JUDGMENT : 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/Corporation being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and MACT, Beluru in MVC No.1477/2008 dated 8.12.2015. 2. Heard. Appeal is admitted. With the consent of the leaned counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that : On 25.05.2014 at about 6.00 a.m., Raghu Chakravarthi and others by hiring a tempo traveler bearing Registration No.KA-01-AB-9739 were proceeding and after finishing the tour programme, they were returned at about 11.30 p.m. and when the said vehicle came near Maragowdanahalli Gate, at that time, a KSRTC Bus bearing Regn. No.KA-42-F-728 came rashly and negligently and dashed against the said tempo traveler and as a result of the same, the said Raghu Chakravarthy and others sustained injuries and thereafter he was shifted to Government Hospital, Mandya and there he was treated and subsequently on 10.6.2014, he succumbed to the injuries. It is the contention of the father of deceased that the deceased was hale and healthy and was doing coolie work and was earning Rs.10,000/-p.m. For having lost the bread earner, the claimant has filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act claiming compensation. 4. In pursuance to the notice, respondent Corporation filed its written statement by denying the contents of the petition. It is contended that the alleged accident has taken place due to fault of driver of tempo traveler and he was not having driving license at the time of accident and as such the Corporation is not liable to pay any compensation. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. Respondent No.2 also appeared and filed its objection by denying contents of the petition. He further contended that the alleged accident has taken place due to fault of driver of KSRTC bus. He further contended that charge sheet has also been filed as against the driver of KSRTC bus. He is not liable to pay any compensation. 6. Respondent No.3 though appeared has not filed objection. 7. After considering the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the necessary issues. He further contended that charge sheet has also been filed as against the driver of KSRTC bus. He is not liable to pay any compensation. 6. Respondent No.3 though appeared has not filed objection. 7. After considering the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the necessary issues. In order to prove the case of the claimant, he got examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11 and driver of KSRTC bus came to be examined as RW1 and no document has been produced and other respondents have not led any evidence. 8. After hearing the parties to the lis, the impugned judgment and award came to be passed. Assailing the same, the Corporation is before this Court. 9. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellant are that during the course of cross-examination, PW2 has clearly admitted the fact that the alleged accident has taken place due to fault of drivers of both vehicles and the Tribunal without considering the said fact fixed the liability on the appellant/ Corporation. He further contended that the compensation awarded is also on the higher side. By taking into consideration the future prospects, the deceased was not having any settled income. On these grounds, he prayed for allowing the appeal by reducing the compensation. 10. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that during the course of cross-examination, PW2 has admitted that both the drivers of the vehicles have contributed to the alleged accident. As could be seen from the records and the findings given by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the evidence and materials on record and has come to the right conclusion by holding that the alleged accident has taken place due to fault on the part of driver of KSRTC bus and in that light, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant do not survive for consideration and the same is rejected. 11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/claimant vehemently argued by contending that the deceased was doing coolie work and was earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. But the Tribunal by taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, by taking notional income at the rate of Rs.6,000/- p.m. and after deducting 50% towards personal expenses has awarded the compensation on the lower side. He also further contended that more than Rs.1,00,000/- has been spent towards medical expenses as the accident has taken place on 25.5.2014 and subsequently the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 10.6.2014 and nearly more than 15 days, he was inpatient in the hospital and spent huge amount, but the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,50,000/towards medical expenses and the same is not justifiable. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal by confirming the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3/Insurer by justifying the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. He contended that the Tribunal has rightly fixed the liability on appellant/ Corporation and the same may be confirmed. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 13. The accident in question is not in dispute. As could be seen from the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, it is the contention of the claimant that the deceased was working as a coolie and was earning an amount of Rs.10,000/-p.m. In order to substantiate the said fact, no document has been produced. In the absence of documents, the Tribunal by taking the notional income at the rate of Rs.6,000/-p.m. and after deducting 50% towards personal expenses and after applying the multiplier 18 has awarded an amount of Rs.9,72,000/-towards loss of dependency. Though under the normal circumstances, the compensation awarded appears to be justifiable, but while taking notional income, the year of the accident and the wages prevailing during the said period ought to have been kept into view. Admittedly the alleged, incident is of the year 2014. At that time, the notional income of Rs.8,500/p.m. is the yardstick after deducting 50% towards personal expenses and after applying the multiplier 18, the claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.9,10,000/. As could be seen from the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, it indicates that though the income has been taken as Rs.6,000/-p.m., the Tribunal has added 50% towards future prospects and has awarded compensation. But in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 , wherein it has been held that the claimant has to substantiate the fact that the deceased was having fixed avocation and settled income. But in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 , wherein it has been held that the claimant has to substantiate the fact that the deceased was having fixed avocation and settled income. In the absence of the said material, adding 50% towards future prospects is not justifiable. But, however, the income taken is on the higher side and in that light, if it is recalculated, the respondent/claimant is entitled to a total amount of Rs.9,10,000/-towards loss of dependency. Even as could be seen from the judgment and award that the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.40,000/-under the conventional heads. But actually in view of the decision cited supra, the claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.30,000/-under the conventional heads. 14. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant contended that the amount of Rs.3,05,203/-has been spent towards medical expenses. As could be seen from the records, the amount, which has been spent towards medical expenses, has been assessed by the Tribunal and an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-has been awarded towards medical expenses. The same appears to be just and proper and the same has not been disturbed. 15. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.10,98,000/-as against Rs.11,62,000/-with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till realization Accordingly, appeal is allowed in part and the judgment and award dated 8.12.2015 passed in MVC No.1477/2014 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and MACT, Beluru is modified as indicated above. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith. Registry is directed to draw award accordingly. The release, deposit and disbursement of the enhanced compensation shall be made in terms of the award of the Tribunal.