JUDGMENT : 1. The appeal filed by the claimants in MFA No.6687/2017 and the appeal by the insurer in MFA No.1574/2017 lay a challenge to the judgment and award dated 13.12.2016 made by the II Additional MACT, Hassan allowing the MVC No.1290/2015, whereby a compensation of Rs.11,13,000/-with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, has been awarded. The challenge by the claimants is on the ground of inadequacy of compensation whereas the challenge by the insurer is on the ground that the award is in excess of entitlement. 2. The brief facts stated are: in a vehicular accident that happened on 04.07.2015 because of rash and negligent driving of the offending Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.KA-13-A-271, one Mr. Azgal Ali sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the same later. In the claim petition filed by the legal representatives of deceased, the Written Statement was filed by the insurer resisting the claim. 3. To prove the case, mother of the deceased Smt.Akila Banu was examined as PW.1; one Mr. Shadaf Saleem and another Mr.Abdul Kayam were examined as PWs.2 and 3. From the claimant’s side, as many as eleven documents came to be marked as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11, which included the Chargesheet, Postmortem Report, Driving License, Ration Card and Genealogical Tree amongst other. From the side of the insurer, none was examined as a witness nor any document was got marked. The MACT, after looking to the pleadings of the parties and appreciating the evidentiary material on record has made the impugned judgment and award. 4. The learned counsel for the claimants submits that the MACT ought to have awarded compensation under the head “loss of future prospects” and that the MACT ought to have taken the notional monthly income of the deceased at higher rate; these things having not been done, the counsel submits, the impugned judgment and award are vulnerable. The learned counsel for the insurer apart from opposing the contentions of the claimant submits that the impugned judgment and award are defective in as much as in the case of death of bachelors, the amount to be deducted from his income should be atleast 50% whereas, the MACT has deducted only 1/3rd of the amount. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the claimants-appellants and the learned counsel for the insurer. I have perused the appeal papers. 6. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the claimants-appellants and the learned counsel for the insurer. I have perused the appeal papers. 6. The accident in question and the consequential death of the victim are not in dispute. Most of the facts material to justify all these lis are also not in dispute. The contention on behalf of the claimant that the MACT, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s Case reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , ought to have added 40% to the notional income of the deceased finds support in as much as no compensation has been awarded under the head “loss of future prospects”. The second contention that the MACT ought to have taken the salary of the deceased at the face value of the document at Ex.P.8 finds support but only partially. Going by the Lok Adalath Chart for the accident year in question, the MACT ought to have taken the monthly notional income of the deceased at Rs.9000/-. No reason is assigned as to why the same is not so taken. Therefore, the notional monthly income value of the deceased is altered from Rs.7,000/-to Rs.9,000/-. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant-insurer pressing the appeal into service submits that MACT could not have deducted only 1/3rd notional income of the deceased. There is force in this submission since the deceased was admittedly a bachelor which fact finds support there being no widow in the cause title and further there being the widowed mother in the first claim petition. Therefore, there shall be deduction of 50% of the notional income of the deceased, which is now altered as mentioned below. 8. The contention of the insurer that the MACT could not have awarded Rs.1,05,000/-as compensation in the conventional heads is supported by the Apex Court judgment of Pranay Sethi’s case reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 at para No.61. Therefore, the same is liable to be scaled down to Rs.30,000/-. 9. With the altered values, the compensation has been reworked out with the aid of the claimants’ memo filed at the Bar as under:- Monthly income now taken Rs.9000/- Add future prospects at 40% Rs.3600/- Total Rs.12600/- Less 1/2 towards personal expenses Rs.6300/- Actual monthly income Rs.6,300/- Multiplier 18 6300*12*18= Rs.13,60,800/- Loss of dependency Rs.13,60,800/- Add: Conventional heads Rs.30,000/- Total compensation Rs.13,90,800/- 10. In the above facts and circumstances, the appeals are favoured in part and the impugned judgment and award are modified enhancing the compensation from Rs.11,13,000/-to Rs.13,90,800/-with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 11. The Registry to transmit the amount in deposit to the jurisdictional MACT along with LCR for disbursal of the compensation to the claimants, forthwith. Costs made easy.