JUDGMENT S.G. Pandit, J. - The appellant-Insurance Company in MFA No.103385/2018 is in appeal aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kushtagi in MVC No.155/2015 dated 09.07.2018. MFA CR.OB.No.100047/2019 is by the claimants praying for enhancement of compensation. 2. The claimants are the parents and sisters of one Manjunath. Claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act praying for compensation for the death of Manjunath in a road traffic accident. It is stated that on 15.04.2013 when the deceased was proceeding in bus bearing No.KA-26/7747, the driver of the bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the tractor trally, due to which the vehicle turtled and the deceased sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. The deceased was aged about 19 years as on the date of the accident and it is stated that he was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- p.m. by doing Goundi/Mason work. 3. On issuance of notice, respondents No.1 to 3 appeared before the Tribunal. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed their separate written statement and respondent No.1 denied the entire claim petition averments. Further, respondent No.1 stated that the vehicle was insured with respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 in its written statement contended that the claim is frivolous and denied the entire claim petition averments, but admitted issuance of policy and its validity. It further denied the involvement of the vehicle and also stated that the driver of the vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident. 4. In order to prove their case, the claimant No.2 examined herself as PW.1 and another eyewitness by name Ganapathi was examined as PW.2 apart from marking Exs.P.1 to P.20. On behalf of the respondents, RW.1 was examined apart from marking Exs.R.1 to R.3. 5. The Tribunal on scrutiny of the entire material on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.15,00,600/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. While awarding the above compensation, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- p.m. and deducted 1/3rd of his income towards personal expenses of the deceased. The Insurance Company is in appeal aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, whereas, the claimants are in crossobjection praying for enhancement of compensation. 6. While awarding the above compensation, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- p.m. and deducted 1/3rd of his income towards personal expenses of the deceased. The Insurance Company is in appeal aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, whereas, the claimants are in crossobjection praying for enhancement of compensation. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the Insurance Company as well as the learned counsel for the claimants/cross-objectors and perused the material on record. 7. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and prays for modification of the award by reducing the compensation. He submits that the deceased was aged about 19 years and his income is assessed at Rs.9,000/- p.m. without there being any evidence nor basis. He submits that normally this Court would assess the notional income if there is no document to establish the income at Rs.7,000/- p.m. for the accidents of the year 2013. Therefore, he submits that assessment of income at Rs.7,000/- p.m. of the deceased would be proper. Further, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the deceased was aged about 19 years and the claimants are parents and sisters of the deceased. Sisters were aged about 23 and 21 years respectively, whereas the father was aged about 49 years as on the date of presentation of the petition. The sisters of the deceased are dependant on the father and not on the deceased. As such, the Tribunal could not have deducted 1/3rd of his income towards personal expenses and the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% of income towards personal expenses. Thus, he prays for allowing the appeal. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants/cross-objectors would submit that the income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.9,000/- p.m. is proper and correct as he submits that the deceased had passed PUC and received interview letter for employment in CRPF, Bangalore. Therefore, it is his submission that the income assessed by the Tribunal is proper and correct. Further, he submits that the claimants No.3 and 4 are sisters of the deceased, who were wholly dependant on the deceased. It is his submission that the deceased was only the bread earner of the family and the Tribunal has rightly taken 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased. Further, he submits that the claimants No.3 and 4 are sisters of the deceased, who were wholly dependant on the deceased. It is his submission that the deceased was only the bread earner of the family and the Tribunal has rightly taken 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, he prays for maintaining the same. Further, it is his submission that the Tribunal has failed to award any compensation on the head of future prospects. It is his submission that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 the claimants would be entitled for adding 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects. Thus, he prays for allowing the crossobjection. 9. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the following points would arise for consideration: 1) Whether the income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.9,000/- p.m. is proper and correct? 2) Whether the Tribunal is justified in deducting 1/3rd of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased? 3) Whether the claimants would be entitled for future prospects at the rate of 40% of the assessed income? 10. Answer to the above points No.1 and 2 would be in the negative and point No.3 in the affirmative for the following reasons: 11. The accident that had taken place on 15.04.2013 involving bus No.KA-26/7747 and the accidental death of Manjunath is not in dispute in this appeal. Even though the Insurance Company in its appeal had raised ground with regard to the liability, the learned counsel has submitted that the Insurance Company would not press the ground with regard to the liability. Hence, the Insurance Company appeal is confined to questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Whereas, the cross objection filed by the claimants is for enhancement of compensation. 12. The claimants state that the deceased was aged about 19 years and was earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. by working as Mason. The claimants have placed on record Ex.P.9-SSLC certificate, Ex.P.10 interview admission card issued by CRPF and Exs.P.11 and 12 PUC marks cards to show that the deceased had passed PUC. But, claimants have not placed on record any material or document to establish the income of the deceased. The claimants have placed on record Ex.P.9-SSLC certificate, Ex.P.10 interview admission card issued by CRPF and Exs.P.11 and 12 PUC marks cards to show that the deceased had passed PUC. But, claimants have not placed on record any material or document to establish the income of the deceased. In the absence of any material, the Tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- p.m. which is on the higher side. This Court and Lok-Adalath while settling the accidental claims of the year 2013, would normally assess the notional income at Rs.7,000/- p.m. In the instant case also, in the absence of any material to establish the income claimed, we deem it appropriate to assess the notional income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- p.m. 13. The claimants are parents and sisters of the deceased. The father of the deceased was aged about 49 years, whereas the sisters were aged about 23 and 21 years respectively at the time of the accident. Normally, the unmarried daughters would be dependent on their father and in the instant case, there is no evidence to establish that the claimants No.3 and 4 were wholly dependant on the income of the deceased brother. Hence, the Tribunal committed an error in taking deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased at 1/3rd. Admittedly, the deceased was a bachelor. Hence, it would be appropriate to take deduction towards personal expenses at 50% in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) AIR SC 3104 . 14. As stated above, the deceased was aged about 19 years as on the date of the accident. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) ACJ 2700 has held that wherever the deceased was below the age of 40 years, the claimants would be entitled for an addition of 40% towards future prospects. In the instant case in view of the fact that the deceased was aged about 19 years, the claimants would be entitled for an addition of 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects as against 10% awarded towards future prospects by the Tribunal. The parents have lost a young son aged about 19 years and they have lost love and affection of a son for the rest of their life. The parents have lost a young son aged about 19 years and they have lost love and affection of a son for the rest of their life. Hence, the claimants No.1 and 2 would be entitled for 40,000/- each towards filial consortium as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd vs. Nanu Ram and others, (2018) ACJ 2782 . Thus, the claimants would be entitled for the following modified compensation: 1) Loss of dependency including Future prospects Rs.10,58,400-00 2) Conventional heads : Rs. 50,000-00 3) Filial consortium : Rs. 80,000-00 Total : Rs.11,88,400-00 15. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for total compensation of Rs.11,88,400/-. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER Both the appeal and the cross objections are disposed of. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal stands modified to the extent that the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.11,88,400/- as against Rs.15,00,600/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The claimants No.1 and 2 shall be entitled for 50% each out of the total compensation. The amount in deposit, if any, made by the Insurance Company shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith. Draw modified award accordingly.