JUDGMENT : S.G. PANDIT, J. 1. The ICICI Lombard GIC Limited is in appeal, on the ground that the Tribunal awarded exorbitant compensation under the judgment and award dated 27.01.2014 in MVC No. 3383/2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and 21st Additional Small Causes Judge and ACMM, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short). 2. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation for the death of one Samim Hussain @ Heera, the husband of the first claimant. The claimants are wife, son and mother of the deceased. It is stated that on 15.01.2010, when the deceased was walking on the left side of Varthur Main Road, a lorry bearing Registration No. KA-25/B-7728 came in a rash and negligent manner in the prohibited road dragging the mobile cable wire which was tied to KEB electrical pole. Due to which, the electrical pole fell on the deceased. As a result, he sustained severe head injury. Immediately, he was shifted to Akshaya Mallya Hospital and from there to Manipal Hospital for further treatment. During the treatment, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. It is stated that the deceased was aged 28 years and was working as sales representative at Sindhi Optical Gallery, earning salary of Rs. 15,000/- p.m. 3. On issuance of notice, only second respondent/insurer appeared and filed its statement admitting issuance of policy, while denying the other averments of the claim petition. It is also contended that the accident occurred solely due to the negligent act of the 3rd respondent and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. 4. Claimant No. 1 examined herself as PW-1 apart from marking the documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P20. The respondents have not led any evidence. 5. The Tribunal assessing the material placed before it, awarded total compensation of Rs. 14,49,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization, on the following heads: 1. Loss of dependency (1/3rd of Rs. 9,000 is 3,000/-) (9,000 - 3,000 = 6,000) Rs. 12,24,000/- 2. Towards loss of consortium Rs. 1,00,000/- 3. Towards funeral and Transportation of dead-body Rs. 25,000/- 4. Towards loss of love and affection Rs. 1,00,000/- Total Rs. 14,49,000/- While computing the above compensation, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. Loss of dependency (1/3rd of Rs. 9,000 is 3,000/-) (9,000 - 3,000 = 6,000) Rs. 12,24,000/- 2. Towards loss of consortium Rs. 1,00,000/- 3. Towards funeral and Transportation of dead-body Rs. 25,000/- 4. Towards loss of love and affection Rs. 1,00,000/- Total Rs. 14,49,000/- While computing the above compensation, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- p.m. and awarded 50% of the assessed income towards future prospects. The insurer, aggrieved by the assessment of income as well as granting 50% of the assessed income towards future prospects is before this Court, praying for reduction of the compensation. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer and learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. Perused the material on record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurer would submit that awarding 50% of the assessed income towards future prospects is wholly erroneous and further the Tribunal committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- p.m. He states that the claimants even though stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/- p.m. working as a salesman, they have not proved the same by producing cogent material. Even though the claimants had placed on record Ex.P17, letter issued by the Employer where the deceased said to have been working, they have not examined the author of the said letter nor the proprietor of the Firm. Hence, the Tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- p.m. which is on the higher side. Further, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer that the compensation awarded on the conventional heads is on the higher side and prays for reduction of the same by allowing the appeal filed by them. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/ claimants would submit that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation which needs no interference. He further submits that the Tribunal taking the age of the deceased as 28 years, rightly awarded 50% of the assessed income towards future prospects, which needs no interference. He further submits that the income assessed by the Tribunal itself is on the lower side whereas the claimant had placed on record Ex.P17 letter issued by the employer of the deceased, ignoring the same, the assessment of income by the Tribunal is on the lower side. He further submits that the income assessed by the Tribunal itself is on the lower side whereas the claimant had placed on record Ex.P17 letter issued by the employer of the deceased, ignoring the same, the assessment of income by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, he prays not to interfere with the assessment of income made by the Tribunal. 9. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the following points would arise for consideration: (i) Whether the income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 6,000/- p.m. is proper and correct? (ii) Whether the claimants would be entitled for adding 50% of the assessed income towards future prospects? 10. Answer to both the points would be in the negative for the following reasons: The accident occurred on 15.01.2010 involving the lorry bearing Registration No. KA-25/B-7728 and the accidental death of one Samim Hussain @ Heera is not in dispute in this appeal. The insurer is in appeal praying for reduction of compensation on the ground that the Tribunal awarded excess compensation. The claimants stated that the deceased was working as sales representative at Sindhi Optical Gallery, but the claimants have not examined either the author of the letter/Ex.P17 nor the employer to substantiate their contention regarding avocation and income of the deceased. The document Ex.P17 is not proved in accordance with law. This Court and Lok Adalath, while settling the accidental claims of the year 2010 would normally assess the notional income at Rs. 5,500/- p.m. but the Tribunal had assessed the notional income at Rs. 6,000/- p.m. which is on the higher side. As there is no material to establish the income of the deceased, it would be appropriate to assess the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 5,500/- p.m. 11. Admittedly, the deceased was aged 28 years as on the date of accident. The Tribunal committed an error in awarding 50% of the assessed income towards future prospects. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 has held that wherever the deceased was aged below 40 years, the claimants would be entitled for adding 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 has held that wherever the deceased was aged below 40 years, the claimants would be entitled for adding 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects. In the instant case, taking note of the age of the deceased, the claimants would be entitled for adding 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects instead of 50%. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- on conventional heads which is also on the higher side. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi case (supra), the claimants would be entitled for a sum of Rs. 70,000/- on conventional heads. The ‘17’ multiplier adopted by the Tribunal taking the age of the deceased as 28 years and deduction at 1/3rd towards personal expenses is proper and correct. The compensation awarded on the head of love and affection needs no interference, since the claimants includes son and mother, who lost love, affection and care. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for the following modified compensation: 1. Loss of dependency including future prospects (5500 + 40% - 1/3rd = 5134 x 12 x 17) Rs. 10,47,336/- 2. Conventional heads Rs. 70,000/- 3. Love and affection Rs. 1,00,000/- Total Rs. 12,17,336/- Thus, the claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs. 12,17,336/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization, as against Rs. 14,49,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 27.01.2014 in MVC No. 3383/2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and 21st Additional Small Causes Judge and ACMM, Bangalore is hereby modified to the above extent. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced by Rs. 2,31,664/-.