver of the KSRTC bus was about to take a right turn and without observing the traffic rules, the rider of the motorcycle came and hit the hind portion of the bus and therefore, the deceased was solely responsible for the alleged accident. In order to substantiate the said fact, the driver of the KSRTC bus was came to be examined as R.W.1. In his evidence, though he has deposed that he was taking right turn towards the bus stand to enter, however, he has come from Tarikere side and he was about to take a right turn to enter into the bus stand. But, the rider of the motorcycle was coming from Shivamogga side and intending to proceed towards Tarikere. When the rider of the motorcycle was coming on the straight road and the driver of the KSRTC bus was intending to take a right turn to go towards the bus stand, then under such circumstances, the driver of the KSRTC bus could have taken more care and caution while taking turn. He must observe on coming vehicle/s, then stop and take a right turn. He must observe on coming vehicle/s, then stop and take a right turn. In this regard, the evidence led by R.W.1 does not inspire any confidence so as to accept the case of the appellant Corporation. Even as could be seen from the impugned Judgment and Award, it indicates that the criminal case has also been registered against the driver of the KSRTC bus. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the second contention, which has been taken up by the learned counsel for the appellant Corporation does not stand any reason and the same deserves to be rejected. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal in M.V.C. No.1197/2014 has been modified as indicated above. The amount in deposit may be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith and the appellant Corporation is also directed to deposit the remaining amount of compensation, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the Judgment. Registry is directed to draw the Award accordingly.