JUDGMENT : 1. The appeal for enhancement of compensation by the claimant against the judgment and award passed in MVC No.2047/2015 on the file of the Member, Principal MACT, Bengaluru. Tribunal by its judgment dated 01.03.2016 awarded compensation of Rs.11,33,568/-. 2. The grounds taken in this appeal for enhancement of compensation are that the deduction of 50% though the claimant is wife of the deceased, which is contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . Secondly, income has been assessed at Rs.9,000/- whereas the income as claimed by the claimant in the claim petition as well as in her evidence is that the deceased was earning about Rs.15,000/- p.m. By occupation the deceased was a driver and in support of the same the claimant produced a copy of the Driving License extract as at EX.P.13 and they are resident of Bengaluru which is substantiated by producing Election identity card, Aadhar card and submitted that a person who is resident of Bengaluru, it should be presumed that one must have earned good amount to survive in the city. On this ground learned counsel for the appellant submits to calculate the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/. 3. On the other hand learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits to dismiss the appeal claiming that the deceased was driver nothing has been produced. Though he was claimed to be a driver, the employer or other coworkers’ evidence is not produced. Under this circumstances, notional income assessed by the Tribunal is sound and proper. There are no grounds for interference. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. We presume that the person who resides in Bengaluru must earn some good amount, otherwise he cannot meet the expenses which are costly. Though it is claimed that the deceased was a bus driver and has produced the Driving License, that itself is insufficient to believe the version of the claimant. When a person is claiming the occupation, supporting documents should be produced. In the instant case nothing is produced. In the cases of this nature it is the duty of the Tribunal to gather the information on the basis of available records. When a person is claiming the occupation, supporting documents should be produced. In the instant case nothing is produced. In the cases of this nature it is the duty of the Tribunal to gather the information on the basis of available records. In the facts and circumstances, we hold that by looking at the age of the claimant as well as the occupation as the deceased was driver we presume that deceased must have earned Rs.400/per day which comes to Rs.12,000/p.m. as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and rightly the Tribunal also added future prospects at 25%. Thus 25% of Rs.12,000/- which comes to Rs.3,000/-. Out of Rs.15,000/-, 1/3rd has to be deducted, which comes to Rs.10,000/- . Hence the calculation would be Rs.10,000/- x 12 x 14 = Rs.16,80,000/-. Same is to be awarded under the head of loss of dependency and Rs.70,000/-is awarded under the conventional heads. Compensation awarded towards medical expenses at Rs.90,768/- is retained. Total compensation comes to Rs.17,50,000/- as against Rs.11,33,568/- which is awarded. The award amount carries 6% interest as against 9%. The enhanced compensation amount to be credited to the account of the claimant. Out of that Rs.15,00,000/- to be deposited in the Fixed Deposit in the nationalized bank for a period of five years. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed.