JUDGMENT : KRISHNA S. DIXIT, J. 1. This appeal by the owner of the vehicle-KSRTC is directed against the judgment and award dated 01.06.2014 allowing the claimants MVC No. 7460/2012 whereby a compensation of Rs. 7,98,000/- with annual interest at 6% is awarded. 2. The brief facts of the case stated are: (a) in a vehicular accident that happened on 12.11.2012, at around 7.00 pm on Bengaluru- Kolar, NH-4 Road, near Narasapura, involving rash and negligent driving of KSRTC bus bearing Registration No. KA-07F-1358, the victim namely Mr. Devaraja was dashed down to the ground and consequently sustained fatal injuries to which he succumbed later. A claim for compensation is filed by his LRs. Their claim for compensation in MVC No. 7460/2012 was stoutly opposed by the insurer by fling the Written Statement. (b) In order to prove the claim, the mother of the deceased, Smt. Lakshmamma was examined as PW-1 and in her evidence, 9 documents came to be marked as per Exhibits P1 to P9 which included the police papers and the ration card. From the side of the appellant-owner of the vehicle, one Mr. Thippanna, the driver of the said vehicle was examined as RW1 and no documents were marked in his evidence. The MACT after considering the pleadings of the parties and after weighing the evidentiary material on record, has entered the judgment and award that are in challenge by the owner of the vehicle on the ground of excessive compensation and also challenged by the claimants on the ground of inadequacy of compensation by filing MFA Crob No. 91/2015. 3. Learned panel counsel appearing for the respondent KSRTC-owner of the offending vehicle vehemently contends that the impugned judgment and award are vitiated on three grounds: (a) The MACT ought to have taken the age of mother of the deceased and not the deceased for assessing the compensation under the head Loss of Future Income. (b) The MACT would not have awarded Rs. 80,000/- as compensation under the conventional heads when what was otherwise also awardable was not more than Rs. 30,000/-. (c) The notional income of Rs. 6,000/- taken by the MACT for the accident year 2012 is on the higher side. 4. (b) The MACT would not have awarded Rs. 80,000/- as compensation under the conventional heads when what was otherwise also awardable was not more than Rs. 30,000/-. (c) The notional income of Rs. 6,000/- taken by the MACT for the accident year 2012 is on the higher side. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimants submit that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, AIR 2017 SC 5157 , while awarding compensation to the LRs. of the deceased victim, the age of the victim alone is relevant and nothing else; question of absence of evidence to prove the income of the deceased pales into insignificance once the principle of notional income is invoked. Lastly, being fair, he submits that award of compensation of Rs. 80,000/- under the conventional heads requires to be scaled down to Rs. 30,000/- in view of the Pranay Sethi’s case itself. However, he hastens to add that the monthly notional income of Rs. 6,000/- is required to be enhanced to Rs. 7,000/- in view of the Notional Monthly Income Chart ordinarily operated by the Lok Adalat in view of march of law from Pranay Sethi to Hemaraj [Hemaraj vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2018 ACJ 5 ] even in a case where notional income is the basis for award of compensation, there has to be a component of addition thereto. 5. In reply to the cross-objection, the learned counsel for the KSRTC with his usual vehemence submits that since there is no specific ground as to the principle of addition in terms of Pranay Sethi and Hemaraj’s case taken up in the cross objection, the question of enhancing the compensation by Addition Principle does not arise. Instantly, the learned counsel for the claimants replies that the Division Bench of this Court has successively held that even there being no cross objection, the compensation can be enhanced in the appeal in which scaling down of the compensation is sought for and therefore, he submits that court being under a legal duty to adjudge and award just compensation, the right to have just compensation cannot be defeated because of the ill-drafting of the cross objection, if at all it is so drafted. 6. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle and the learned counsel for the claimant-cross objectors. I have also perused the original papers from the LCR. 7. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was a mason by occupation does not merit acceptance in the absence of even the minimum evidentiary material supporting the same having been placed on record. Therefore, the MACT is justified in taking Rs. 6,000/- as the monthly notional income of the deceased. Therefore, this contention fails. 8. The other contention that the MACT could not have awarded Rs. 80,000/- as compensation under the conventional heads is justified in view of the judgment of the Pranay Sethi’s Case supra, as conceded by the learned counsel for the claimants-cross objectors, in all fairness. Therefore, the compensation under the conventional heads is reduced to Rs. 30,000/-. 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the claimants that there has to be an addition of 40% to the notional income in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Hemaraj’s Case is well-founded and the contra contention pressing into service Pranay Sethi’s Case is rejected since the said case has already been referred to in Hem Raj’s Case, wherein the Principle of Addition in varying percentages is held to be applicable even to cases where notional income is taken. In view of the same, there has to be an addition of 40% to the notional income. 10. The learned counsel for the claimant-objectors on the basis of the Notional Income Chart of the Lok Adalat submits that income of the deceased for the accident year 2012 ought to have been taken at Rs. 7,000/- per month appears to be sustainable in the absence of factors that justify deviation there from. 11. Accordingly, the finding of the MACT is altered to Rs. 7,000/- p.m. as the notional income of the deceased. If 40% is added, the same comes to Rs. 9,800/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor, 50% has to be deducted and therefore, the same comes to Rs. 4,900/-. Thus, the compensation payable under the head ‘Loss of Dependency’ is reworked out as under: 4900 x 12 x 18 = 10,58,400/- The amount of compensation awarded under the conventional heads having been scaled down from Rs. 80,000/- to Rs.30,000/- the total compensation payable would be Rs. 4,900/-. Thus, the compensation payable under the head ‘Loss of Dependency’ is reworked out as under: 4900 x 12 x 18 = 10,58,400/- The amount of compensation awarded under the conventional heads having been scaled down from Rs. 80,000/- to Rs.30,000/- the total compensation payable would be Rs. 10,88,400/- 12. Accordingly, the appeal as well as the MFA Crob. are disposed of, the impugned judgment and award are modified enhancing the compensation from Rs. 7,28,000/- to Rs. 10,88,400/- the insurer shall make good the differential of Rs. 3,60,400/- with the same rate of interest and all other conditions of the award having been left intact. The Registry is directed to transmit the amount in deposit to the jurisdictional Tribunal for disbursal to the claimant forthwith after ascertaining the credentials.