JUDGMENT : The appeal in MFA No.2485/2009 is filed by the Insurer of the lorry bearing registration No.KA126786 (referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) calling in question the judgment and award dated 13.01.2009 in MVC No.1425/2006 on the file of the Fast Track CourtIII and MACT., Mysuru (for short, ‘the tribunal’). The claimants, who are the dependents of the deceased David who succumbed to the injuries suffered in the road accident involving the offending vehicle, have filed the cross appeal seeking enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. The undisputed facts are that the deceased David on 06.11.2006 was travelling in an auto rickshaw, when it was involved in an accident with the offending vehicle. He succumbed to the injuries suffered in the accident. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence, has awarded a total sum of Rs.4,80,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of disposal. This amount of Rs.4,80,000/is awarded under the following heads: Particulars Amount Loss of dependency Rs.4,46,000/­- Loss of estate Rs.14,000/­- Loss of love and affection Rs.10,000/­- Conveyance and Funeral expenses Rs.10,000/­- Total Rs.4,80,000/-­ The Tribunal, accepting the defence of the appellant-Insurance company that the driving licence of the offending vehicle had expired as of the date of the accident, has directed the appellant Insurance Company to pay the aforesaid compensation and interest with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. 3. The appellant Insurance company contested the claim petition inter alia asserting that the driver of the offending vehicle was duly licensed to drive the heavy goods vehicle viz., the offending vehicle with effect from 22.05.2002 for a period of three years which expired on 21.05.2005. The driver of the offending vehicle had not obtained the necessary renewal until the month of November, 2006, but he obtained the renewal of the driving licence to drive heavy goods vehicle for the period between 08.11.2006 and 07.11.2009. As such, as of the date of the accident viz., 06.11.2006, the driver of the offending vehicle was not duly licensed to drive. Therefore, the appellant-Insurance Company is entitled to deny its liability as contemplated under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988. 4. As such, as of the date of the accident viz., 06.11.2006, the driver of the offending vehicle was not duly licensed to drive. Therefore, the appellant-Insurance Company is entitled to deny its liability as contemplated under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance company argued in support of the appeal canvassing that in view of the indisputable fact that the license of the driver of the offending vehicle had expired and was not renewed as of the date of the accident, it is established that the owner of the offending vehicle had acted in breach of the policy terms. As such, the Insurance company should be completely absolved of its liability to pay the compensation instead of being called upon to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. 5. However, the question whether the Insurance Company could be absolved of its liability on the premise that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident will have to be considered in the light of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.103680/2015 C/w MFA No.103681/2015, which is disposed of on 08.02.2019. The Division Bench of this Court in the above case was considering the question, ‘whether the Insurance Company could be absolved of its liability to satisfy the award because there was breach of the terms and conditions of the policy inasmuch as the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident’. The Division Bench has held as follows: “27. The Coordinate Bench has held after referring to various judgments that even if there is no renewal endorsement, it cannot be said that the person driving the vehicle was not a licensed driver. It is not a case where the insured entrusted the vehicle to a person who does not hold a driving licence rather admittedly the driver to whom the vehicle was entrusted by the insured was having a valid driving licence duly granted by transport authority. It is not a case where the insured entrusted the vehicle to a person who does not hold a driving licence rather admittedly the driver to whom the vehicle was entrusted by the insured was having a valid driving licence duly granted by transport authority. Merely because of expiry of the period of licence and the omission of the driver to get the licence renewed, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that there is breach of condition of policy for which insurance company can be exonerated from the liability. The driver was authorized to drive a transport vehicle and the vehicle was entrusted by the insured to the licensed driver and, therefore, the insurance company cannot absolve itself from the liability. Therefore, it is clear that mere fact that the driver of the vehicle had not got his driving licence renewed on the date of the accident and got it renewed subsequently would not amount to breach of condition of the policy as it cannot be said that there was violation of the condition of the policy. Further, in view of the above findings, the Division Bench also held that the question of ordering any recovery of the amount by the insurance company from the insurer did not arise. 28. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 29. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 30. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 31. But in the instant case, it is the Insurance company who through RW1 has produced not only the copy of the insurance policy but also the driving licence extraction as Ex.D2. It is not in dispute that Ravi Kupaluru was the driver of the vehicle. Ex.D2 is the driving licence extract of Ravi Kupaluru, the driver of the vehicle. Therefore, the controversy in the instant case does not relate to discharge of the initial burden by the owner. The present case concerns the burden of proof and the discharge of the same cast on the Insurance Company. Since we have held that the defence as stated in Section 149 of the Act is not proved in the instant case, and in fact this case being one of non-renewal of licence and not a case of nonpossession of a licence to drive the vehicle in question or the driver being disqualified to drive the vehicle, the liability ought to be fastened and is fastened on the Insurance Company.” 6. The Division Bench has thus held that the Insurance company cannot avoid its liability only because the renewal of the license is not obtained within 30 days from the date of expiry. This enunciation by the Division Bench in the aforesaid decision would squarely apply in the present case inasmuch as though the driving license of the driver who was driving the offending vehicle had expired as of the date of the accident, the license is renewed subsequently. Therefore, the appellant-Insurance company cannot deny its liability, and consequentially, the direction by the Tribunal to the appellant Insurance company to pay the compensation and recover will have to be read accordingly. 7. The learned counsel for the claimants-cross objectors argues in support of the appeal for enhancement in the compensation contending as follows: a) The evidence on record is that the deceased David was working as a painter as of the date of the accident. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/per month, but the Tribunal ought to have taken a much higher, but in the least a sum of Rs.4,500/per month. b) The deceased is survived by four dependents viz., the cross objectors who are his wife, two unmarried daughters and a mother. It is settled law that where the number of dependents is between 4 and 6, the appropriate deduction towards personal expenses will have to be 1/4th. But the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd, and as such, there is an error. c) The claimants would be entitled to addition towards future prospects in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited V. Pranay Sethi and others reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 . The deceased David was aged about 47 years as of the date of the accident, and in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case, the appropriate addition towards future prospects would be 25% of the income. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant Insurance company refuted the submissions contending that the accident is of the year 2006, and though it is contended that the deceased David was a painter and his earning was between Rs.150/to Rs.200/per day, there is no proof thereof. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in taking the notional income at Rs.4,000/per month. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant Insurance company refuted the submissions contending that the accident is of the year 2006, and though it is contended that the deceased David was a painter and his earning was between Rs.150/to Rs.200/per day, there is no proof thereof. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in taking the notional income at Rs.4,000/per month. However, the learned counsel could not seriously contest the grounds as regards the addition towards future prospects and deduction towards personal expenses. 9. It is undisputed that the deceased David was working as a painter as of the date of the accident but there is no proof of his actual income. The family of the deceased David comprised of his mother, wife and two unmarried daughters. In cases where there is no proof of actual income, the schedule evolved for settlement in Lok Adalath is accepted for reasons of uniformity and consistency in granting compensation. As per this schedule, in cases of accident in the year 2008-2009, notional income per month is taken at either Rs.4,500/or Rs.5,000/. The accident is of the year 2006. Therefore, the assessment at Rs.4,000/as monthly income of deceased David is reasonable and justified. There cannot be any debate about the deduction to be made towards the personal expenses, and given the number of dependents, such deduction should be 1/4th of such income. Further, there will have to be addition towards future prospects at 25% of such income. If the compensation is revisited accordingly, the claimants will be entitled for a total sum of Rs.5,85,000/towards loss of dependency and another sum of Rs.70,000/under the conventional heads. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to a total sum of Rs.6,65,000/as against a sum of Rs.4,80,000/awarded by the Tribunal. If the compensation is revisited accordingly, the claimants will be entitled for a total sum of Rs.5,85,000/towards loss of dependency and another sum of Rs.70,000/under the conventional heads. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to a total sum of Rs.6,65,000/as against a sum of Rs.4,80,000/awarded by the Tribunal. The computation would be as follows: Heads Compensation in Rupees (i) Income 4,000 (ii) Future Prospects 1,000/­(25% of Income) (iii) Deduction Towards Personal Expenses 1,250/­(1/4th of (Income+ Future Prospects)) (iv) Total Income 3,750/­((i) + (ii) ­(iii)) (v) Multiplier 13 (vi) Loss of Dependency 5,85,000/­((iv) X 12 X (v)) (vii) Conventional heads 70,000 Total Compensation 6,65,000 Tribunal Award 4,80,000 Enhanced 1,85,000 For the foregoing, the following: ORDER The appeal in MFA No.2485/2009 and the cross objection in MFA Crob.No.143/2013 are disposed of modifying the judgment and award in MVC No.1425/2006 on the file of the Fast Track Court III and MACT., Mysuru in the following terms: a) The Tribunal’s direction to the appellant-Insurance company to pay compensation with interest and recover the same from the insured shall be read subject to the decision Of the Division Bench of this Court in Nagappa @ Nagaraja S/o Late Moogappa vs. Ravi Kupaluru S/o Maheshappa in MFA No 103680/2015 c/w MFA No 103681/2015. b) The claimants cross objectors shall be entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.1,85,000/(Rupees One Lakh Eighty Five Thousand only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. c) The appellant-Insurance company shall deposit the compensation with interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. d) The amount in deposit in MFA No.2485/2009 be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement to the claimants-cross objectors.