JUDGMENT : B.V. Nagarathna, J. 1. Though these appeals are listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, they are heard finally. 2. MFA No. 5279/2016 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, while MFA No. 5050/2016 is filed by the insurance company assailing the judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in MVC No. 2578/2014, dated 27.04.2016. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status before the Tribunal. 3. The claimants filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation on account of death of K. Venu in a road traffic accident. According to the claimants, on 15.03.2014, at about 10.00 p.m. the deceased K. Venu was crossing the road and was about to reach the footpath near Vijinapura underpass, Kasturi Nagar junction. At that time, the driver of Honda Brio Car bearing No. KA-53-MA-5970 drove the said car in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life and dashed against Venu. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries on his head and chest. He was taken to Koshyas Hospital, Bangalore, in the car of the accused where he was treated as an inpatient in the hospital from 15.03.2014 to 16.03.2014, but during the course of treatment he died. Contending that they had lost the bread winner of the family and that Venu was working as System Administrator in M/s. Amazon Distributor Pvt. Ltd. at Kasturba Nagar, Bangalore and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month, which was being used for the family, the claimants have sought compensation under various heads. 4. In response to the claim petition, respondent No. 1/insurance company appeared through its counsel and filed its written statement admitting that it had issued an insurance policy in respect of the car valid from 22.04.2013 to 21.04.2014. But the liability to indemnify respondent No. 2/insured is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It was contended that the claimants had sought astronomical compensation and that the same was subject to proof. Hence, the insurance company had sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. But the liability to indemnify respondent No. 2/insured is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It was contended that the claimants had sought astronomical compensation and that the same was subject to proof. Hence, the insurance company had sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. Respondent No. 2/owner of the vehicle also filed his written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the policy was issued in the name of owner of the vehicle and the vehicle was standing in the name of M/s. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd. which was insured and that the liability was subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. 6. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: (i) Whether petitioners prove that, deceased K. Venu S/o M. Krishnappa succumbed to the injuries due to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of offending vehicle bearing No. KA-53-MA-5970 on 15.03.2014 at about 10.00 p.m. near Vijinapura underpass, Kasturinagar Junction, Bengaluru when deceased was almost crossed the road? (ii) Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed in the claim petition? If so, what is the quantum of compensation amount and from whom? (iii) What award or order? 7. In support of their case, the claimants examined two witnesses as PWs. 1 and 2. They produced twenty six documents, which were marked as Exs.P-1 to P-26. While the respondents did not let-in any evidence in the matter. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal answered issue No. 1 in the affirmative and awarded compensation of Rs. 27,94,909/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realisation, by apportioning the liability to an extent of 25% on the deceased as contributory negligence and 75% on the insurer of the vehicle belonging to respondent No. 2. Being aggrieved by fastening 25% contributory negligence on the deceased, the claimants have preferred MFA No. 5279/2016, while the insurance company has sought for reduction in the award of compensation. In the circumstances, we have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contended that the Tribunal was not right in fastening 25% contributory negligence on the deceased Venu and thereby reducing compensation to that extent. In the circumstances, we have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contended that the Tribunal was not right in fastening 25% contributory negligence on the deceased Venu and thereby reducing compensation to that extent. He submitted that on the fateful day at about 10.00 p.m. Venu was crossing the road and was almost at the edge of the footpath and the offending vehicle dashed against him. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries on his head and chest and succumbed to the same. That respondent/insurer or the owner of the vehicle did not let-in any evidence with regard to the aspect of negligence. Therefore, the Tribunal could not have apportioned negligence on the deceased to an extent of 25% by way of contributory negligence. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the said finding may be reversed and the entire negligence may be fastened on the driver of the offending vehicle. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/insurer, while supporting the judgment of the Tribunal on the apportionment of negligence submitted that the award of compensation by the Tribunal on conventional heads is on the higher side considering the award of Rs. 25,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses, Rs. 5,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 30,000/- towards loss to estate, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and another sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance of minor children. He contended that the said award of compensation is contrary to the latest dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram, (2018) ACJ 2782. He submitted that this Court may retain the apportionment of negligence, but reduce the quantum of compensation. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the material on record, the following points would arise for our consideration: (i) Whether the Tribunal was right in fastening 25% contributory negligence on deceased K. Venu? (ii) Whether the award of compensation would call for reduction? (iii) What order? 11. The fact that on 15.03.2014 at about 10.00 p.m. Venu was hit by the Honda Brio Car bearing No. KA-53-MA-5970 by its driver is established. (ii) Whether the award of compensation would call for reduction? (iii) What order? 11. The fact that on 15.03.2014 at about 10.00 p.m. Venu was hit by the Honda Brio Car bearing No. KA-53-MA-5970 by its driver is established. The controversy is, as to whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of Venu in causing the accident. From the evidence on record, the Tribunal has noted that Venu had crossed the road and was at the edge of the footpath. That the accident had occurred near Vijinapura underpass, Kasturi Nagar Junction. That the jurisdictional police had registered a case against the driver of the offending vehicle in Crl. No. 30/2014 for the offences punishable Sections 279 and 338 of IPC. The claimants had produced certified copies of charge sheet Ex.P-1, FIR Ex.P-2, complaint Ex.P-3, inquest panchanama Ex.P-4, statement of K. Rajendra Ex.P-5, P.M. report Ex.P-6 and IMV report Ex.P-7 in order to prove that Venu died on account of negligent driving by the driver of the car bearing No. KA-53-MA-5970. The Tribunal has noted that one Birobathra Pal was driving the car from Ramamurthy Nagar Ring Road, Vijinapura underpass towards Tin Factory and the accident occurred at 10.00 p.m. That the accident occurred when Venu was at the edge of the food-path and had almost crossed the road. It was contended before the Tribunal that Venu was crossing the road without observing the movement of the vehicle and that there was contributory negligence and that the deceased was crossing the road where there was no zebra crossing. Hence, he was responsible in causing the accident. However, the charge sheet has been filed against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC. In the circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that the driver of the offending vehicle had caused the accident. But while apportioning the liability, 25% contributory negligence has been fastened on the deceased Venu. We find that the said finding is contrary to the evidence on record and therefore, the said finding is reversed and it is held that the entire negligence (100%) was on the driver of the offending car. Consequently, point no. 1 is answered in favour of the claimants/appellants herein and against the insurance company. 12. This takes us to the next point for consideration which is on the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Consequently, point no. 1 is answered in favour of the claimants/appellants herein and against the insurance company. 12. This takes us to the next point for consideration which is on the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had awarded Rs. 27,94,909/- in the following manner:- Medical Expenses Rs. 31,973/- Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs. 5,00,000/- Loss of estate Rs. 30,000/- Loss of consortium Rs. 1,00,000/- Loss of care and guidance of minor children Rs. 1,00,000/- Loss of dependency Rs. 20,07,936/- TOTAL Rs. 27,94,909/- 13. Learned counsel for the respondent/insurer contended that the award of Rs. 7,55,000/- towards conventional head is exorbitant and the same has to be reduced in accordance with the dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. While learned counsel for the claimants supported the said award. 14. We find force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the insurance company particularly having regard to the latest dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above. In the circumstances, the award of compensation on the conventional heads is reduced i.e. towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 15,000/-. Towards loss of love and affection a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- is awarded. Towards loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- is awarded. Towards loss of spousal consortium Rs. 40,000/- is awarded. The award of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance of minor children is a duplication, while we retain Rs. 20,07,936/- on the head of loss of dependency and Rs. 31,973/- towards medical expenses. Thus, the re-assessment of compensation is as under:- Medical Expenses (Retained) Rs. 31,973/- Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs. 1,60,000/- Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/- Loss of care and guidance of minor children --- Loss of dependency (Retained) Rs. 20,07,936/- TOTAL Rs. 22,69,909/- 15. In view of reduction of compensation in these appeals and having regard to the nature of apportionment made by the Tribunal, we think it is just and proper to reapportion the compensation amount i.e. 40:20:20:10:10. 16. In the result, both the appeals are allowed in part. 17. Parties to bear their respective costs. 18. The amount in deposit before this Court be transmitted to the Tribunal. 19. 16. In the result, both the appeals are allowed in part. 17. Parties to bear their respective costs. 18. The amount in deposit before this Court be transmitted to the Tribunal. 19. The balance compensation shall be deposited by the insurance company within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. 20. The amount awarded to the minor children shall be deposited in any nationalized bank or post office till they attain the age of majority. 21. The compensation awarded to the parents of the deceased Venu shall be released to them after due verification. 22. 75% of the compensation awarded to appellant No. 1 shall be deposited in any nationalized bank or post office for an initial period of ten years. She shall however be entitled to draw periodical interest on the said deposit. The remaining compensation shall be released to her after due verification.