JUDGMENT : K SOMASHEKAR, J. 1. These appeals are heard and disposed of together in view of the fact that both the appeals arise out of the same judgment rendered by the Tribunal. 2. Mfa 7636/2015 is preferred by the appellants/claimants against the judgment and award dated 08.01.2015 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.570/2012 seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as well as with a prayer to set aside the finding of the Tribunal fixing 30% negligence on the part of the driver of the autorickshaw bearing No.KA-30/4722 and thereby directing the Insurance Company to only deposit 70% of the compensation awarded with interest. MFA 3940/2015 is preferred by the Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 08.01.2015 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.570/2012 fixing the negligence against the driver of the lorry at 70% when the driver of the autorickshaw was solely responsible for the accident, as well as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 3. The factual matrix of the appeals is as under: It is stated in the claim petition that on 3.3.2012 at about 10.00 a.m., when the deceased Tajpeer S/o. Babasab was proceeding in an autorickshaw bearing Regn.No.KA-30/4722 towards Jail Circle from Durgigudi driven by its driver slowly and carefully, at that time, the first respondent in MFA 7636/2015 / driver of the offending lorry bearing Regn.No.MH-19/Z- 1598 had come from Nanjappa Hospital in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the said auto in which the deceased was traveling. As a result, the deceased sustained multiple injuries on both legs, left hip bone, right and left fibula and fracture of malleolus bone of right foot and was treated at Nanjappa Hospital Shivamogga and thereafter at Wenlock Hospital, Mangalore and thereafter at Yenepoya Hospital, Mangalore, where he was treated as an in-patient till his death on 16.05.2012. Prior to the accident he was hale and healthy and was working in a private office as an Assistant and also doing other works and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. His family members were wholly dependent on his income for their livelihood and due to his untimely death they having lost their bread earner of the family, filed a claim petition against the respondents seeking compensation. 4. His family members were wholly dependent on his income for their livelihood and due to his untimely death they having lost their bread earner of the family, filed a claim petition against the respondents seeking compensation. 4. In pursuance of issuance of notice, the owner as well as driver of the offending lorry as well as owner and driver of the autorickshaw remained absent and were placed exparte. The petition was contested by the Insurer of the autorickshaw and insurer of the offending lorry. The Insurer of the offending lorry contended that the driver of the lorry did not possess a valid driving licence and the owner of the said lorry did not possess valid transport permit to ply the vehicle and further, the driver of the autorickshaw did not possess a valid driving licence. Further, that the deceased himself had driven the auto without any driving licence and the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself. Hence, it was contended that he was not liable to pay any compensation. The Insurer of the autorickshaw though admitted that the said autorickshaw was insured with it, however, stated that the liability was subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. Further, he denied all the averments in the claim petition and sought for dismissal of the petition. Based upon the contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed the issues. In order to establish their case, petitioner no.1 got examined herself as PW.1 and got marked 435 documents as per Ex.P1 to P435. The Legal Officer of 3rd respondent - appellant in MFA 3940/2015 was examined as RW1 and got marked documents as per Exhibits R1 to R8. The sixth respondent - Insurer of autorickshaw got marked the policy of the autorickshaw as Ex.R4. The Tribunal after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and on an evaluation of oral and documentary evidence on record, passed the impugned judgment awarding compensation of Rs.10,40,200/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. However, Respondent No.3 - Insurer of the lorry was directed to deposit only 70% of the compensation amount along with interest. However, Respondent No.3 - Insurer of the lorry was directed to deposit only 70% of the compensation amount along with interest. It is this judgment which is challenged in these appeals by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation and praying to set aside the finding of the Tribunal fixing the negligence against the driver of the autorickshaw at 30% and by the Insurer questioning the liability as well as the quantum, by urging various grounds. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant in MFA No.3940/2015 - Insurer vehemently contends that the Tribunal committed an error in not noticing that the insured vehicle did not possess permit to ply in Karnataka State as on the date of the accident. It was further contended that in fact the driver of the autorickshaw was solely responsible for the accident and hence the Tribunal committed an error in fixing 70% negligence against the driver of the lorry. Further, that the Tribunal erred in granting higher compensation under conventional heads and the same deserves to be scaled down by this Court. Hence, the learned counsel for the appellant in MFA 3940/2015 prays that his appeal be allowed and the Insurance Company be entirely exonerated of its liability to pay compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants in MFA 7636/2015 / claimants contends that the accident being of the year 2012, the Tribunal ought to have adopted the income of the deceased at Rs.7500/- per month in order to award compensation towards 'Loss of dependency'. Whereas the Tribunal has erred in taking his monthly income at just Rs.6,000/- and hence, contends that the same requires interference by this court. The learned counsel further contends that the Tribunal taking into consideration that fact that the deceased had left behind his wife and four children as his dependants, ought to have awarded 'filial compensation' in respect of the children, which aspect has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. On these grounds, learned counsel for appellants prays for allowing the appeal and enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal suitably. Further, the learned counsel contends that the finding of the Tribunal in so far as fixing the negligence at 30% in respect of the driver of the autorickshaw is concerned, may be set aside and the Insurance Company be directed to pay the entire compensation awarded to the claimant instead of 70%. 7. Further, the learned counsel contends that the finding of the Tribunal in so far as fixing the negligence at 30% in respect of the driver of the autorickshaw is concerned, may be set aside and the Insurance Company be directed to pay the entire compensation awarded to the claimant instead of 70%. 7. Refuting the contentions of the counsel for the claimants, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company - appellant in MFA No.3940/2015 vehemently contends that the deceased Tajpeer driving the autorickshaw bearing Regn.No.KA-30-4722 rash and negligently, at the Jail Circle, without looking at the vehicles plying at the circle, moved negligently and dashed at the lorry which had already crossed 70% of the circle. As a consequence, the autorickshaw was caught in between the left front and back wheel of the lorry and the said autorickshaw though was badly damaged, the person arraigned as driver of the auto rickshaw had not sustained any injuries whereas the deceased was badly injured with multiple fractures and then died in the hospital. Therefore, it must be inferred that the deceased was the one who was driving the autorickshaw but not Respondent No.4 in the claim petition. The Insurance Policy in respect of the said autorickshaw was a 'Liability policy' which did not cover the risk of such a driver - the deceased and further, he did not have a driving licence, which is clear breach of the policy terms and conditions. Hence, the learned counsel for the Insurer contends that the Tribunal was justified in fixing the negligence on the part of the driver of the autorickshaw at 30%, which does not call for any interference. 8. In the background of the contentions taken by learned counsel for the claimants - appellants in MFA 7636/2015 and the learned counsel for the appellant - insurer in MFA No.3940/2015, as stated supra, it is relevant to state that there is no dispute with regard to the death of deceased - Tajpeer who met with an accident on 3.3.2012. The claim petition is supported by the oral and documentary evidence such as police notice, FIR, spot mahazar, IMV report, inquest report, PM report, etc. The claim petition is supported by the oral and documentary evidence such as police notice, FIR, spot mahazar, IMV report, inquest report, PM report, etc. I find justification in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in MFA 3940/2015 - Insurance Company, in view of the fact that the driver of the autorickshaw bearing Regn.No.KA- 30-4722 had driven it in a rash and negligent manner and without noticing the movement of the vehicles, had moved forward and dashed at the lorry which had already crossed 70% of the circle. Hence, I do not find any ground to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal in fixing the negligence on the part of the driver of the autorickshaw at 30%, which does not call for any interference. But however, as contented by the learned counsel for the appellants in MFA No.7636/2015 - claimants, the accident being of the year 2012, in view of the settled guidelines in the Lok Adalath Chart, I hereby take the notional income of the deceased at Rs.7350/- per month to compute the compensation to be awarded towards 'Loss of dependency'. The age of the deceased being 44 years at the time of accident, I find it appropriate to add 25% of the said income of Rs.7,250/- towards 'Future prospects'. Thus adding, his income comes to Rs.9,062/-. Then, deducting one-fourth towards his personal expenses, the income comes to Rs.6,796/-. With the monthly income at Rs.6,796/- and multiplier 14', the compensation towards 'Loss of dependency' is arrived at Rs.11,41,728/- (6796 x 12 x 14) as against Rs.7,56,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 9. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited -vs- Pranay Sethi, (2017) AIR SC 5157, the compensation awarded under 'conventional heads' should not exceed Rs.70,000/- or should not be below Rs.70,000/-. However, in the present case on hand, Rs.1,45,000/- has been totally granted under various conventional heads. Hence, the compensation under four of the conventional heads is totally scaled down to Rs.70,000/-. 10. Further, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellants - claimants, having regard to the ratio of the reliance in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Hence, the compensation under four of the conventional heads is totally scaled down to Rs.70,000/-. 10. Further, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellants - claimants, having regard to the ratio of the reliance in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs. NANU RAM,2018 SCCONLINESC 1546, I find it is just and proper to grant 'parental consortium' to Appellants 2, 3, 4 and 5 in MFA No.7636/2015 who are the children of the deceased, in view of the death of their father at an unexpected age. In the said judgment, the Apex Court has held thus: "Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of "parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training." In accordance with the said ruling, I hereby grant a sum of Rs.40,000/- each to Appellants 2, 3, 4 and 5 in all amounting to Rs.1,60,000/- under the head "Loss of Parental consortium". 11. In view of the discussion made above and with the altered factors, the compensation is re-worked out as under:- Particulars Compensation awarded by MACT Compensation enhanced by this Court Total Loss of dependency 7,56,000 3,85,728 11,41,728 Loss of consortium 20,000 Compensation reduced by Rs.1,00,000 70,000 Loss of estate 20,000 Loss of love and affection 80,000 Transportation of dead body & funeral expenses 25,000 Food, nourishment & conveyance 25,000 Medical expenses 1,14,200 Nil 1,14,200 Parental consortium to Appellants 2, 3, 4 & 5 in MFA 7636/2015 Nil 1,60,000 (Rs.40,000/- each) 1,60,000 TOTAL 10,40,200 4,45,728 14,85,928 Thus, in all, the claimants/appellants in MFA 7636/2015 are entitled to total compensation of Rs.14,85,928/- as against Rs.10,40,200/- awarded by the tribunal. The enhanced compensation would come to Rs.4,45,728/-. But however, deducting 30% negligence as adopted by the Tribunal, the claimants shall be entitled to only 70% of the amount awarded by the Tribunal as well as enhanced by this Court. Thus, the appellants in MFA 7636/2015 are entitled to total compensation of Rs.10,40,150/-, which is 70% of the total award amount. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Both the appeals are allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 08.01.2015 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.570/2012 is hereby modified. The claimants/appellants in MFA 7636/2015 are entitled for total compensation of Rs.10,40,150/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Both the appeals are allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 08.01.2015 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.570/2012 is hereby modified. The claimants/appellants in MFA 7636/2015 are entitled for total compensation of Rs.10,40,150/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. Appellant in MFA No.3940/2015 - Insurer shall deposit the entire compensation of Rs.10,40,150/- with interest before the tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment and on such deposit, the same shall be disbursed to the claimants, on proper identification. Any amount already in deposit shall be adjusted. Further, any amount in deposit before this court shall be remitted to the concerned Tribunal. However, the impugned judgment and award, in so far as it relates to the rate of interest, deposit and apportionment is concerned shall remain unaltered. Moreover, in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of RANI & OTHERS VS NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & OTHERS, (2018) 8 SCC 492 , the Insurer - Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., is directed to first pay the compensation determined and thereafter, recover the same from the owner of the offending lorry, in accordance with law. The LCR shall be forwarded to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith. There shall be no order as to the costs. Office to draw the decree accordingly.