JUDGMENT : The appellants being the parents, wife and son of M.N.Gangadhara, who died in an accident on 23.04.2009 have challenged the judgment and award dated 01.02.2012 passed in MVC No.4365/2009 by the XI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, MACT, Bengaluru, contending that the compensation awarded as regards their claim was inadequate and sought for enhancement of compensation awarded from Rs.7,23,500/to Rs.20,00,000/. 2. The facts being that on 23.04.2009 the victim i.e. M.N.Gangadhara was driving a container vehicle bearing No.KA 522384 and at Itikyalapadu Village a lorry being driven in a rash and negligent manner collided with the said container. The said M.N.Gangadhara immediately fell down due to the impact of the collision, he suffered grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries and died. A claim petition was preferred wherein it was averred that deceased M.N.Gangadhara was a driver employed in ANZ International Manufacturing Private Limited and as there was workers’ strike in the factory and the factory was under lockout, he was working elsewhere as a driver. The compensation that was sought for by preferring the claim petition was resisted by respondent No.1. The insurer, who had filed the statement of objections denied the averments made in the claim petition and also contended that the owner of the vehicle had not intimated regarding the accident nor furnished records of the vehicle and driving license particulars of the driver to the insurer. It was also contended that the income of Rs.9,000/as claimed was a false claim. 3. The owner of the vehicle also filed his statement of objections denying the averments of the petition. The Tribunal after considering the evidence and pleadings framed issues as regards the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.KL09G5418 causing the accident and as regards the entitlement of compensation, has passed the impugned award. 4. The claimants had let in evidence through PW1 wife of the deceased and got marked 14 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P14 which includes records obtained from the Police Authorities, the Driving license extract of the deceased, salary slip stated to have been issued by the erstwhile employer. The said witness was crossexamined and during crossexamination, the claim as regards salary is sought to be denied by appropriate suggestions. The said witness was crossexamined and during crossexamination, the claim as regards salary is sought to be denied by appropriate suggestions. The Tribunal eventually has awarded the compensation as follows: Loss of Dependency Rs.6,88,500.00 Loss of consortium 10,000.00 Loss of love and affection 10,000.00 Loss of estate 10,000.00 Transportation, funeral and obsequies 5,000.00 Total Rs.7,23,500.00 5. An appeal has been filed by the dependants seeking enhancement primarily on the ground that the Tribunal having considered the monthly earning of the deceased at Rs.4,500/per month was without any basis, even though the claimants had produced the Salary Certificate of the erstwhile employer indicating the monthly wages as Rs.8,600/per month. The appellants also contend that by virtue of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRANAY SETHI reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 , they were entitled to future prospects, which has not been awarded. 6. The respondent-insurer on the contrary contends that there was no sufficient evidence let in to take note of the monthly salary of the deceased as at Rs.8,600/per month and further contended that in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the Apex Court has specifically stipulated that the question of awarding future prospects would arise only if income is ‘established’ and relies on para 59.4 of the judgment reported in AIR (2017) 16 SCC 680 and hence, it is contended by the insurer that the Tribunal having noted and declined to accept the contention that the salary is Rs.8,600/, has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/which is proper and the question of awarding future prospects does not arise. 7. Having considered the contentions of both sides and the evidence and material on record, it is to be noted that the deceased was working as a driver which fact is not seriously disputed and the circumstances and material on record i.e. possession of driving license (Ex P8) and complaint of the brother of the deceased (Ex P3) would lead to the conclusion that he indeed was a driver. 8. In fact the deceased had met with an accident when he was driving the container (vehicle) bearing No.KA522384. 9. The Salary Certificate issued by the erstwhile employer bearing the seal along with the signature of the authorized signatory has been produced as Ex.P7, which reveals that the deceased was being paid a net salary of Rs.7,530/. 8. In fact the deceased had met with an accident when he was driving the container (vehicle) bearing No.KA522384. 9. The Salary Certificate issued by the erstwhile employer bearing the seal along with the signature of the authorized signatory has been produced as Ex.P7, which reveals that the deceased was being paid a net salary of Rs.7,530/. The Tribunal has refused to rely on the salary slip and recorded that the salary slip cannot be taken note of in the absence of the employer being examined and had adopted Rs.4,500/as monthly income. 10. Though the insurer seriously objects to the accepting of salary slip, both the learned counsel fairly submit that it would be reasonable if the income of the driver were to be taken between Rs.6,000 to Rs.7,000/. Recording the said submission and taking judicial note of the wages that the driver at the time of accident would have been paid, it would be prudent to adopt the income of the deceased at Rs.6,500/p.m. 11. The consequential benefit i.e., claimed by the appellant relying on the judgment of Pranay Sethi’s case is on the ground that deceased is entitled to the future prospects at the rate of 40% as it can be said that the driver is a person who is earning fixed salary. The insurer however objects to awarding of future prospects on the ground that there was no proof of income of the deceased, that on the basis of appropriate estimation, the notional income of deceased has been taken which is not ‘established income’ as contemplated in Pranay Sethi’s case. 12. The learned counsel for the appellants has rightly relied upon the Apex Court’s judgment in the case of Hem Raj v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & others reported in 2018 ACJ 5 wherein while considering the contention of awarding future prospects, in the light of the objection that the income in the relevant case was on the basis of an estimate it was observed at paras 11 to 13 as follows: 11. The contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that in the light of the said judgment 40 per cent increase on estimated income towards future prospects is required to be taken into account as the deceased was 40 years of age. 12. The contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that in the light of the said judgment 40 per cent increase on estimated income towards future prospects is required to be taken into account as the deceased was 40 years of age. 12. Learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that in absence of actual evidence of income the principle of adding on account of future prospects cannot be applied where income is determined by guesswork. 13. We are of the view that there cannot be distinction where there is positive evidence of income and where minimum income is determined on guesswork in the facts and circumstances of a case. Both the situations stand at the same footing. Accordingly, in the present case, addition of 40 percent to the income assessed by the Tribunal is required to be made. The Tribunal made addition of 50 per cent while the High Court has deleted the same.” 13. The judgment in case of Hem Raj while referring to judgment of Pranay Sethi’s case has elucidated the aspect of ‘established income’ as referred to in Pranay Sethi’s case and categorically opined that no distinction can be made where there is positive evidence of income and where minimum income is determined on guesswork in the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. Many a time, the income of the claimant cannot be proved due to absence of sufficient evidence. Nevertheless in summary trials taking judicial note of the wages that the claimant in similar employment would have earned, the Court comes to a conclusion regarding income of the claimants which is adopted to calculate compensation. The recent decisions of the Apex Court wherein future prospects, has been awarded where notional income was adopted are: (a) Savitha and others vs Divisional Manager – (2018) 12 SCC Page 24, where future prospects of 40% was awarded on the notional income of Rs.5,000/. (b) Jagadish vs Mohan, Civil Appeal No.2217 of 2018, the Apex Court even in the case of permanent disability awarded 40% towards future prospects where the injured was self employed inspite of no documentary proof of income. 15. (b) Jagadish vs Mohan, Civil Appeal No.2217 of 2018, the Apex Court even in the case of permanent disability awarded 40% towards future prospects where the injured was self employed inspite of no documentary proof of income. 15. The other contentions of the claimants are that the award of compensation on the ground of loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of dependency and towards transport and vehicle and obsequies is also inadequate and contends that by virtue of the judgment in Pranay Sethi’s case and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.70,000/under the conventional heads instead of the compensation of Rs.35,000/awarded under the conventional heads by the Tribunal. The said aspect has not been seriously objected by the learned counsel for the insurer. 16. Taking note of the contentions, findings and judgments relied upon, the judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified as follows: (i) The income of the deceased is to be taken at Rs.6,500/p.m. and if it were so the loss of dependency i.e. calculated would be as follows: Rs.6500 x 40% Rs.2600/ Rs.6500 + 2600 Rs.9100/ ¼th of Rs.9100 Rs.2275/ Rs.9100Rs.2275 Rs.6825 Rs.6,825 x 12 x 17 Rs.13,92,300/ Less the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency Rs.6,88,500/ Enhanced amount Awarded towards loss of dependency Rs.7,03,800/ (ii) The claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.70,000/under the Conventional heads. Rs.70,000/ Less the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards Conventional heads Rs.35,000/ Additional amount awarded towards Conventional heads Rs.35,000/ (iii) Total compensation would amount to: Towards loss of dependency Rs.13,92,300/ Towards Conventional heads Rs. 70,000/ Total Compensation Rs.14,62,300/ Less: Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.7,23,500/ Enhanced Compensation Rs.7,38,800/ (iv) Interest of 6% as awarded by the Tribunal would be awarded on the enhanced amount, from the date of petition, till the date of realization i.e. 6% is to be calculated on the enhanced amount of Rs.7,38,800/. In view of the above, appeal is allowed in part. Other stipulations in the order of the tribunal would remain undisturbed.