JUDGMENT : P G M Patil, J. The insurer-United India Insurance Company and the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 21.12.2017, passed in MVC No.106/2014, by the Principal Civil Senior Civil Judge, CJM and Addl. MACT, Gadag, have filed this appeal and Cross Objection. 2. It is the case of the claimants before the tribunal that, the deceased Narayan is the husband of petitioner Nos.1 and petitioner No.2 is son of the deceased and petitioner No.3 is the daughter. On 12/3/2014 at about 11.00 a.m. on Nargund-Konnur Road, near Bandemma Nagar, the driver of the 407 vehicle bearing registration No.KA-25/8679 the deceased was travelling along with goods and that the driver of the said vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the vehicle and dashed to the electric pole situated on the side of the road. Due to the impact, the inmates sustained injuries and deceased Narayan sustained fatal injuries. He was shifted to KIMS Hospital, Hubli for better treatment and he lost his breath on 21/3/2014. The deceased was hale and healthy prior to the accident and was doing agriculture and vendor of vegetable and fruits and earning Rs. 10,000/- p.m. All the petitioners were depending upon the earning of the deceased Narayan. Due to the untimely death of the deceased, petitioners have been starving for their livelihood. The accident was caused mainly, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of respondent No.1. Therefore, they claimed compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- against the owner and insurer of the of fending vehicle. 3. In pursuance of the notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the tribunal. Respondent No.1 did not file any objection. Respondent No.2 filed the written statement contending that the petitioners are not entitled for compensation claimed in the case. Police documents reveals that on the date of accident, the insured allowed the driver to carry four persons in the said vehicle though the sitting capacity is only 3. Therefore, insurer has violated the policy terms and condition and as such respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. It is further contended that the deceased was travelling in the said vehicle as unauthorised passenger and the risk of such person is not covered under the policy. Insured has not paid any extra premium to cover the risk of the said person. It is further contended that the deceased was travelling in the said vehicle as unauthorised passenger and the risk of such person is not covered under the policy. Insured has not paid any extra premium to cover the risk of the said person. Therefore, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. It is also contended that the driver of the vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle and therefore, there is breach of policy condition on this ground also. Therefore, claim petition be dismissed. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed the issues. In support of their claim petition, claimant No.1 got examined herself as PW.1 and they have got marked in all 10 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.10. Respondent No.2 examined his official witness as RW-1 and got marked 2 documents as Exs.R1 and R2. 6. The learned member of the tribunal after hearing both the parties, passed the impugned judgment, awarding a compensation of Rs. 9,23,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Respondent No.2 insurer was directed to deposit the compensation amount. 7. The insurer being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, has filed MFA No.101727/2018 on the grounds that the appellants have taken a specific defence that the deceased was travelling as un-authorised passenger and that no extra premium was paid by the insured to cover the risk of the said passenger. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in fastening the liability on the appellant. 8. It is also contended that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is excessive considering the income of the deceased at Rs. 8,500/- p.m. 9. The claimants being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award have filed MFA Crob.No.100045/2009 seeking enhancement of the compensation on the ground that the Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased on lower side and that the compensation towards loss of future prospects is not awarded. 10. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 11. A short question which arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether the insurer has made out grounds for setting aside the liability fastened against him or to reduce the compensation and whether the claimants have made out grounds for enhancement of compensation. 12. 10. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 11. A short question which arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether the insurer has made out grounds for setting aside the liability fastened against him or to reduce the compensation and whether the claimants have made out grounds for enhancement of compensation. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant insurer vehemently submitted that the deceased was travelling in the goods vehicle as an unauthorized passenger and that no premium was collected to cover the risk of the passengers and therefore the claimants are not entitled to claim compensation against the insurer. 13. The learned counsel further submitted that the case of the claimants that the deceased was carrying some vegetable bags in the goods vehicle along with other passengers cannot be accepted. He had not hired the said vehicle for transportation of goods and therefore it is the case of unauthorized passenger and the claimants are not entitled to claim compensation against the insurer. 14. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the deceased was travelling in the said vehicle along with goods namely vegetable bags and this is clearly stated in the FIR and complaint Exs.P.1 and P.2. The learned counsel for the claimants further submitted that the appellant insurer has already satisfied the other claim arising out of the same accident in MVC No.1387/2014 on the file of the concerned tribunal and has produced copy of order sheet in order to show that the appellant insurer herein deposited the compensation amount in the said case on 6.7.2017 and the said amount was released to the claimant by order dated 9.11.2017 by the tribunal. Therefore since the appellant insurer has already satisfied the award arising out of the same accident, now the appellant insurer is estopped from denying his liability on the ground that the deceased was travelling in the goods vehicle as unauthorized passenger. 15. Under these circumstances, this Court holds that the contention of the appellant insurer in the present case that the deceased was travelling as unauthorized passenger in the of fending vehicle and as such the insurer is not liable to satisfy the award has no merit and cannot be accepted. 16. The claimants have contended before the tribunal that the deceased was an agriculturist and vendor of vegetables and fruits and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. 16. The claimants have contended before the tribunal that the deceased was an agriculturist and vendor of vegetables and fruits and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. However they have not produced any positive evidence to prove the income of the deceased before the tribunal. Therefore in the absence of such evidence, the tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at Rs. 8,500/- per month relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of Saraswathi and others vs. Shettalaiah and another, (2017) ACJ 1088. 17. The learned counsel for the appellant insurer submitted that in the absence of positive evidence to prove the income, the notional income has to be assessed on the basis of the guess work and also relying on the income chart provided for the purpose of settlement of cases before the Lok Adalat. The accident in question occurred on 12.3.2014 and as per the chart of income provided for settlement of cases before the Lok Adalat for the said year the income has to be considered at Rs. 7,500/- per month. However in the present case, the tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 8,500/- on the basis of the evidence on record and also relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of Saraswathi and others stated supra and not on the basis of the chart provided for settlement of cases before the Lok Adalat. 18. Under these circumstances, consideration of the income at Rs. 8,500/- per month by the tribunal cannot be found fault with. Further, the tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of future prospects. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limi ted vs. Pranay Sethi and others, AIR 2017 SC 5157 , the claimants are entitled for addition of 10% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects and the claimants are also entitled for compensation under conventional heads as stated in the said decision. 19. Accordingly on reassessment of the compensation, just compensation has to be awarded to the claimants. For the income of the deceased at Rs. 8,500/- per month (as assessed by the tribunal), there shall be addition of 10% towards future prospects. Thus the income of the deceased comes to Rs. 19. Accordingly on reassessment of the compensation, just compensation has to be awarded to the claimants. For the income of the deceased at Rs. 8,500/- per month (as assessed by the tribunal), there shall be addition of 10% towards future prospects. Thus the income of the deceased comes to Rs. 9,350/-, out of which 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. The remaining amount comes to Rs. 6,233/-. The same has to be considered for calculation of compensation under the head loss of dependency. Thus the claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs. 8,22,756/- (Rs. 6,233/- x 12 x 11) under the head loss of dependency. A sum of Rs. 70,000/- is awarded under the conventional heads. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 8,92,756/- as against the compensation of Rs. 9,23,000/- awarded by the tribunal, with interest at 6% p.a. Hence the point for consideration is answered accordingly. 20. In the result, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal and cross objection are allowed in part. The claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs. 8,92,756/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned tribunal for disbursement. In case there is any excess deposit is made, the same shall be refunded to the appellant insurer. The order with regard to deposit and disbursement passed by the tribunal holds good.