JUDGMENT : P.G.M. Patil, J. 1. These MFAs and MFA CROB are filed by the claimants and the insurer being aggrieved by the common judgment and award dated 01.08.2012 passed in MVC No. 651/2010, MVC No. 652/2010, MVC No. 653/2010 by the MACT-VII Vijayapur. 2. MFA CROB No. 200040/2015 is filed by the claimant in MVC No. 651/2010 and MFA No. 32350/2012 is filed by the insurer in respect of the same claimant. MFA No. 32083/2013 is filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation in MVC No. 653/2013 and MFA No. 32351/2012 is filed by the insurer in MVC No. 652/2010. Since all the appeals arise out of the common judgment and award, they are heard and disposed of by this common judgment. 3. It is the case of the claimants before the tribunal that on 07.12.2009 at about 4.00 p.m. the deceased Basavaraj, petitioner No. 3 and petitioner in MVC No. 651/2010 were all travelling in a tempo trax bearing No. A-29/M-3084 from Bijapur towards Kudal sangam and they left Bijapur after attending marriage ceremony in the said jeep at about 4.00 p.m. when the said jeep was proceeding near Nidagundi bus stand towards Almatti cross near the land of one Shyamarao Parvatikar, a truck bearing No. KA-28/A-5204 came from opposite direction in high speed loaded with cement poles and steel rods and other steel items for electrical purpose and driver of the said lorry drove the same in a high speed and due to the pits on the road, the lorry jumped due to heavy jerks and one steel rod which is about 7 ft. was came out of the body of the truck and suddenly fell on the front portion of the jeep, the front glass of jeep was completely broken and the steel rod entered inside of the body of the jeep forcibly dashed against the deceased and also dashed to petitioner No. 3 and minor petitioner Deepa and due to the said incident Basavaraj sustained injuries and succumbed to the said injuries, whereas the petitioners in MVC No. 652/2010 and MVC No. 651/2010 sustained simple and grievous injuries. The deceased was aged about 30 years and he was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. The LRs of the deceased have filed MVC No. 653/2010 claiming compensation of Rs. 61,30,000/-. The petitioners in two other petitions have claimed compensation of Rs. 6,10,000/- and Rs. The deceased was aged about 30 years and he was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. The LRs of the deceased have filed MVC No. 653/2010 claiming compensation of Rs. 61,30,000/-. The petitioners in two other petitions have claimed compensation of Rs. 6,10,000/- and Rs. 13,60,000/- respectively against the owner and insurer of the offending lorry. The owner of the tempo trax is also implead as respondent No. 3. 4. In pursuance of the notice, respondents appeared before the tribunal, respondent No. 1 filed written statement denying the contents of the petition and further stated that his lorry is duly insured with respondent No. 2 and policy was valid. Therefore, the liability to pay compensation may be fixed against respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 filed written statement denying the averments in the petitions, he has denied that the lorry and tempo were insured with him. He has denied the rash and negligent driving on the part of the truck, the petitioners are not entitled for any compensation. He has denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased. 5. Respondent No. 3 the owner of the jeep also filed written statement stating that the Basavaraj and the petitioners in other two claim petitions were travelling in his tempo trax and that his vehicle was duly insured with respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 2 may be made liable to compensation if any. 6. As already stated all the three claim petitions were clubbed together and heard by recording common evidence and disposed of by common judgment. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed the issues. The claimants got examined themselves and witnesses in all PW 1 to PW 6 were examined and Ex. P1 to Ex. P41 were marked. The copy of the policy were produced at Ex. R1 and R2, the respondents have not led in oral evidence. The learned Member of the tribunal after hearing both the parties passed impugned judgment awarding compensation of Rs. 2,04,360/- in MVC No. 651/2010, Rs. 4,20,000/- in MVC No. 652/2010 and Rs. 17,74,200/- in MVC No. 653/2010 along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 8. MFA CROB No. 200040/2015 is filed by the minor claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded in MVC No. 651/2010. 2,04,360/- in MVC No. 651/2010, Rs. 4,20,000/- in MVC No. 652/2010 and Rs. 17,74,200/- in MVC No. 653/2010 along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 8. MFA CROB No. 200040/2015 is filed by the minor claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded in MVC No. 651/2010. In the same case, the insurer has filed MFA No. 32350/2012 disputing the liability and quantum. Therefore, these two cases are to be dealt with together. The learned counsel for the claimant relying on the judgment in the case of Master Mallikarjun V/s Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Company Limited and another, reported in AIR 2014 SC 736 submitted that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards disability, pain and suffering, mental physical shock, hardship inconvenience, discomfort etc. and that she is also entitled for compensation towards medical expenses and on other heads as awarded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the insurer submitted that the tribunal has awarded compensation towards loss of future income and that the same is not admissible since the claimant is a minor girl aged about 10 years. 10. In view of the rival contentions, the short question that arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether claimant has made out grounds for enhancement of compensation or the insurer has made out grounds for reduction in the compensation. 11. The claimant Kum. Deepa filed the claim petition in MVC No. 351/2010 seeking compensation of Rs. 6,10,000/-. The evidence on record goes to show that she had sustained bleeding injuries on her right side face. Injury to jaw and teeth, fracture of right collar bone, CLW over right cheek up to right ear were caused to her. She has got examined Dr. Atul Kulkarni, Dr. LH Bidari, Dr. Prashant Kadakol who treated her. She was treated as in patient in Bidari Hospital from 07.12.2009 to 12.12.2009. She has undergone surgery. The treated doctor has given her disability to the extent of 40% to 50% towards face and teeth and the tribunal after assessing the evidence on record, considered the disability at 20% of the whole body. The tribunal adopted the income of the claimant as non earning member as provided under the II Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act and awarded a global compensation of Rs. The tribunal adopted the income of the claimant as non earning member as provided under the II Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act and awarded a global compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/- towards disability and loss of earning capacity. Further, the tribunal has awarded Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of amenities. Rs. 15,000/- towards pain and suffering, medical expenses of Rs. 19,362/-, Rs. 10,000/- towards incidental and attendant charges. Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 2,04,360/- was awarded. 12. The learned counsel for the claimant has relied on the judgment in the case of Master Mallikarjun stated supra in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held in para 12 as follows: "12. Though it is difficult to have an accurate assessment of the compensation in the case of children suffering disability on account of a motor vehicle accident, having regard to the relevant factors, precedents and the approach of various High Courts, we are of the view that the appropriate compensation on all other heads in addition to the actual expenditure for the treatment, attendant, etc., should be, if the disability is above 10% and upto 30% to the whole body, Rs. 3 lakhs; upto 60%, Rs. 4 lakhs; upto 90%, Rs. 5 lakhs and above 90%, it should be Rs. 6 lakhs. For permanent disability upto 10%, it should be Re. 1 lakh, unless there are exceptional circumstances to take different yardstick. In the instant case, the disability is to the tune of 18%. Appellant had a longer period of hospitalization for about two months causing also inconvenience and loss of earning to the parents. The Appellant, hence, would be entitled to get the compensation as follows: HEAD COMPENSATION AMOUNT Pain and suffering already undergone and to be suffered in future, mental and physical shock, hardship, inconvenience, and discomforts, etc, and loss of amenities in life on account of permanent disability Rs.3,00,000/- Discomfort, inconvenience and loss of earnings to the parents during the period of hospitatlization Rs.25,000/- Medical and incidental expenses during the period of hospitalization for 58 days Rs.25,000/- Future medical expenses for correction of the mal union of fracture and incidental expenses for such treatment Rs.25,000/- Total Rs.3,75,000/- 13. Therefore, in the present case, the permanent disability of the claimant is considered as 20% by the tribunal which needs no interference and as such in view of the above referred decision, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards pain and suffering already undergone and to be suffered in future, mental and physical shock, hardship, inconvenience, discomfort etc., Further, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 25,000/- towards discomfort, inconvenience and loss of earnings due to parents earnings during the period of hospitalization. Further, Rs. 25,000/- towards incidental expenses during the period of hospitalization and Rs. 17,362/- towards medical expenses as awarded by the tribunal. The tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards future medical expenses. In the above referred case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has awarded Rs. 25,000/- towards future medical expenses. In view of the fracture and disfiguration of the face of the claimant. Thus, Rs. 25,000/- is awarded towards future medical expenses. Therefore, on reassessing material on record, the following just compensation is awarded that is Rs. 3,92,632/- as against the compensation awarded by the tribunal at Rs. 2,04,360/-. Thus, the claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,88,002/-. Therefore, the MFA CROB deserves to be partly allowed. On the other hand, the insurer's appeal in MFA No. 32350/2012 which is filed seeking for reduction in the quantum of compensation in this case is liable to be dismissed. The points for consideration are answered accordingly. 14. MFA No. 32351/2012 (MVC No. 652/2010) is filed by the insurer. In this case the claimant Dr. Sudha filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 13,60,000/- for the injuries sustained in the accident. The claimant has deposed before the tribunal that she had sustained irregular cut lacerated would in the right angle. Cut lacerated would right frontal region. Fracture mandible and other injuries. She has spent Rs. 1,00,000/- for treatment, she took treatment as in patient from 07.12.2009 to 11.12.2009. She was working as a doctor in Swami Vivekanand Youth Movements Hospital, Kenchanalli and getting salary of Rs. 9,120/- per month. To prove her disability PW 4 Dr. Bharati was examined and her disability certificate is produced at Ex. P36. Her permanent disability was stated to be 55% to 60% and even till today she cannot chew food from right side jaw. 9,120/- per month. To prove her disability PW 4 Dr. Bharati was examined and her disability certificate is produced at Ex. P36. Her permanent disability was stated to be 55% to 60% and even till today she cannot chew food from right side jaw. However, the tribunal has considered her permanent disability at 15% for the purpose of awarding loss of future earning capacity and accordingly a sum of Rs. 2,79,000/- is awarded towards loss of future earning capacity. Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of amenities. The tribunal has also awarded Rs. 64,602/- towards medical expenses as per the document produced and Rs. 20,000/- towards pain and agony. Further the tribunal has awarded Rs. 36,480/- towards loss of earning during the period of treatment for a period of four months. Therefore, the tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 4,20,000/-. Under these circumstances, the contention of the insurer in this appeal that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is on higher side and that the same needs to be reduced as no merit and is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, I hold that the appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed. 15. In MFA No. 32083/2013 (MVC No. 653/2010). The claimants herein are the legal representatives of deceased Basawaraj and they filed MVC No. 653/2010 claiming compensation of Rs. 61,30,000/- for the death of the deceased Basavaraj. Claimant No. 1 and 2 are parents, claimant No. 3 is wife and claimant No. 4 is minor daughter of the deceased. It is proved that the deceased was also working as doctor in Swami Vivekanand Youth Movements Hospital, Kenchanalli, President of the said institution is examined as PW 3. The deceased was aged about 29 years, his salary certificates are produced at Ex. P9, Ex. P23 account extract of S.B.M. Mysore at Ex. P33. The tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at Rs. 12,600/- as the salary as per the Ex. P23 and deducted Rs. 200/- towards professional tax. Further, the tribunal has deducted Rs. 1,000/- towards income tax which is not correct. It is not made out that the deceased was liable to pay any income tax. Further, the tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards future prospects. 12,600/- as the salary as per the Ex. P23 and deducted Rs. 200/- towards professional tax. Further, the tribunal has deducted Rs. 1,000/- towards income tax which is not correct. It is not made out that the deceased was liable to pay any income tax. Further, the tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards future prospects. The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the tribunal has erred in not awarding compensation towards future prospects and the tribunal has awarded meager compensation under other heads including the love and affection to the minor. 16. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and award and submitted that on the compensation awarded in the case is just and proper. 17. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, a short question arises before this Court as to whether the claimants have made out grounds for enhancement in the compensation. 18. The tribunal after considering the entire material on record has considered the income of the deceased as Rs. 12,600/- per month in view of the Ex. P23, the deduction of Rs. 200/- towards profession tax is also proper. However, deduction of Rs. 1,000/- towards income tax is not correct and the same ought not to have been deducted. Further, the tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards future prospects at 50% in view of the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi and others, reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 . The claimants are entitled for addition of 50% towards loss of future prospects. Thus, the compensation awarded by the tribunal needs to be modified as follows. The income of the deceased is taken at Rs. 12,600/- per month out of which Rs. 200/- has to be deducted towards professional tax, remaining income comes to Rs. 12,400/- for which Rs. 6,200/- has to be added towards future prospects. Thus, the income of the deceased comes to Rs. 18,600/- per month out of this 1/4th has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased which comes to Rs. 4,650/- after deductions of the said amount, the remaining income of Rs. 13,950/-, the same has to be multiplied by 12 and 17. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 28,45,800/- (13950 x 12 x 17). The claimants are also entitled for compensation of Rs. 4,650/- after deductions of the said amount, the remaining income of Rs. 13,950/-, the same has to be multiplied by 12 and 17. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 28,45,800/- (13950 x 12 x 17). The claimants are also entitled for compensation of Rs. 70,000/- under the conventional heads as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi's case stated supra. The tribunal has awarded Rs. 12,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the minor which is enhanced to Rs. 50,000/- in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Others reported in 2018 ACJ 2782 . Thus, the claimants are entitled a total compensation of Rs. 29,65,800/- as against the compensation awarded by the tribunal at Rs. 17,74,200/-. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs. 11,91,600/-. The appeal has to be allowed to this extent. In the result, I proceed to pass the following. ORDER MFA No. 32350/2012 and MFA No. 32351/2012 are hereby dismissed. MFA CROB No. 200040/2015 is allowed in part. The claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,88,002/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. MFA No. 32083/2013 is allowed in part. The claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs. 11,91,600/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The amount of compensation deposited by the insurer in the above two appeals shall be transmitted to the concerned tribunal.