JUDGMENT Ravi V. Hosmani, J. - Though these appeals are listed for admission, with consent of learned counsel appearing on both sides, it is heard finally and disposed of by this judgment. 2. M.F.A.No.805/2016 has been filed by the claimantappellant being aggrieved by the inadequate compensation awarded by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-VII, Shivamogga (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') vide judgment and award dated 24.04.2015 passed in MVC No. 1081/2013, while M.F.A.No.4946/2015 has been filed by the appellantinsurance company being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and fastening of liability on it. 3. The brief facts leading to the above appeals are that on 07.05.2013, one Pradeep was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-20-EA-5783 to return to his village Gadikoppa from Shivamogga. At about 4.00 P.M., when he was near Muduba village on Shivamogga-Thirthahalli road, driver of lorry bearing registration No.KA-17-B-6090 drove it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the motorcycle. In the accident, Pradeep sustained fatal injuries and died. Alleging that the accident was on account of negligence of the lorry driver, and that the claimant (mother of the deceased) sustained loss of dependency, claim petition in MVC No.1081/2013 came to be filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988 against the owner and insurer of the lorry. The total compensation claimed was Rs.45,40,000/-. 4. In response to the notices issued by the Claims Tribunal, respondent No.1 - driver though represented by counsel, did not file objections. Respondent No.2 owner and respondent No.3 - insurer appeared through their counsel and filed their written statement. The respondent No.2 owner of the lorry contended that there was no negligence on the part of the first respondent in driving the lorry, but the deceased himself drove his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner causing the accident. He has denied all other averments made in the petition. Respondent No.3 - insurer filed its objections contending that accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle. That respondent No.2 did not possess transport permit and the driver of the lorry i.e., respondent No.1 was also not holding an effective and valid driving licence. And that even the quantum of compensation claimed was excessive, exorbitant and arbitrary. That respondent No.2 did not possess transport permit and the driver of the lorry i.e., respondent No.1 was also not holding an effective and valid driving licence. And that even the quantum of compensation claimed was excessive, exorbitant and arbitrary. It was further contended that the respondent No.2 has not informed the Insurance Company and violated Section 34 (c) of the Act. The Investigating Officer has also not informed about the accident as per Section 158 (6) of the M.V. Act and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Claims Tribunal framed the following issues for its consideration: (i) Whether the petitioner proves that on 9.05.2013 at about 4.00 p.m., at Nidagalale village on Shimoga - Tirthahalli Road, near Muduba village her son by name Pradeep, who was riding the bike bearing No. KA-20-EA-5783, died in the accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the Lorry bearing No. KA-17-B-6090, by the 1st respondent? (ii) Whether the 3rd respondent proves that the 1st respondent had not possessed the valid driving license to drive the offending lorry on the date of the accident? (iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so what is the quantum and from whom? 6. In support of her case, the claimant got herself examined as PW-1 and an eye witness as PW-2. Exhibits P.1 to P.10 were marked. The respondents did not lead any evidence, but got marked Ex.R.1 - accident spot sketch during the cross-examination of P.W.2. 7. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Claims Tribunal answered issue No.1 in affirmative; issue No.2 in negative; Issue No.3 by holding that petitioner is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.10,27,000/- from respondents No.1 to 3 and issue No.4 as per final order. 8. Learned counsel for the claimant contended that the deceased Pradeep was a seasoned sculptor and earning more than Rs.20,000/- per month. However, the Claims Tribunal considered it on notional terms at Rs.6,000/- per month, which is on the lower side. He further contended that the claimant had spent more than Rs.50,000/- towards funeral and obsequies, but the Claims Tribunal awarded a nominal amount. Hence, he sought enhancement of compensation in this appeal. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurer contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. He further contended that the claimant had spent more than Rs.50,000/- towards funeral and obsequies, but the Claims Tribunal awarded a nominal amount. Hence, he sought enhancement of compensation in this appeal. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurer contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. Referring to Ex.R.1, it was contended that the accident spot being near a curve on the road and even though there was 8 ft. of the road remaining, the deceased failed to take his motorcycle towards left side and avoid the accident. His failure has to be taken as his negligence and the insurer has to be absolved of its liability. 10. On quantum, it was contended that the deceased was neither a government servant nor a permanent employee. Therefore, the Claims Tribunal erred in adding 50% towards his future prospects. It was also contended that as the deceased was a bachelor, the multiplier corresponding to the age of the claimant - mother ought to have been applied. It was also contended that the rate of interest at 9% was on the higher side. Hence, he sought reduction of compensation. 11. Having heard learned counsel for respective parties, the following points would arise for our consideration: (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in fastening the entire liability on the driver of the lorry bearing registrtionNo.KA-17-B-6090? In other words, whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased Pradeep, who was riding the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-20-EA-5783 on the fateful day? (ii) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal call for any enhancement or reduction, as the case may be? (iii) What order? 12. In these appeals the claimant is seeking for enhancement of compensation whereas the Insurance Company besides challenging the award of the Claims Tribunal on quantum is also seeking for apportionment of contributory negligence against the deceased Pradeep. Hence, the occurrence of the accident on 07.05.2013 between the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-20-EA- 5783 and the lorry bearing registration No. KA-17-B-6090 at about 4.00 p.m. near Muduba Village, on Shivamogga Theerthahalli Road, is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that Pradeep, who was riding the motorcycle, died in the said accident and the claimant mother of the deceased Pradeep sustained loss of dependency. It is also not in dispute that Pradeep, who was riding the motorcycle, died in the said accident and the claimant mother of the deceased Pradeep sustained loss of dependency. The only dispute is with regard to the quantum of compensation and contributory negligence, if any, on the part of the claimant. Reg.Point No.1: 13. In the claim petition filed by the mother of the deceased Pradeep, she stated that the accident was solely on account of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry. In her evidence, she produced copies of the FIR, Complaint, Panchanama, Post mortem report, Police notice etc., which indicate that the driver of the lorry was prosecuted for rash and negligent driving and causing the accident. P.W.2 - Vishwanatha Shetty, who is an eye witness cum complainant and a panch witness was also been examined. He stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. On a closer examination of Ex.R.1, it is seen that the curve on the road is away from the accident spot. The two vehicles in question were proceeding from the opposite direction to each other. The width of the road is 18ft., and there was 10ft. road remaining on the left side of the lorry from the edge of the road. There was 8 ft. road remaining on the left side of the motorcycle from the edge of the road. The driver of the lorry, who is driving a heavy vehicle was required to be more careful, as the lorry had crossed the middle of the road and dashed against the motorcycle. Further, the entire police records are against the driver of the lorry. Hence, it was incumbent upon the respondents to have led positive evidence in support of their contention. In the absence of the same, no contributory negligence can be attributed to the deceased. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in favour of the claimant and against the insurer. Reg. Point No.2: 14. This point concerns the quantum of compensation. In her examination-in-chief, P.W.1 has stated that her son Pradeep, was an experienced sculptor. He had learnt the skill of sculpting under Sri. Shamaraya Acharya, Master Artisan of Karkala. She has further stated that her son had won several awards for his sculptures. She got marked a certificate - Ex.P.8, which corroborates the above. In her examination-in-chief, P.W.1 has stated that her son Pradeep, was an experienced sculptor. He had learnt the skill of sculpting under Sri. Shamaraya Acharya, Master Artisan of Karkala. She has further stated that her son had won several awards for his sculptures. She got marked a certificate - Ex.P.8, which corroborates the above. In her cross-examination the insurer has only disputed the monthly income and not the profession of the deceased. The accident has occurred on 07.05.2013. During the said period, even an unskilled coolie would not be earning less than Rs.6,000/- p.m. Considering the profession and experience of the deceased, it would be safe to consider income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- p.m. Further, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others [Pranay Sethi], (2017) AIR SC 5157 , 40% of the income has to be added towards future prospects i.e., Rs.10,000 + 40% = Rs.14,000/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor, 50% has to be deducted towards his personal expenses i.e. Rs.14,000 - 50% = Rs.7,000/-. The deceased was aged 24 years as on the date of the accident. Hence, multiplier of 18' would be applicable as per Pranay Sethi (supra). Thus, the total loss of dependency would be Rs.7000 X 12 X 18 = Rs.15,12,000/-. The claimant would also be entitled to a sum of Rs.70,000/- under the remaining heads as per Pranay Sethi (supra) as under: i) Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- ii) Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- iii) Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- In the result, it is held that the claimant is entitled for enhancement of the compensation. Point No.2 is answered accordingly and the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is modified enhancing the compensation to Rs.15,82,000/-. Since the rate of interest normally awarded by this Hon'ble Court in death cases is 6% per annum, the claimant is held entitled for interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the reassessed compensation. Reg. Point No.3: 15. In the result, appeal filed by the Insurance Company in M.F.A.No.4946/2015 is dismissed. The amount in deposit to be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal. Appeal filed by the appellant-claimant in M.F.A. No.805/2016 is allowed in part. Reg. Point No.3: 15. In the result, appeal filed by the Insurance Company in M.F.A.No.4946/2015 is dismissed. The amount in deposit to be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal. Appeal filed by the appellant-claimant in M.F.A. No.805/2016 is allowed in part. i) The claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.15,82,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of payment or deposit, whichever is earlier. ii) The entire reassessed compensation with upto date interest at 6% p.a. shall be deposited by the insurer within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. iii) On deposit, since the appellant being the sole claimant, and having regard to the directions issued by the claims Tribunal and also having regard to the fact that 50% of the compensation amount has been deposited by the insurance company, we are of the view that 60% of the amount awarded herein shall be deposited in any nationalized bank and/or Post office earning highest interest for an initial period of five years, which shall be free from encumbrances. The claimant will be at liberty to withdraw interest periodically. Balance of the compensation shall be released to the claimant/appellant after due verification. Parties to bear the respective costs.