JUDGMENT : S.G. Pandit, J. The appellants/claimants are before this Court, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 08.08.2014 passed in MVC No.930/2012 on the file of the II Additional District & Sessions Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, D.K., Mangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short). 2. The claimants are wife, children and mother of the deceased Mithradas Amin. They filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 claiming compensation for the death of Mithradas Amin in a road traffic accident which occurred on 25.11.2009. It is stated that, on 25.11.2009 when the deceased was proceeding as a pillion rider in a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-19/EA-4143 when they reached unmanned level cross railway gate, a railway engine dashed the motorcycle resulting in death of the pillion rider Mithradas Amin. It is stated that the deceased was a Transport Contractor of IOCL and was earning Rs.30,000/- p.m. The deceased was owning three tankers. He was aged about 43 years as on the date of death. The claimants have lost their bread winner of the family and hence sought for compensation. 3. On issuance of notice, respondents No.1 and 2 appeared before the Tribunal. Respondent No.1 rider of the motorbike filed his objection admitting that the deceased was pillion rider in his motorbike, but denied negligence on his part. Further stated that vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent insurance company. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed its statement of objections denying the accident and that the deceased was the pillion rider and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. Claimant No.1/wife of the deceased examined herself as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2 apart from marking 22 documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P22. The respondents have not lead any oral evidence, but marked the documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2. 5. The Tribunal, on assessing the material on record and on assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-, deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased, awarded total compensation of Rs.7,17,000/- on the following heads: 1. Loss of dependency Rs.6,72,000.00 2. Loss of consortium Rs. 25,000.00 3. Loss of love and affection Rs. 10,000.00 4. Funeral and obsequies ceremonies Rs. 10,000.00 ------------------ Total Rs.7,17,000.00 ------------------ The claimants not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation are before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation. 6. Loss of dependency Rs.6,72,000.00 2. Loss of consortium Rs. 25,000.00 3. Loss of love and affection Rs. 10,000.00 4. Funeral and obsequies ceremonies Rs. 10,000.00 ------------------ Total Rs.7,17,000.00 ------------------ The claimants not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation are before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company. Perused the entire lower court records. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the Tribunal has failed to properly assess the monthly income of the deceased, whereby the income was assessed at Rs.6,000/- p.m., which is on the lower side. It is submitted that the claimants had produced Ex.P12 and Ex.P13 Income-tax returns for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 to demonstrate that the deceased was earning more than Rs.30,000/- p.m. It is also submitted that the deceased was owning three tankers. The claimants have produced the driving license of the deceased. Learned counsel further states that looking into the Income-Tax returns, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- p.m. Further, it is submitted that deduction taken at 1/3rd towards personal expenses is not correct. Since there are four dependants, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th income of the deceased towards personal expenses. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation on the head of future prospects, which the claimants would be entitled to an extent of 25% since the deceased was aged more than 40 years. Thus, the learned counsel for the appellants prays enhancement of compensation. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company submits that the compensation awarded is just compensation which needs no interference. It is submitted that apart from Ex.P12 and Ex.P13, no other documents are produced to demonstrate that the deceased was earning more than Rs.30,000/- p.m. Thus, he submits that the income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.6,000/- is appropriate. 9. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, the following questions would arise for consideration in this appeal. 1. Whether the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.6,000/- p.m. is proper and correct?; and 2. Whether the claimants would be entitled for enhanced compensation? 10. 9. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, the following questions would arise for consideration in this appeal. 1. Whether the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.6,000/- p.m. is proper and correct?; and 2. Whether the claimants would be entitled for enhanced compensation? 10. Answer to the above questions are in the negative and affirmative, respectively, for the following reasons: The accident occurred on 25.11.2009 involving the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-19/EA-4143 and accidental death of one Mithradas Amin is not in dispute in this appeal. The prayer in this appeal is with regard to enhancement of compensation. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- p.m. The claimants have produced Ex.P12 and Ex.P13 Income-Tax Returns for the assessment years 2005-06,2006-07,2007-08 and 2008-09. For the assessment year 2005-06 total income was shown as Rs.2,52,000/-; for the assessment year 2006-07 the total income shown was Rs.2,90,340/- and for the assessment year 2008-09 the total income shown was Rs.2,05,166/-. Ex.P13 is a letter addressed by the 1st claimant to the Income Tax Authorities seeking refund. Income Tax returns for the years 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 are appended to the said letter. Returns for the years 2007-2008 was filed on 06.07.2009 and returns for the year 2008-2009 was filed on 09.06.2009, which is clear from acknowledgement seal. The claimants state that the deceased was having income of Rs.30,000/- and more per month after excluding the expenses. P.W.1 has failed to depose regarding the expenses incurred by the deceased and under what heads the deceased was incurring expenses. Nowhere the P.W.1 has stated as to what is the gross income and after deducting expenses, what was the net income of the deceased. P.W.1 in her evidence stated that the deceased was owning four tankers bearing No.KA-09/5992, KA-13/3777, KA-21/9988 and KA-19/AB-3877. Even assuming that the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- p.m., the deceased was the owner of four tankers and he would have spent towards maintenance of three tankers and salary for drivers and cleaners of the tankers which he was owning apart from road tax and other Governmental dues. Even assuming that the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- p.m., the deceased was the owner of four tankers and he would have spent towards maintenance of three tankers and salary for drivers and cleaners of the tankers which he was owning apart from road tax and other Governmental dues. Thus, on evaluating Ex.P12 and Ex.P13 and the expenses that the deceased would have incurred towards 3 tankers he was owning, the income of the deceased could be assessed at Rs.12,000/- p.m. Further, deduction of 1/3 taken by the Tribunal for personal expenses of the deceased is not proper since there are four dependants. Hence, the appropriate deduction would be 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation on the head of future prospects. The deceased was aged about 44 years. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED V/S PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and in the case of HEM RAJ v/s ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS, (2018) 15 SCC 654 the claimants would be entitled for 25% of the determined income to be added towards future prospects. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to loss of dependency by adding 25% of the income. Further, the claimants are wife, children and mother of the deceased Mithradas Amin. Claimants 2 and 3 would be entitled for parental consortium at Rs.40,000/- each, whereas the mother would be entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards filial consortium. Claimant No.1 would be entitled for Rs.70,000/- on conventional heads. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to the following modified compensation: 1 Loss of dependency (12000+25% = 15,000 1/4) 11250 x 12 x14 Rs.18,90,000 2 Conventional heads Rs. 70,000 3 Loss of parental consortium for 2 children (40000x2) Rs. 80,000 4 Loss of filial consortium Rs. 40,000 ---------------- Total Rs.20,80,000 ---------------- Thus, the claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.20,80,000/- as against Rs.7,17,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till payment. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 08.08.2014 passed in MVC No.930/2012 on the file of the II Additional District & Sessions Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, D.K., Mangalore is modified. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 08.08.2014 passed in MVC No.930/2012 on the file of the II Additional District & Sessions Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, D.K., Mangalore is modified. The claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.20,80,000/- as against Rs.7,17,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization, thereby the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.13,63,000/-. The apportionment and deposit would be as ordered by the Tribunal.