JUDGMENT V. Srishananda, J. - Mfa No.102391/2014 is filed by the NWKSRTC, while MFA No.102685/2014 is filed by the claimants. These two appeals are arising out of one and the same judgment and award passed by the FTC and Additional MACT, Gokak questioning the correctness of the judgment and award in MVC No.1518/2012, dated 24.05.2014. 2. The parties are referred to as per their original ranking before the tribunal. 3. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as under : A claim petition came to be filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act by dependants of Ishwarayya S/o. Shivalingayya Hiremath stating that on 13.11.2011 at about 5.00 p.m. said Ishwarayya along with one Mallikarjun S/o. Channappa Guteshwar were returning from Nargund to Hubli on motorcycle bearing No.KA- 25/B-3558 near Arekuratti bridge within the limits of Navalgund Village, at that time, a KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-28/F-1579 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle resulting in death of Ishwarayya. 4. It is further contended that as on the date of accident, Ishwarayya was unmarried and aged about 24 years and earning Rs.14,000/- per month as he was an employee of Tata Motors and was using his entire salary to his family members and sought for awarding suitable compensation. 5. In pursuance of the notice issued, the respondent appeared before the tribunal and filed a statement of objections denying the petition averments. However, it is admitted that the accident has occurred and a criminal case came to be filed against the driver of the bus. But, denied the accident in question on account of negligent act of the driver, but, it is purely on the negligent act of the rider of the motorcycle, who did not possess a driving licence and resulting in the accident. 6. Before the tribunal, in order to substantiate the claim petition averments, the first claimant i.e., mother of the deceased was examined as PW1. They examined one eye witness by name Mahantesh Gangayya Mathad as PW2 and relied on documentary evidence which were marked before the tribunal vide Ex.P1 to P23. On behalf of respondent, no evidence either oral or documentary placed on record. 7. They examined one eye witness by name Mahantesh Gangayya Mathad as PW2 and relied on documentary evidence which were marked before the tribunal vide Ex.P1 to P23. On behalf of respondent, no evidence either oral or documentary placed on record. 7. After hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the tribunal allowed the claim petition to the tune of Rs.5,80,000/- as under : 1 Loss of dependency 5,40,000/- 2 Towards loss of estate Conventional head 10,000/- 3 Towards loss of loved and affection 15,000/- 4 Towards funeral and obsequies 15,000/- TOTAL 5,80,000/- 8. The appellant-NEKSRTC has challenged the said judgment in this appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant-NEKSRTC vehemently contended that the accident has not occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC bus, but the same has occurred on account of the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle, who came in zig zig manner resulting in accident. It is the specific case of the appellant-NEKSRTC that, while the tribunal has committed grave error in not applying the proper multiplier. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants by filing appeal has submitted that the tribunal erred in law in not properly assessing the monthly income of the deceased. He also contended that the claimants are entitled for addition of 40% of the adjudged monthly income, in the light of legal principle enunciated in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) AIR SC 5157 . The learned counsel also submitted that the tribunal ought to have granted Rs.70,000/- towards conventional head as per the legal principle enunciated in Pranay Sethi's case and prayed for enhancement of the compensation. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, the points that would arise for consideration of this court are : 1. Whether the appellants-claimants in MFA No.102685/2014 are entitled for enhanced compensation ? 2. Whether NWKSRTC in MFA No.102391/2014 has made out a case for reduction of the compensation? 11. Answer to the above points in the affirmative and in the negative respectively for the following reasons: REASONS 12. Whether the appellants-claimants in MFA No.102685/2014 are entitled for enhanced compensation ? 2. Whether NWKSRTC in MFA No.102391/2014 has made out a case for reduction of the compensation? 11. Answer to the above points in the affirmative and in the negative respectively for the following reasons: REASONS 12. In the present case, the accident that has occurred near Arekuratti Bridge on Hubli-Navalagund road, within the limits of Navalgund village involving motorcycle bearing No.KA-25/B-3558 and KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-28/F-1579, wherein the death of one Ishwarayya Shivalingayya Hiremath has taken place is not in dispute. 13. The learned counsel for the appellantsclaimants contended that the deceased was serving in TATA Motors and he was having a monthly income of Rs.13,600/- per month from Ace Creative Learning Pvt. Ltd., The salary slip said to have been issued from Ace Creative Learning Pvt. Ltd., came to be marked as Ex.P11 to P13, which indicates that the deceased has monthly income of Rs.13,600/-. But, to prove Ex.P11 to 13, the author of Ex.P11 to P13 is not examined by the claimants. In the claim petition also in column Nos.4 and 5 it has been mentioned that the deceased was an employee of Tata Motors. But, the documents which are exhibited and marked at Ex.P11 to P13 are of different company. 14. In the affidavit in lieu of oral evidence of PW1, who is the mother of the deceased, it has been specifically mentioned that the deceased was working in Tata Motors and was earning Rs.14,000/- per month. 15. In the cross-examination by KSRTC, no doubt she has denied that the salary certificates were concocted for the purpose of case. But in view of discrepancy as to the averments in claim petition and contents of Ex.P11 to P13, the tribunal was justified in not believing the salary certificate of the deceased marked at Ex.P11 to P13 and was left with no alternative except to assess the monthly income notionally. 16. However, for the accident claims which has occurred in the year 2011, this court and Lok Adalaths notionally assessed the income at Rs.6,000/-. 17. Therefore, in this case also we deem it appropriate to assess the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- as against Rs.5,000/- assessed by the tribunal. 18. 16. However, for the accident claims which has occurred in the year 2011, this court and Lok Adalaths notionally assessed the income at Rs.6,000/-. 17. Therefore, in this case also we deem it appropriate to assess the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- as against Rs.5,000/- assessed by the tribunal. 18. The learned counsel for the appellantsclaimants submitted that the claimants are entitled for addition of 40% of assessed income towards future prospects as per decision laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) AIR SC 5157 . The deceased was aged about 24 years as on the date of accident, as such as per decision of Pranay Sethi (Supra) the claimants are entitled for addition of 40% assessed income towards future prospects. Since, the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of the amount is to be deducted towards personal expenses. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled for the compensation on the head of loss of income including future prospects as under : 6000+40%=2400+6000=8400X50%=4200/- 4200X12X18=9,07,200/- 19. On the conventional heads, the tribunal has granted Rs.40,000/- which is in our considered opinion just and proper. Thus, the claimants are entitled to a modified compensation as under : 1 Loss of dependency Including future prospectus 9,07,200/- 2 Conventional head 40,000/- TOTAL 9,47,200/- 20. The appellants-claimants would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.9,47,200/- as against Rs.5,80,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Hence, we pass the following: ORDER The appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance company in MFA No.102391/2014 is dismissed and the appeal filed by the claimants in MFA No.102685/2014 is allowed in part. The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.9,47,200/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The respondent Insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The apportionment and deposit would remain as ordered by the tribunal in the same proportion. Draw modified award accordingly.