JUDGMENT : K. Natarajan, J. Though these cases are listed for hearing on interlocutory application, with the consent of both the counsel, it is heard finally. M.F.A. Nos. 101662/2018 and 101661/2018 are filed by the NWKRTC assailing judgment and award passed by the IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Dharwad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal', for short) in MVC Nos.861/2016 and 862/2016, whereas MFA No.103051/2018 is filed by the claimants assailing the judgment and award passed by the same Tribunal in MVC No.862/2016 by the common judgment and award dated 17.01.2018. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties. 3. For the convenience, the rankings of the parties before the Tribunal are retained. 4. The claimants in MVC Nos. 861/2016 as well as 862/2016 is that, the 1st claimant filed claim petition No.861/2016 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident and he himself and his children filed claim petition in MVC No.862/2016 claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the death of Farhana, wife of the first claimant, inter-alia contending that, on 16.09.2016, when the 1st claimant along with his wife Farhana and son were proceeding on their motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-17/L-5100 from Hubli to Dharwad, as rider and pillion rider, when they reached near Boroka Textile on P.B. Road at about 5.15 pm, at that time a NWKRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-28/F-1492 came from Hubli towards Dharwad in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle while trying overtake the motorcycle, due to which the claimant sustained injuries and his wife also sustained grievous injuries and while shifting to the hospital, she succumbed to the injuries. The claimant contended in his case MVC No.861/2016, that he was stayed as inpatient in the hospital for almost 9 days. He has spent huge amount towards medical expenses. Due to the injuries he has suffered disability and he has lost earning capacity and also lost the income during the laid up period. Hence he prayed for granting of compensation in his case. Further, as a claimant in MVC No.862/2016, it is contended that, his wife deceased Farhana was doing tailoring work as well as working as a house maid and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Hence he prayed for granting of compensation in his case. Further, as a claimant in MVC No.862/2016, it is contended that, his wife deceased Farhana was doing tailoring work as well as working as a house maid and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. She used to contribute the entire amount to the whole family and due to the untimely death they lost her earning and her two minor children have lost love and affection of their mother. He has spent a huge amount towards funeral and other expenses. Hence he prayed for awarding compensation on various heads. The respondent-Corporation appeared through its counsel and filed separate written statements in both the cases by taking the contention that the alleged accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor cycle i.e., the 1st claimant himself. There is no rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the NWKRTC bus. It is also contended that the 1st claimant was driving the motorcycle in intoxicated condition and due to his fault the accident had occurred and therefore they are not liable to pay any compensation. Further contended that the petition is suffered from non-joinder of necessary party. The 1st claimant did not held any valid and effective licence at the time of accident. Further they contended that the amount claimed in the claim petitions is exorbitant and excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petitions. 5. Based upon the rival pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: IN MVC No.862/2016 i. Whether the petitioner proves that on 16.09.2016 he along with his son and wife were proceeding from Hubli to Dharwad, in a Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-17/L-5500, when they came near Boroko Textile on P.B Road, at that time, the driver of the Bus bearing Registration No.KA-28/F-1492 came from Hubli towards Dharwad in a rash and negligent manner, and the bus driver tried to overtake the motor cycle from back side and dashed to the motor cycle from behind and caused accident and thereby, he sustained injuries? ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom? iii. What order or Award? ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom? iii. What order or Award? IN MVC No.862/2016 i. Whether the petitioners proves that on 16.09.2016 the petitioner No.1 along with his wife deceased Farhana and his son was proceeding from Hubli to Dharwad, in a Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-17/L-5500, when they came near Boroko Textile on P.B Road, at that time, the driver of the Bus bearing Registration No.KA-28/F-1492 came from Hubli towards Dharwad in a rash and negligent manner, and the bus driver tried to overtake the motor cycle from back side and dashed to the motor cycle from behind, as a result the deceased fell down from the motorcycle and dragged for a small distance by the bus, thereby deceased Farhana sustained fatal injuries and died while shifting to the Hospital? ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom? iii. What order or Award? To substantiate their contention, the 1st claimant in both the cases got himself examined as PW1 and got marked 14 documents at Exs. P1 to P14. On behalf of the respondent Corporation, driver of the NWKRTC bus was examined as RW1 and not marked any documents. Based upon the evidence on record, the Tribunal answered issue No.1 in both the petitions as affirmative and issue No.2 in both the cases as partly in the affirmative and awarded compensation of Rs.1,66,000/- in MVC No.861/2016 and Rs.11,98,936/- in MVC No.862/2016 as under: In MVC No.861/2016 Amount(Rs.) Pain and suffering 50,000.00 Injuries sustained 55,000.00 Medical Expenses 36,000.00 Loss of future income NIL Attendant charges, conveyance, food and nourishment 25,000.00 Total 1,66,000.00 In MVC No.862/2016 Amount(Rs.) Loss of Dependency 10,23,936.00 Loss of love and affection 75,000.00 Loss of estate 75,000.00 Transportation, Funeral and Obsequies 25,000.00 Total 11,98,936.00 Assailing the common judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the respondent-NWKRTC filed MFA Nos. 101662/2018 and 101661/2018 disputing the liability as well as quantum of compensation, whereas MFA No.103051/2018 is filed by the claimants in MVC No.862/2016 seeking for enhancement of compensation. 6. 101662/2018 and 101661/2018 disputing the liability as well as quantum of compensation, whereas MFA No.103051/2018 is filed by the claimants in MVC No.862/2016 seeking for enhancement of compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the NWKRTC, Smt. Shashikala Desai contended that the accident in question was occurred due to the rash and negligence of the rider of the motor cycle i.e., the 1st claimant himself and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and the driver of the bus was acquitted by the Magistrate in criminal case. In spite of the same, the Tribunal fastened the liability on the driver of the bus, which is not correct and at least some contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle has to be fastened. But the same was not considered by the Tribunal and therefore, prayed for fastening the liability on the rider of the motorcycle as well as the driver of the NWKRTC bus. Alternatively, the learned counsel argued that the petitioner/claimant in MVC No.861/2016 sustained only one grievous injury and other injuries are simple in nature. The Tribunal has awarded excessive amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation towards pain and suffering and without any reason another Rs.55,000/- has been awarded under the head of injuries sustained, which is not correct. It is further contended that the Tribunal has awarded exorbitant amount of Rs.25,000/- towards attendant, conveyance, food and nourishment charges, though the claimant was treated for only 9 days as inpatient. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for reduction of compensation in MVC No.861/2016. The learned counsel also argued in the connected matter MVC No.862/2016 that there is no proof of income of the deceased, but the Tribunal considered Rs.8,000/- per month, which is exorbitant. The Tribunal ought to have considered Rs.6,000/- per month as notional income. The award of compensation under the conventional heads are also exorbitant, wherein the Tribunal has awarded Rs.75,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.75,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.25,000/- towards transportation, funeral and obsequies, which is against the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and hence prayed for reducing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 7. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and hence prayed for reducing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent (claimant in MVC No.861/2016) contended that, though the claimant has not filed any cross-objection or appeal, the award of compensation of Rs.50,000/- under the head of pain and suffering is not exorbitant. The Tribunal awarded the medical expenses and there was no compensation awarded under the head of laid up period towards loss of income during treatment and bed rest. The claimant suffered head injury and he has taken treatment for more than three months and there must be some disability. But the Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation towards disability and loss of earning capacity. Therefore, it is contended that there is no need to reduce any compensation in this appeal. Hence prayed for dismissing the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. Further, the learned counsel for the appellants in MFA No.103051/2018 (claimants in MVC No.862/2016) argued that, in spite of adducing the evidence by the claimants stating that the deceased Farhana was house maid as well as working as tailor and earning an income of Rs.15,000/- per month, but the Tribunal considered only Rs.8,000/- per month, which is very meager. Even in the Lok Adalath, the notional income of Rs.8,750/- per month is considered for the accident occurred during the year 2016. But the Tribunal considered only Rs.8,000/- per month and therefore it requires enhancement. Further, relying on the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case(supra), future prospects shall be considered and hence prayed for dismissing the appeal filed by the NWKRTC and prayed for enhancing the compensation in the appeal filed by the claimant. 8. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the records, the points that arise for my consideration are: i. Whether the Tribunal is not justified in holding negligence only on the driver of the NWKRTC bus? Which call for interference? ii. Whether the award of compensation in both the appeals is excessive and exorbitant and requires reduction as contended by the NWKRTC? iii. Whether the claimants in connected appeal are entitled for enhancement of compensation? iv. What order? 9. Which call for interference? ii. Whether the award of compensation in both the appeals is excessive and exorbitant and requires reduction as contended by the NWKRTC? iii. Whether the claimants in connected appeal are entitled for enhancement of compensation? iv. What order? 9. The claimants have established the factum of accident dated 16.09.2016 that was occurred when the 1st claimant and his wife Farhana were proceeding on the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-17/L-5100 from Hubli to Dharwad. At that time, the driver of the NWKRTC bus bearing Registration No.KA28/F1492 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and came in the same direction while overtaking the motorcycle and dashed behind the motorcycle, due to which the accident occurred and he and his wife have sustained injuries. His wife was succumbed to the injuries while shifting to the hospital. Though the respondent-Corporation taken a contention that the accident in question occurred due to the contributory negligence of the rider of the motorcycle and he was in the intoxicated condition, but there was no evidence placed before the Tribunal to show that the rider of the motorcycle was in intoxicated condition and there is no document produced by the respondent to show that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. The documents at Ex.P1 - copy of the complaint, Ex.P2 - copy of the FIR, Ex.P3 - spot mahazer, Ex.P4 - IMV report, Ex.P6 - copy of the charge sheet, were all clearly goes to show that the accident in question has occurred purely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the NWKRTC bus. Even the learned counsel has not produced the judgment of acquittal passed by the Criminal Court. Even otherwise, it is well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions that acquittal of the driver of the offending vehicle will not have any impact on the claim petition filed and not binding on the Tribunal. Here in the petitions, the claimants have established factum of accident and rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and the standard of proof required only preponderance of probabilities, but not like in criminal trial where it is required beyond reasonable doubt and high degree of proof. Here in the petitions, the claimants have established factum of accident and rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and the standard of proof required only preponderance of probabilities, but not like in criminal trial where it is required beyond reasonable doubt and high degree of proof. Therefore, merely the driver of the said bus is acquitted, the liability on the respondent - Corporation cannot be absolved in the claim petition. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, when there is no documentary evidence except the oral evidence on behalf of the respondent, which is insufficient, the contention of the respondent that the accident has occurred due to the contributory negligence of the rider of the motorcycle cannot be accepted and the contention that the claimant was intoxicated condition is also negatived and the Tribunal has rightly held the negligence on the driver of the bus. Therefore, I answer point No.1 in favour of the claimants and against the respondent-Corporation. 10. The next controversy is in respect of the quantum of compensation. As regards the injuries sustained by the claimant in MVC No.861/2016, he has produced Ex.P11 Wound Certificate, which shows that he has sustained five injuries. The first injury was grievous and other four injuries are simple in nature. He was admitted to Sri. Dharmastala Manjunatheshwara College of Medical Sciences & Hospital from 16.09.2016 to 24.09.2016, i.e., for almost 9 days. The first injury was head injury i.e., lacerated wound on the right frontal region measuring 4x3 cm, which is proved as grievous injury. He has suffered lot of pain and agony and even there is evidence to show that he was admitted in the hospital and even he could have prevented from attending funeral of his wife who died in the same accident and considering the said facts and circumstances, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering. The said amount of Rs.50,000/- cannot be said to be exorbitant or excessive. On the other hand, it is sufficient and therefore, does not require any modification by this Court. 11. Though the Tribunal has awarded Rs.55,000/- for the injuries sustained, the Tribunal has not given any proper reason for awarding Rs.55,000/-. Once the Tribunal considered that there is no future loss of income, the question of awarding Rs.55,000/- does not arise. On the other hand, it is sufficient and therefore, does not require any modification by this Court. 11. Though the Tribunal has awarded Rs.55,000/- for the injuries sustained, the Tribunal has not given any proper reason for awarding Rs.55,000/-. Once the Tribunal considered that there is no future loss of income, the question of awarding Rs.55,000/- does not arise. On the other hand, the Tribunal awarding Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering is sufficient. Therefore, awarding of Rs.55,000/- under the head of injuries sustained is liable to be set aside. 12. As regards the medical expenses, the bills are produced and Rs.36,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal, which does not call for any interference. 13. Further, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- towards attendant charges, conveyance, food and nourishment. But the document at Ex.P11 shows that the claimant was under treatment for 9 days in the hospital. He could have spent some amount towards food, nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges. By considering the 9 days awarding of compensation of Rs.25,000/- is exorbitant. Therefore, I propose to award Rs.10,000/- towards attendant, conveyance, food, nourishment and other incidental charges, if any, as against Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 14. Further, the counsel for the claimant argued that the claimant had suffered head injury and he has taken treatment for long period. He had taken bed rest for more than three months. But the Tribunal not awarded any compensation towards the laid up period. In my considered opinion, the Tribunal ought to have awarded some amount during the laid up period. It is submitted by the counsel that the claimant was carpenter. Though there is no document produced by he claimant to show that he was carpenter, he has mentioned in the FIR that his occupation was carpenter. Therefore, I propose to consider his income at Rs.10,000/- per month. If laid up period is considered for three months, the income of Rs.10,000/- x 3 months would be Rs.30,000/-. I propose to award Rs.30,000/- under the head of 'loss of income during laid up period'. Since there is no disability certificate produced and no doctor has been examined, the Tribunal rightly rejected the prayer for compensation towards loss of earning capacity. The reassessed compensation is as under: Pain and suffering 50,000.00 Medical Expenses 36,000.00 Loss of income during Laid up period 30,000.00 Attendant charges, conveyance, food and nourishment 10,000.00 Total 1,26,000.00 15. Since there is no disability certificate produced and no doctor has been examined, the Tribunal rightly rejected the prayer for compensation towards loss of earning capacity. The reassessed compensation is as under: Pain and suffering 50,000.00 Medical Expenses 36,000.00 Loss of income during Laid up period 30,000.00 Attendant charges, conveyance, food and nourishment 10,000.00 Total 1,26,000.00 15. Insofar as compensation awarded in MVC No.862/2016, the deceased Farhana is said to be a tailor and maid servant. There is no document produced by the claimants to show that she was working as maid servant as well as tailor. Therefore, in the absence of any document, this Court required to consider the notional income of Rs.8,750/- per month, which was considered by this Court normally. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case supra, 40% of the income should be considered as future prospects. 40% of Rs.8,750/- comes to Rs.3,500/- totaling to Rs.12,250/-. The first claimant - husband of the deceased, who is said to be a carpenter is an earning member and therefore, he cannot be considered as dependent of the deceased-wife. Therefore, only the minor children are considered as dependents on the deceased Farhana. As per the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarala Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Others, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , 1/3rd of the income i.e., Rs.4,083/- has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. If Rs.4,083/- is deducted, the monthly income would be Rs.8167/- and multiplied into 12 and by applying the appropriate multiplier of 16, the compensation towards 'loss of dependency' is recalculated, it would come to Rs.15,68,064/- (Rs.8167 x 12 x 16) as against Rs.10,23,936/- awarded by the Tribunal. Further, as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram, 2018 SCCOnlineSC 1546, Rs.40,000/- is awarded towards 'loss of spousal consortium' to the 1st claimant husband and Rs.30,000/- each is awarded to both the minor children towards 'loss of parental consortium'. Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards 'loss of estate' and Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards 'funeral and transportation expenses'. The reassessed compensation is as under: Loss of dependency 15,68,064.00 Spousal Consortium 40,000.00 Parental Consortium (Rs.30,000 x 2) 60,000.00 Loss of Estate 15.000.00 Funeral and Transportation expenses 15,000.00 Total 16,98,064.00 16. Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards 'loss of estate' and Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards 'funeral and transportation expenses'. The reassessed compensation is as under: Loss of dependency 15,68,064.00 Spousal Consortium 40,000.00 Parental Consortium (Rs.30,000 x 2) 60,000.00 Loss of Estate 15.000.00 Funeral and Transportation expenses 15,000.00 Total 16,98,064.00 16. As regards the interest awarded by the Tribunal, which is at 8% p.a. requires to be reduced to 6% p.a., since the Division Bench of this Court used to consider 6% interest p.a. in the claim petitions. Therefore, the award of interest at 8% p.a. deserves to be reduced to 6% p.a. 17. In view of the above said observations, I pass the following: ORDER MFA No.101662/2018 is dismissed. MFA Nos.101661/2018 and 103051/2018 are allowed in part. Consequently, the common judgment and award dated 17.01.2018 passed by the IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Dharwad, in MVC Nos.861/2016 and 862/2016 is modified. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVC No.861/2016 is reduced to Rs.1,26,000/- in stead of Rs.1,63,000/- together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization, whereas the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVC No.862/2016 is enhanced to Rs.16,98,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The entire amount awarded in MVC No.861/2016 is ordered to be released to the claimant with due identification. The amount awarded in MVC No.862/2016 shall be apportioned to the claimants in the ratio of 30:35:35. Out of the amount apportioned to the 1st claimant, 50% of the amount shall be deposited in his name in any nationalized bank for a period of three years and remaining amount with interest shall be released in his favour. As regards the compensation apportioned to the minor children, the entire amount together with interest shall be deposited in their names till they attaining majority. The appeals are disposed on the above said terms. In view of disposal of the main appeal itself, I.A.1/2019 filed in MFA No.101662/2018 does not survive for consideration. Hence, I.A.1/2019 is dismissed. The amount in deposit in both the cases be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.