JUDGMENT : B.A. Patil, J. MFA Crob No.100201/2015 has been filed by the appellants-claimants and MFA No.101274/2015 has been filed by the appellant-Insurer challenging the judgment passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Chikodi in MVC No.300/2014, dated 22.11.2014. 2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and consequently the respondents in both the cases. 3. Though the cross objection and appeals are listed for admission, with the consent of counsel for the parties, they are taken up for final disposal. 4. Brief facts of the case as averred in the petition by the petitioners is that on 09.04.2013 at about 03.30 a.m. the deceased Shri. Bharat @ Anil S/o. Subhash @ Subhaschandra Ghaste and one Nagaraj Ratnappa Ashode have proceeded towards Bangalore on N.H.-4 in a car bearing registration No.KA-23/A-2582. When the said car came near Kundawad Chanal, the driver of the car tried to overtake ongoing goods Truck and in that process he lost control over the said Car and took huge turn on the left side and as a result of the same, the said Car turn turtle and the said car capsized and as a result of the same, the said Bharat @ Anil sustained grievous injuries and immediately, he was shifted to S.S. Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Davanagere and died at about 6.52 a.m. because of the injuries sustained by him. For having lost the husband the petitioner No.1 wife and father of the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 sons, and son of petitioner No.5 mother have filed the claim petition for claiming the compensation. It is further averred in the petition that the deceased was aged about 43 years and was serving as a Second Division Clerk in Irrigation Department and was drawing a salary of Rs.21,745/- per month and the family members are dependant of the deceased. 5. On service of notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have appeared and respondent No.1 admitted that he is the owner of the car and the said car has been insured with respondent No.2 at the time of accident and if at all any liability is there, respondent No.2 who has to pay the said amount. The respondent No.2 filed his objections contending that the compensation claimed is exorbitant and driver of the said car was not having valid driving licence as on the date of accident. The respondent No.2 filed his objections contending that the compensation claimed is exorbitant and driver of the said car was not having valid driving licence as on the date of accident. As such, there is violation of conditions of the policy and he is not liable to pay the compensation. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. In order to prove the case of the petitioners, petitioner No.1 got examined herself as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P15 and respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not led any evidence. But, further they got marked Ex.R1 to R3 with consent. After hearing the learned counsels the impugned judgment came to be passed. Whereunder, the amount of Rs.47,94,600/- has been awarded as compensation with interest @ 6% p.a. Challenging the same, both claimants as well as the Insurer are before this Court. 7. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants that the Court below without considering the facts and material placed on record has awarded the compensation on the lower side and same requires to be enhanced adequately. He further submitted that a reasonable compensation has not been awarded. He further submitted that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads is also on the lower side. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the cross objection. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurer vehemently argued and submitted that the pleadings of the claimants and document at Ex.P9 clearly goes to show that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.21,245/- per month and no pleading is there to show that he was having any other sources of income other than the salary. But, the Court below has relied upon Ex.P15 income tax Form No.16A without there being any basis and taken the income of the deceased at Rs.3,43,730/- and has awarded exorbitant compensation, though the claimants are not entitled. It is her further submission that Ex.P15 is not based upon any documents for the income. On these grounds, she prayed to reduce the compensation by allowing the appeal. 9. We have carefully and cautiously gone through the submission made by both the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the records. 10. The accident in question, is not in dispute, so also the car bearing registration No.KA-23/A-2582 is insured with appellant-Insurer. On these grounds, she prayed to reduce the compensation by allowing the appeal. 9. We have carefully and cautiously gone through the submission made by both the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the records. 10. The accident in question, is not in dispute, so also the car bearing registration No.KA-23/A-2582 is insured with appellant-Insurer. The only contention which has been raised by both the counsels is that the compensation which has been awarded by the Tribunal is not adequate. 11. As could be seen from the records and the evidence of PW1, as on the date of accident, the deceased Bharat @ Anil was working as Second Division Clerk in Irrigation Department and was getting a salary of Rs.21,245/- per month. They have produced the salary certificate of the deceased as per Ex.P9. Therein, the salary of the deceased has also been mentioned as Rs.21,245/- per month and the Court below has relied upon Ex.P15 the Form No.16 therein, the amount is mentioned as Rs.3,43,730/- per year. Though the said income is mentioned therein, but, in Ex.P15 Part-B there is a column 'any other sources of income'. The said column no other income has been shown out of which he used to get so much income. When the deceased was admittedly working as SDC and was getting a monthly salary of Rs.21,245/- and no other sources of income has also been mentioned in the Form No.16 at Ex.P15 so also in the evidence of PW1 to that effect. Even when the pleadings which have been pleaded in the petition therein also no other sources of income has been mentioned. Then under circumstances, we feel that the Court below without considering the facts and material placed on record has came to a wrong conclusion and by relying on Ex.P15 has taken the income in Form No.16 at Rs.3,43,730/- per year. and after deducting 1/4 of the income towards the personal expenses of the deceased and after adding 30% of the income as future prospects has awarded the compensation of Rs.46,91,918/- for loss of dependency. The same appears to be not justifiable. When there are no other material to establish the fact that the deceased was getting income other than the salary income, then under such circumstances merely relying upon Ex.P15 Form No.16 said to have been given by the Department, is not justifiable. The same appears to be not justifiable. When there are no other material to establish the fact that the deceased was getting income other than the salary income, then under such circumstances merely relying upon Ex.P15 Form No.16 said to have been given by the Department, is not justifiable. In that light, the finding given by the Tribunal requires to be interfered with. 12. As could be seen from the records and Ex.P9 that the deceased was getting salary of Rs.21,245/- and there are five dependents. Out of that, 1/4th of the income has to be deducted for the purpose of personal expenses of the deceased as the deceased was having a permanent job and was working in a Government employment i.e., Irrigation department. Then under such circumstances, by taking into consideration the age of the deceased as 43 years, then 30% of the income has to be added as future prospects in view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company limited V/s. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) AIR SC 5157. If that method is adopted, then under such circumstances, the monthly income of the deceased will be Rs.20,715/- [(Rs.21245X30/100=6373/-) (Rs/21245+6373=27618/) (27618/4=6904/- (27618-6904=20714/- rounded off to Rs.20715/-) and the appropriate multiplier which is required to be applied is 14' and in that light the loss of dependency will be Rs.34,80,120/- and the records indicates that an amount of Rs.7,685/- has been spent towards the medical expenses and it is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurer and the same is required to be retained. As the petitioner No.1 has lost her husband and as such, an amount of Rs.40,000/- has been awarded towards consortium and Rs.1,60,000/- has been awarded towards loss of love and affection to other petitioners. An Amount of Rs.30,000/- has been awarded towards the incidental charges i.e., funeral expenses and obsequies and transportation of dead body etc., and an amount of Rs.15,000/- awarded towards loss of estate. In the light of the discussion held by us above, the cross objectors-claimants are entitled to a total compensation as below: 1. Loss of dependency 34,80,120/- 2. Medical Expenses 7685/- 3. Loss of Consortium to petitioner No.1 40,000/- 4. Loss of consortium to petitioner Nos.2 to 4 1,60,000/- 5. Incidental charges i.e., funeral expenses and obsequies and transportation of dead body 30,000/- 6. Loss of dependency 34,80,120/- 2. Medical Expenses 7685/- 3. Loss of Consortium to petitioner No.1 40,000/- 4. Loss of consortium to petitioner Nos.2 to 4 1,60,000/- 5. Incidental charges i.e., funeral expenses and obsequies and transportation of dead body 30,000/- 6. Loss of estate 15,000/- Total 37,32,805/- Therefore, the cross-objectors in MFA Crob No.100201/2015 are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.37,32,805/- with interest @ 6% p.a. as against Rs.47,94,600/- 13. In the light of the discussion held by us above, the judgment of the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Chikodi in MVC No.300/2014 is modified as indicated above. Accordingly, MFA No.101274/2015 is allowed in part. In so far as MFA Crob No.100201/2015 is concerned, the same is hereby dismissed. 14. The apportionment of the compensation and disbursement of the same will be in terms of the order of the Tribunal. Registry is directed to draw the decree accordingly. The amount in deposit, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith along with the lower Court records.