JUDGMENT V. Srishananda, J. - Being not satisfied with the judgment and award dated 12.03.2009, passed by the MACT-VII, Hospet in MVC No.431/2008, the Insurance company has preferred this appeal and the claimants have also filed the Cross Objection No.865/2013 for enhancement of compensation. 2. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as under : It is contended in the claim petition that on 01.03.2008 at about 5.00 a.m. that C. Surendrakumar was proceeding near Gangavati cross on his vehicle and at that juncture the driver of the lorry bearing No.KA- 08/B-1499 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Surendrakumar's lorry, as a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. It is further contended that the accident has occurred on account of rash and negligent of driving of the offending vehicle bearing No.KA-08-/B-1499 and the claimants have lost their bread winner and sought for award of compensation. 3. On issuance of notice, respondents No.1 to 3 have appeared before the tribunal. While the respondent No.3-Insurance company filed its written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and other respondents did not choose to file any written statement. In the written statement of the Insurance company, there was also a contention as to the nonjoinder of the necessary parties. 4. There was specific contention that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid driving license and as such, the Insurance company prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. In order to establish the claim petition averments, the first claimant got examined herself as PW1 and produced 6 documents, which are marked as Ex.P1 to P6. 6. On behalf of respondents, the Administrative Officer of Insurance company Sri. K. Shama Sunder examined as RW1 and he has produced the documents and in support of their contentions they have been marked as Ex.R1 to R4. 7. 6. On behalf of respondents, the Administrative Officer of Insurance company Sri. K. Shama Sunder examined as RW1 and he has produced the documents and in support of their contentions they have been marked as Ex.R1 to R4. 7. On cumulative consideration of the material on record, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident has occurred on account of the negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle and assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month and deducted 1/3rd of the said amount towards personal expenses of the deceased and has taken the notional income at Rs.36,000/- and applying multiplier of 17 as the deceased was aged about 26 years and awarded the compensation to a sum of Rs.6,12,000/- on the head of loss of dependency. 8. The tribunal also granted a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and affection and awarded the compensation on other heads, in all, the tribunal as awarded compensation of Rs.6,69,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment of compensation amount against the respondents. 9. The learned counsel for the Insurance company vehemently contended that the tribunal failed to notice the probative value on the documents marked on behalf of Insurance company especially Ex.R2 and Ex.R2(a). It is the specific contention of the Insurance company that the RTO Office at Vuyyuru, Krishna District was established in the year 2000 and as such, the driving licence said to have been possessed by the deceased vehicle bearing No.4173/VYR/1995 could not have been issued and it is a fake document. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal. 10. The learned counsel for the Insurance company further contended that the Insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation and in view of the Full Bench judgment of this court in MFA No.30131/2010, the Insurance company may be ordered to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. 11. Per contra, Sri. Y. Laxmikant Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the claimants/cross objectors had also filed the cross objection and vehemently contended that the tribunal rejected the contentions raised on behalf of the Insurance company and sought for enhancement of the compensation. 12. 11. Per contra, Sri. Y. Laxmikant Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the claimants/cross objectors had also filed the cross objection and vehemently contended that the tribunal rejected the contentions raised on behalf of the Insurance company and sought for enhancement of the compensation. 12. It is further contended that the deceased was possessing a valid driving licence, which is marked vide Ex.P6, which clearly shows that the deceased was possessing a valid driving licence to drive a heavy goods vehicle and was aged only 26 years and therefore, assessing the income at Rs.4,500/- is on the lower side, which needs to be enhanced. 13. Further, the tribunal did not taken into consideration the daily Bhatta charges earned by the deceased during his life time while assessing the income of the deceased. Therefore, sought for enhancement of the compensation. 14. In view of the rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties, the following points would arise for consideration: 1. Whether the Insurance company proves that the driver of the offending vehicle bearing No.KA- 08/B- 1499 did not possess a valid driving license? 2. Whether the claimants have made out a case for enhancement of compensation? 15. Answer to the above points are negative and affirmative respectively for the following : REASONS 16. The learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance company vehemently contended that the tribunal while recording finding that the driver of the offending vehicle did possess a valid driving license, has totally ignored Ex.R1 and R2(a). 17. In order to appreciate the said contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance company, it is just and necessary for this court to cull out Ex.R2(a), which reads as under : "C.No./x NDIS/4/08 Dt:24.03.08 Regional Transport Unit Office started at Vuyyuru in the year 2000. Since then we started issuing driving licence. The licencing authority of Vuyyuru has not issued D.L. No.4173/vyr/1995. The same is informed to you. Sd/- Seal dt:24.3.08 Addl.Licencing authority, Regional Transport Unit Office Vyuyyuru, Krishna" 18. It is pertinent to note that Ex.R2 is the application made by a Surveyor attached to the Insurance company to the RTO, Vuyyur. 19. In response to the said application, Ex.R2(a) came to be issued from the RTO, Vuyyur. Based on Ex.R2(a), Y.V. Rao, who is Surveyor of the Insurance company issues a letter to the Insurance company vide Ex.R3. 20. 19. In response to the said application, Ex.R2(a) came to be issued from the RTO, Vuyyur. Based on Ex.R2(a), Y.V. Rao, who is Surveyor of the Insurance company issues a letter to the Insurance company vide Ex.R3. 20. On record, this court finds that the Insurance company did not choose to examine Sri. Y.V. Rao the Surveyor of the Insurance company, for the reasons best known to Insurance company. 21. Rw1 Sri. K. Sham Sunder, the Officer admittedly is not the author of Ex.R2 or R3. Therefore, the Insurance company has not proved Ex.R2, R2(a) and R3 by placing proper evidence on record. 22. The RTO Office at Vuyyur has commenced its working in the year 2000. Hence, RTO, Vuyyur could not have issued the driving license in the year 1995. However, if the driving license bearing No.4173/VYR/95 is issued by a particular RTO and if it is sought to be disputed by the Insurance company, the burden lies on the Insurance company to establish the fact that the driving license possessed by the deceased which is marked at Ex.P6 is a fake document. 23. Rw1 being not author of Ex.R2, Ex.R2(a) and R3 and not having personal knowledge of the same, in this regard, cross examination of RW2 assumes importance. In his cross examination he specifically admits that there was no case filed against the driver possessing fake driving licence. When the Insurance company had appointed the Surveyor, to find out the veracity of the genuiness of Ex.P6, what prevented the Insurance company to summon the RTO authorities and place best evidence on record is not explained by the Insurance company. 24. Likewise, no explanation is forthcoming as to why the Insurance company failed to examine Sri. Y.V. Rao, who is Surveyor attached to the appellant Insurance company. 25. Under circumstances, this court does not find any good grounds to interfere with the finding recorded by the tribunal to hold that Ex.P6 is a genuine document. 26. This takes us to the next issue namely whether the claimants have made out a case for enhancement of the compensation. 27. Based on the grounds raised in the cross objection Sri. Laxmikant Reddy, the learned counsel for the cross objectors/claimants vehemently contended that the tribunal erred in law in assessing the income at Rs.4,500/-, especially when the deceased possessed a heavy driving licence. 28. 27. Based on the grounds raised in the cross objection Sri. Laxmikant Reddy, the learned counsel for the cross objectors/claimants vehemently contended that the tribunal erred in law in assessing the income at Rs.4,500/-, especially when the deceased possessed a heavy driving licence. 28. In this regard, the tribunal observed that the claimants have contended that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.4,500/- per month and another sum of Rs.100/- as bhatta, but no documents were produced by the claimants before the court to substantiate the deceased was earning Rs.4,500/- per month and was earning a sum of Rs.100/-as bhatta. The owner/employer of the deceased is not examined by the claimants. 29. As such, the tribunal took judicial notice of the wages of labour prevailing at the relevant point of time and has assessed the income at Rs.4,500/- per month. This court does not find any infirmity in recording such a finding. In fact, wherever this court and in Lok Adalath for the accidental claims of the year 2008, courts have assessed the notional income at Rs.4,250/- per month. But, the tribunal has assessed the income at Rs.4,500/- per month, which is in the considered opinion of this court, is just and reasonable. 30. Since the deceased was aged about 26 years, the tribunal properly applied the multiplier of 17 and has deducted 1/3rd of the income assessed towards the personal and living expenses, which in the opinion of this court, is perfectly justified. Therefore, the assessment of the income and the deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses and multiplier do not require any interference by this court. 31. However, there is some force in the argument advanced on behalf of the claimants, the tribunal failed to consider towards the future prospects of the deceased in view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) AIR SC 5157 . The deceased being aged 26 years, is entitled for an addition of Rs.40% towards future prospects. Therefore, the claimants/Cross objectors would be entitled compensation under the head of loss of dependency including future prospects: Rs.4,500+40%= 1800+4500=6300x1/3=2100 6300-2100=4200X12X17=8,56,800/- 32. The deceased being aged 26 years, is entitled for an addition of Rs.40% towards future prospects. Therefore, the claimants/Cross objectors would be entitled compensation under the head of loss of dependency including future prospects: Rs.4,500+40%= 1800+4500=6300x1/3=2100 6300-2100=4200X12X17=8,56,800/- 32. Learned counsel for the claimants/cross objectors also drew the attention of this court to the legal principles enunciated in the decision of Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd vs. Nanu Ram and others, (2018) ACJ 2782 and sought for awarding the compensation under the head of parental consortium in respect of claimant No.2 who is minor son. 33. Applying the said principles to the facts of the present case, an amount of Rs.40,000/- is awarded under the head of loss of parental consortium in respect of claimant No.2 is concerned. 34. The tribunal has granted Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium. According to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.70,000/- towards loss of conventional head. Therefore, the claimants/cross objectors are entitled to a total compensation under the following heads: 1 Loss of dependency 8,56,800/- 2 Towards conventional heads 70,000/- 3 loss filial parental consortium in respect of claimant No. 2 40,000/- Total 9,66,800/- 35. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.9,66,800/- Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance company is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the claimants is allowed in part. 36. The respondent Insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount of Rs.2,97,800/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of payment of compensation within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.