JUDGMENT : S.G. Pandit, J. Against the judgment and award dated 22.01.2011 in MVC No.619/2009, the insurance company is before this court by filing MFA No.31106/2011, challenging the liability of the insurance company. 2. The claimants are also before this court in appeal by filing MFA No.31423/2011 seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. Both these appeals are taken up together, heard and disposed of by this common judgment. 4. On 21.09.2009, deceased Veershetty was riding the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-38/G-228 and one Dashrath was riding as pillion rider on his motorcycle and when they were proceeding towards Chandkapur via Halli, when they reached N.H.9 near Umapur cross, a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-39/J- 547 came in a rash negligent manner and caused accident to the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-38/G- 228. As a result of which, the rider Veershetty sustained injuries and succumbed to the said injuries on the spot. The parents, sister and brother of the deceased filed claim petition in MVC No.619/2009 claiming compensation of Rs.33,70,000/-. It is stated that the deceased Veershetty was working as Police Constable in the department of Police and the pillion rider Dashrath was also working as Police Constable. 5. On service of summons, respondent No.1, the owner of the offending vehicle remained exparte and respondent No.2-Insurance company filed its objection to the claim petition contending that the rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-39/J-547 was not having valid driving licence and also contended that police have registered a false case against the driver of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-39/J-547. 6. The Tribunal on considering the material on record both oral and documentary, awarded a total compensation of Rs.8,75,440/- along with 6% interest from the date of petition till the deposit of amount. 7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award the insurance company is before this court challenging the liability contending that the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-39/J-547 is falsely implicated in the accident and as such the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. It is further contended that the FIR and complaint, Exs.P.1 and 2 would indicate that initially the complaint and FIR are registered against the unknown vehicle and subsequently further statement was recorded to indicate that the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-39/J-547 is involved in the accident. The learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company submits that the owner of motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-39/J-547 suo moto came before the police and admitted that his vehicle is involved in the accident. The learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company submits that the owner of motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-39/J-547 suo moto came before the police and admitted that his vehicle is involved in the accident. Therefore, it shows the collusiveness of the owner and the claimants. Hence, he submits that the Tribunal was not right in allowing the claim petition. 8. The claimants are before this court in MFA No.31423/2011 claiming enhancement of compensation contending that the deceased Veershetty was working as Police Constable in the police department who was having fixed income. The Tribunal ought to have added 50% of the actual salary with regard to future prospectus. Further, it is contended that the deceased Veershetty was aged 30 years as on the date of the accident and the multiplier applied by the Tribunal was 14, which is incorrect. Taking into consideration the age of the deceased as 30 years, the multiplier ought to have been taken at 17. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants in MFA No.31423/2011 relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in, (2017) AIR SC 5157 in support of his contention. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 10. The contention of the appellant-insurance company in MFA No.31106/2011 is that the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-39/J-547 has been falsely implicated in the accident on the suo moto statement of the owner of the motorcycle. As the offending motorcycle is falsely implicated, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify is liable to be rejected solely on the ground that the appellant-Insurance company is making out the said case for the first time before this court. On the other hand, it was not the case of the insurance company before the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, the insurance company had specifically contended that the rider of vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA- 39/J-547 which according to them has been falsely implicated had no valid licence and it had simply stated that a false case has been registered against the rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-39/J-547. When it is not the case of the appellant-Insurance company that the motorcycle is not involved in the accident before the Tribunal, it is not open for the appellant-Insurance company to contend the same before this court for the first time. When it is not the case of the appellant-Insurance company that the motorcycle is not involved in the accident before the Tribunal, it is not open for the appellant-Insurance company to contend the same before this court for the first time. Further, it is noticed that the charge sheet- Ex.P-6 is filed against one Mehaboob Syed S/o Usmansab Nirgale and the said charge sheet is unchallenged. 11. The claimants have come up before this court seeking enhancement of compensation contending that the deceased was a Government servant and drawing a gross salary of Rs.9,204/- per month who had permanent Government job. Hence, the Tribunal ought to have added 50% of the salary towards future prospectus and Tribunal was not right in adding 30% of the salary to future prospectus. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case cited supra at para No.61 (iii) has made it clear that while determining the income, 50% of the salary of the deceased to be added towards future prospectus. The relevant para No.61(iii) of the judgment cited supra reads as under; "(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax." 12. In view of the above, for determination of the compensation under the head of loss of future dependency, 50% has to be added to the actual salary and the award needs modification to that extent. Further, the claimants have contended that the Tribunal has erred in taking multiplier at 14 instead of 17 as the deceased was aged 30 years at the time of accident. For the age group between 26 to 30, the proper multiplier is 17. Therefore, to determine the income of the deceased, proper multiplier to be applied is 17. Accordingly, applying the same, the claimants are entitled for the modified compensation. As per Ex.P-10, the deceased was drawing the salary of Rs.9,204/-, to the said salary, 50% has to be added, which would come to Rs.13,806/-. Therefore, to determine the income of the deceased, proper multiplier to be applied is 17. Accordingly, applying the same, the claimants are entitled for the modified compensation. As per Ex.P-10, the deceased was drawing the salary of Rs.9,204/-, to the said salary, 50% has to be added, which would come to Rs.13,806/-. Out of which, Rs.1,800/- has to be deducted towards professional tax, which comes to Rs.12,006/-. Out of which, 50% deduction has to be made towards personal expenses since the deceased was a bachelor. If, 50% is deducted, Rs.6003/- would remain which is to be taken for determination of compensation (6003x12x 17=12,24,612/-). On conventional heads, the claimants are entitled for Rs.30,000/- instead of Rs.22,000/-. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.3,79,172/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the amount is deposited. 13. Out of the enhanced compensation amount, claimant Nos.1 and 2 shall be entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- each and out of the balance amount, claimant Nos.3 and 4 shall be paid equally. The appeal filed by the claimants in MFA No.31423/2011 is partly allowed. The appeal filed by the insurance company in MFA No.31106/2011 is rejected. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal.