JUDGMENT V. Srishananda, J. - The claimants in MVC No.602/2017 are challenging the judgment and award dated 02.08.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hangal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short) and seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for parties, heard finally and disposed of by this order. 3. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the appeal is as under:- In the claim petition, it is contended that on 21.03.2018, Ramappa Lamani was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing No.KA-30/Q-6383 from his native towards Hangal along with his daughter/claimant No.3 and at about 8.30 a.m., when he reached near Girisinakoppa I.B., a KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-27/F-374 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle due to which said Ramappa Lamani sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The claimants further contended that they were solely depending on the earnings of deceased Ramappa Lamani and hence, sought for compensation. On issuance of notice, respondents appeared before the Tribunal and filed written statement denying the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and contended that the negligent act is attributable on the deceased Ramappa Lamani, on account of which the accident occurred. They specifically contended that when the deceased was trying to overtake a private bus, he dashed against the KSRTC bus and therefore, sought for dismissal of the claim petition. To substantiate the claim petition averments, the 1st claimant/wife of the deceased, Smt. Ratnavva got examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked seven documents vide Exs.P.1 to P.7. On behalf of respondent/corporation, one Doddappa/the driver of the bus got examined as R.W.1 and got marked documents vide Exs.R.1 to R.5. 4. The Tribunal, after cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing the parties, has allowed the claim petition and granted a sum of Rs.10,25,000/- and since there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and the driver of the KSRTC bus, the Tribunal has fixed 70% of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and thus claimants were awarded with compensation of Rs.3,07,500/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. 5. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants vehemently contended that the Tribunal recorded a wrong finding as to contributory negligence attributing 70% of negligence on the part of the deceased/Ramappa Lamani and as such, the said finding needs to be set-aside. 6. He further contended that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month despite the fact the deceased/Ramappa Lamani was a mason by profession and was also an agriculturist and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, which has been totally ignored by the Tribunal while assessing the income of the deceased and hence, sought for enhancement of compensation. 7. Further, the learned counsel for appellants/claimants contends that the future earnings are also not taken into account by the Tribunal by following the legal principles enunciated in National Insurance Company Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) AIR SC 5157 . He further contends that the Tribunal has also failed to consider the filial and parental consortium for claimants 2 to 5 who are mother and children of the deceased and on that score also sought for enhancement. 8. Per contra, it is the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation that the Tribunal, in the absence of any plausible proof with regard to income, has rightly assessed the income of the deceased and thus, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 9. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, the following points would arise for our consideration: i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month? ii) Whether the appellants/claimants have made out a case for enhancement of compensation? iii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in attributing 70% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased? 10. We answer Point No.1 & 3 in the negative and Point No.2 partly in affirmative for the following:; REASONS 11. The learned counsel for the claimants contended that the Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- as admittedly the deceased was carrying the work of mason and also had agricultural income. But on perusal of records, no material is placed by the claimants in support of the said contention except the oral testimony of P.W.1. Thus, in the absence of any plausible material placed on record, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.7000/- per month, notionally. 12. But on perusal of records, no material is placed by the claimants in support of the said contention except the oral testimony of P.W.1. Thus, in the absence of any plausible material placed on record, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.7000/- per month, notionally. 12. This Court and the Lok-Adalaths, while assessing the monthly income of a person who did not have a fixed income or failed to produce any plausible material, has consistently assessed the monthly income at Rs.10,250/- for accident claims of the year 2017, notionally. 13. In the present case also in the absence of any clinching evidence as to the monthly income, we deem it appropriate to notionally assess the monthly income of the deceased @ Rs.10,250/-. 14. Further, the Tribunal did not consider the grant of future prospects. Admittedly, the deceased was aged 39 years as on the date of the accident and therefore, following the principles enunciated in Pranay Sethi (supra) there needs to be addition of 40% of assessed income, which would work out to Rs.14,350/- per month. 15. Having regard to the fact that there are five claimants, the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/4th of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased. If 1/4th of the income i.e. Rs.3587/- is deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, the monthly income would be Rs.10,763/- (Rs.14350 Rs.3587 =Rs. 10763/-). Since the deceased was aged 39 years as on the date of the accident, multiplier "15" adopted by the Tribunal is correct and thus, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.19,37,340/- (Rs.10,763 x 12 x 15 = Rs.19,37,340/-) towards loss of dependency and future prospects. Further, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) the claimants would also be entitled to compensation of Rs.70,000/- on conventional heads. 16. Further, claimants 2 to 4 being children and claimant No.5 being mother of the deceased are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards filial and parental consortium as is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd vs. Nanu Ram and others, (2018) ACJ 2782 . Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to the total compensation of Rs.21,67,340/- as against Rs. 10,25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 17. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to the total compensation of Rs.21,67,340/- as against Rs. 10,25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 17. As regards contributory negligence, the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has contended that attributing 70% of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased by the Tribunal is erroneous. 18. Per contra, it is the contention of the learned counsel for respondent/KSRTC bus that in the process of overtaking a private bus, the deceased himself dashed against the KSRTC bus. He drew our attention to the photographs produced at Exs.R.3 and R.4 in this regard. The photographs do depict that the deceased was collided to the bus on the left side of bumper. The deceased coming to the left side of the bumper of the bus clearly establishes the fact that the rider of the motorcycle tried to avoid the accident and has moved to the extreme right side of the road. But to his dismay was not successful. The fact of moving to the extreme right side of the road would sufficiently establish the contention of the respondent. On perusal of the entire material on record and reassessing the evidence, we deem it appropriate to attribute 50% negligence on the part of the deceased. 19. In view of above discussion, out of the total compensation of Rs.21,67,340/-the claimants would be entitled to 50% of the same i.e. Rs.10,83,670/- from the respondent/insurance company along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 20. The respondent/insurance company is directed to pay the enhanced compensation along with interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 21. The apportionment and deposit would be as ordered by the Tribunal in the same proportion. Draw modified award accordingly.