JUDGMENT : Being aggrieved by the common judgment and award dated 5.3.2016 passed in MVC Nos. 383 and 384/2013 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge and MACT., Tumkur, the present appeals are preferred by the claimants. 2. Heard. 3. Though the appeals are listed for admission, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the same are taken up for final disposal. 4. The accident in question is not in dispute. So also involvement of the offending vehicle insured with respondent No.2 insurer. It is contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the compensation awarded in MVC No.383/2013 is on the lower side and even the notional income which has been taken is also on the lower side and hence, the same require to be enhanced adequately. She further contended that the claimant-appellant in MVC No.384/2013 has sustained fracture of left clavicle and other injuries and the compensation awarded under the Heads Pain and Suffering, Loss of Amenities and Discomfort is also on the lower side. Hence, the same requires to be enhanced. On these grounds she prayed for allowing the appeals for enhancement of compensation. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent insurer vehemently argued by contending that the deceased was aged about 62 years at the time of death and no documents have been produced to show regarding the income of the deceased. In that light, the Tribunal has taken the notional income at the rate of Rs.3,000/per month and has awarded just compensation. There is no good ground to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the appeals. 6. As could be seen from the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, it is the contention of the claimants-appellants that the deceased was an experienced surveyor and he was working as a recognized licence holder of the Survey and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/-per month in addition to the pension which he used to draw. In order to substantiate the said facts, the petitioners have not produced any document. In the absence of any document, the Tribunal by taking the notional income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.4,500/per month, after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses and by applying the multiplier of 7 has awarded an amount of Rs.2,52,000/-towards Loss of Dependency. In order to substantiate the said facts, the petitioners have not produced any document. In the absence of any document, the Tribunal by taking the notional income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.4,500/per month, after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses and by applying the multiplier of 7 has awarded an amount of Rs.2,52,000/-towards Loss of Dependency. Though under normal circumstances, the compensation awarded appears to be justifiable, but the fact remains that he was a retired employee working as a Survey Supervisor in lands, after his retirement, he was also doing survey works. In that light, the notional income which has been taken by the Tribunal appears to be on the lower side. If the income of the deceased is taken at Rs.7,000/-per month, after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses and after applying the multiplier of 7, the claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.3,92,028/towards Loss of Dependency. 7. As could be seen from the impugned judgment and award, an amount of Rs.1,60,000/-has been awarded under the Conventional Heads but in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Limited –vsPranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 , the claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.70,000/-under the Conventional Head. Even the records indicate that the appellants-claimants have spent an amount of Rs.34,447/towards medical expenses. The same appears to be just and proper and hence, the same is not disturbed. 8. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants-claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.4,96,337/-. Since the Tribunal has already awarded an amount of Rs.4,42,000/-, after deducting the same, the appellant-sclaimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.54,337/-with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till realisation. 9. As could be seen from the impugned judgment and award passed in MVC No.384/2013 and the would certificate Ex.P.16 which discloses that appellant had suffered bleeding injuries to her nose and injury to her left clavicle which is grievous in nature and she had been treated in the Government Hospital for three days and subsequently, she had also taken up follow up treatment. It is the contention of the appellant claimant that she was earning an amount of Rs.4,500/-per month by doing house hold works, but in order to substantiate the said fact, she has not produced any document and by keeping in view the injuries suffered by the appellant claimant, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation as mentioned below: 1 Conveyance Rs.5,000/- 2 Pain and agony Rs.25,000/- 3 Attendant charges and nourishing food Rs.10,000/- 4 Medical expenses Rs.3557/- 5 Loss of income during treatment period Rs.9,000/- 6 Loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life Rs.20,000/- Total Rs.72,557/- 10. Though under normal circumstances, the compensation awarded appears to be justifiable, but as could be seen from the impugned judgment and award, the compensation awarded under Pain and Agony and Loss of Amenities and Discomfort appears to be on the lower side. In that light, I feel if an amount of Rs.45,000/-is awarded under the Head Pain and Agony and an amount of Rs.30,000/-under the Head Loss of Amenities and Discomfort are awarded, the same would meet the ends of justice. 11. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, the appellant claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.1,02,557/-with 6% interest per annum. Since the Tribunal has already awarded an amount of Rs.72,557/-, after deducting the same, the appellants-claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.30,000/with interest. 12. In the light of the discussion held by me above, both the appeals are allowed in part and the common judgment and award dated 5.3.2016 passed in MVC Nos. 383 and 384/2013 are modified as indicated above. 13. The respondent insurer is directed to deposit the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the additional compensation awarded by this Court with upto date interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 14. The registry is directed to draw the award accordingly.