JUDGMENT : B. Veerappa, J. Mfa No.201218/2018 filed by the insurance company for reduction of compensation. MFA No.201204/2018 filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation against the judgment and award dated 17.02.2018 made in MVC No.1033/2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Chittapur, awarding total compensation of Rs.32,62,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Brief facts of the case : 2. The claimants in MFA No.201204/2018 filed claim petition under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.58,75,000/- with interest contending that on 23.02.2014 at about 6:00 p.m. while the deceased was going to Tanda from Wadi in tum tum vehicle bearing No.KA-33-A-1244 along with driver of the said vehicle, when the said vehicle came near Halkatta Darga road on Wadi to Yadgir main road, at that time, the driver of the said vehicle drove it in high speed and in rash and negligent manner and lost control over the said vehicle resulting the said vehicle turned turtle down, due to which the deceased-Suresh has sustained grievous injuries to his face, both hands and legs. Immediately he was shifted to Basaveshwar hospital and on the advise of doctors shifted to Gangamai Hospital Solapur, where he was taken treatment as inpatient for six months from 24.02.2014 to 06.08.2014. During the treatment the deceased not regained consciousness and the doctors advised to take him to residence and in the mean time food was passed through a pipe inserted by the doctor at nose and lastly on 15.11.2014 the deceased succumbed to the accidental injuries. It is further case of the claimants that they have spent Rs.20.00 lakhs towards treatment for the deceased who died in an accident and prior to the accident the deceased was hale and healthy and he was completed Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) and also working as Teacher in private educational institution and used to get salary of Rs.25,000/- per month. The claimants are the wife, minor children and mother were entirely depending upon the earning of deceased. Therefore, they have filed the claim petition for the relief sought for. 3. In response to the notice received, the first respondent remained absent and placed exparte. The claimants are the wife, minor children and mother were entirely depending upon the earning of deceased. Therefore, they have filed the claim petition for the relief sought for. 3. In response to the notice received, the first respondent remained absent and placed exparte. Second respondent filed the statement of objections denied the averments made in the claim petition and also denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased and further contended that driver of the Tum Tum vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The claim made by the appellants-claimants is excessive and exorbitant. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues ;- 1. Whether the petitioners prove that, on 23.02.2014 at about 6.00 p.m. the deceased Suresh Jadhav was proceeding in Tom Tom bearing No.KA-33/A-1244 from Wadi to Tanda, near Halkatta Darga Road on Wadi to Yadgir main road, the driver of the said Tom Tom started to drive it in a rash and negligent manner, with high speed and endangering to human life and lost control over it, as a result the said vehicle turned turtle down, due to which the deceased Suresh Jadhav sustained grievous injuries and shifted to Gangamai Hospital, Solapur where at he took treatment for six months and after discharge he was taking follow up treatment for his injuries and he could not regain his consciousness and at last on 15.11.2014 at about 1.00 p.m. he succumbed to the injuries in his house ? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation ? If yes, what is the quantum and from whom ? 3. To what Award or Order ? 5. In order prove the case of appellants claimants, the wife examined as PW.1 and got marked the documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15. The second respondent Insurance Company has not adduced any evidence nor produced any documents. 6. The Tribunal after considering the entire material on record recorded a finding that the appellants-claimants proved that the deceased Suresh Jadhav was died due to accident that occurred on 23.02.2014 due to rash and negligent driving of TumTum vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-33/A-1244. Further the appellants-claimants proved that they are entitled for compensation. 6. The Tribunal after considering the entire material on record recorded a finding that the appellants-claimants proved that the deceased Suresh Jadhav was died due to accident that occurred on 23.02.2014 due to rash and negligent driving of TumTum vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-33/A-1244. Further the appellants-claimants proved that they are entitled for compensation. Accordingly, the Tribunal by the impugned judgment and award awarded compensation of Rs.32,62,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Hence, these present appeals filed by the Insurer for reduction of award amount and claimants for enhancement of compensation. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 8. Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned counsel for the Insurance Company-appellant in MFA No.201218/2018 contended that while passing the impugned judgment and award the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month is highly exorbitant, illogical and no basis. 9. He would further contend that compensation awarded on all heads is exorbitant, in-contravention of dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi and Others and the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly exorbitant. Therefore, he sought to modify the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal by reducing the compensation. 10. Per contra, Sri Sanjeev Patil, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants in MFA No.201204/2018 contended that the impugned judgment and award, Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.32,62,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization is contrary to material on record and is on the lower side. 11. He would further contend that the deceased was working as Teacher in private institution and he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month and the relevant documents are marked as Exs.P10 to 12 marks cards of Bachelor of Arts, Exs.P13 and 14 Bachelor of Education marks cards and Ex.P.15 provisional certificate. 12. He would further contend that the Tribunal has awarded the compensation towards loss of consortium, towards love and affection, towards transportation of dead body and towards funeral expenses are meager. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. Therefore, he sought to allow the appeal filed by the appellants-claimants for enhancement and to dismiss the appeal filed by the Insurance Company for reduction. 13. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. Therefore, he sought to allow the appeal filed by the appellants-claimants for enhancement and to dismiss the appeal filed by the Insurance Company for reduction. 13. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record carefully. 14. It is undisputed fact that the deceased Suresh Jadhav aged about 29 years died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tum Tum vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-33/A-1244 that occurred on 23.02.2014 at about 6.00 p.m. The documents Ex.P.1 FIR, Ex.P.2 complaint, Ex.P.3 P.M. report, Ex.P.4 Crime details, Ex.P.5 MVI report and Ex.P.6 charge sheet filed by the jurisdictional police clearly depicts that the deceased Suresh Jadhav died on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of Tum Tum vehicle. 15. It is the specific case of the claimants that the deceased aged about 29 years and was a Degree Holder i.e., Bachelor of Education and working in a private educational institution and was getting salary of Rs.25,000/- per month. The Insurance Company has not adduced any contra evidence and not disputed the fact that the deceased was educated as could be seen from Ex.P8 to Ex.P15 B.A., B.Ed., Marks cards and one provisional certificate issued by the competent University. 16. The Tribunal erred in taking the income of deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month and not considered the future prospects as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi's. Taking into consideration the accident occurred in the year 2014, the educational qualification, profession and age of the deceased, this Court is of the opinion that minimum Rs.10,000/- is to be taken as income and in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we have to take 50% of the income of the deceased i.e., Rs.5,000/- towards future prospects. In total the income of the deceased is taken as Rs.15,000/-. Taking into consideration the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- and dependents are three in number deducting 1/3rd in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in, (2009) AIR SC 3104, the appropriate multiplier would be 17'. Taking into consideration the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- and dependents are three in number deducting 1/3rd in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in, (2009) AIR SC 3104, the appropriate multiplier would be 17'. The personal expenditure of the deceased would be deducted 1/3rd in Rs.15,000/- and then actual income would be Rs.10,000/-. The loss of dependency would be Rs.20,40,000/- (10,000x12x17). Hence, the appellants-claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.20,40,000/- towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal proceeded to award compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium which is contrary to the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in,2017 SCCOnLine(SC) 1270. Therefore, the claimants i.e., wife of the deceased is entitled compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of estate, therefore, the claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- towards love and affection which is in accordance with law. The Tribunal proceeded to award compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses but in view of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi's stated supra the appellantsclaimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. 17. After reassessing the entire material on record, the appellants-claimants are entitled for just compensation which reads as under:- Sl.No. Heads of compensation Amount 1. Towards loss of dependency Rs.20,40,000/- 2. Towards loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- 3. Towards loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 4. Towards love and affection Rs.25,000/- 5. Towards funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- 6. Towards medical expenses Rs.13,70,000/- Total Rs.35,05,000/- Awarded by the Tribunal - 32,62,000/- Total enhanced compensation Rs.2,43,000/- In all the appellants-claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.2,43,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till the payment of compensation. 18. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the appeals filed by the Insurance Company as well as the appellants-claimants are hereby disposed of with the above modification stated supra. 19. The appellants-claimants are entitled for apportionment of enhanced compensation in terms of award passed by the Tribunal. 20. The statutory amount deposited by the Insurance Company shall be transmitted forthwith to the jurisdictional Tribunal.