JUDGMENT K Natarajan, J. - This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants being not satisfied with the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, (for short 'Tribunal') in MVC No.5747/2012, dated 05.07.2014. 2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.1-Insurance Company. 3. The status of the parties before the Tribunal is retained for the sake of convenience. 4. The claimants, who are the legal heirs of Chandrakala (now deceased) filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short M.V. Act) claiming compensation of Rs.10.00 lakhs, inter alia, contending that on 28.08.2012 at about 6.30 a.m., petitioner No.1 and his wife Chandrakala were proceeding on a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-03/HN-649 on Varthur Main Road, Bengaluru. At that time, a borewell lorry bearing Registration No.KA-01/MJ-1155 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle. As a result, the pillion rider-Chandrakala sustained injuries and died on the spot. Petitioner No.1, being the husband of Chandrakala, petitioner Nos.2 to 4, the minor children of the deceased have contended that the deceased was earning more than Rs.8,000/- per month and petitioner No.1 spent a huge amount towards funeral and other incidental charges. Due to the untimely death of Chandrakala, the petitioners have lost their dependency. Hence, they filed the claim petition claiming compensation under various heads. 5. The respondent No.1-Insurance Company appeared through its counsel and filed objections by denying the averments made in the claim petition as false. The accident in question has occurred due to the negligent riding of the motorcycle by petitioner No.1 himself. Therefore, the liability cannot be fixed on the owner and the insurer of the lorry. However, if any liability on the Insurance Company, the same may be subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 6. The respondent No.2-owner not filed any objections to the claim petition. 7. Based upon the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: "i) Whether petitioners are legal representatives and dependants of deceased Smt. Chandrakala? ii) Whether petitioners prove that deceased Smt. Chandrakala died due to injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred on 28.08.2012 at about 6.30 a.m. on Varthur Main Road, Near HAL 26ED, Bangalore, due to rash and negligent act of Borewell lorry bearing registration No.KA-01-MJ-1155? ii) Whether petitioners prove that deceased Smt. Chandrakala died due to injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred on 28.08.2012 at about 6.30 a.m. on Varthur Main Road, Near HAL 26ED, Bangalore, due to rash and negligent act of Borewell lorry bearing registration No.KA-01-MJ-1155? iii) If so, whether petitioners are entitled for compensation? How much and from whom? iv) What order or award?" 8. In order to prove the contentions, petitioner No.1 got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked 14 documents. The respondent No.1-Insurance Company examined its Administrative Officer as RW.1 and got marked four documents. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative and allowed the claim petition in-part by awarding Rs.9,44,800/- as compensation. However, the Tribunal has held that there is contributory negligence on the part of petitioner No.1-rider of the motorcycle and deducted 25% of the award amount and awarded only 75% of the amount i.e. Rs.7,08,600/- as compensation with interest at 6% per annum. The same is challenged by the claimants by filing this appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the claimants strenuously contended that the finding of the Tribunal regarding contributory negligence on the part of petitioner No.1- rider of the motorcycle is not correct. Even though there is no negligence on the part of petitioner No.1 and merely because he has not produced his Driving License, that itself is not a ground to hold that there is contributory negligence on the part of petitioner No.1-rider. In spite of filing of charge sheet by the Police against the driver of the lorry, the Tribunal has committed error in holding that there was contributory negligence. Even if petitioner No.1- rider of the motorcycle did not have any Driving License, the Tribunal cannot consider and hold that there is contributory negligence as per the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Kumar Rana vs. Surinder Singh and Others, (2008) 12 SCC 436 . 10. Learned counsel further contended that the Tribunal though considered the income of the deceased at Rs.7,290/- per month, but failed to consider the future prospects of the deceased. Her age is only 37 years. 10. Learned counsel further contended that the Tribunal though considered the income of the deceased at Rs.7,290/- per month, but failed to consider the future prospects of the deceased. Her age is only 37 years. As per the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , 40% of the salary requires to be added as future prospects. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Birender and others in C.A. Nos.242- 243/2020, if petitioner No.1 is considered as dependent then the deduction must be 1/4th of the income towards the personal expenditure of the deceased, but the Tribunal has not considered the same. Therefore, the income of 40% towards future prospects has to be calculated. The Tribunal has also not awarded any compensation under the conventional heads as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others, (2018) ACJ 2782 (SC). Learned counsel also contended that though the claimants claimed Rs.10.00 lakhs as compensation, but the Court has every power to award just and fair compensation in accordance with law. Therefore, he prayed for enhancement of the compensation. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1- Insurance Company supported the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and contended that the rider of the motorcycle failed to produce the Driving License. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that there was contributory negligence on the part of the rider. Further contended that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Devi and Others vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, 2019 ACJ 1366 (SC), the compensation under the conventional heads shall not exceed Rs.70,000/- including the loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses and fairly admits that the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) in respect of future prospects requires to be considered by the Court. 12. Ltd. and Others, 2019 ACJ 1366 (SC), the compensation under the conventional heads shall not exceed Rs.70,000/- including the loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses and fairly admits that the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) in respect of future prospects requires to be considered by the Court. 12. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records, the points that arise for consideration are as follows: i) Whether the Tribunal has committed error in holding that there was contributory negligence on the part of petitioner No.1/rider of the motorcycle due to non-production of the driving license? ii) Whether the claimants are entitled for just compensation over and above the claim under the appeal?" 13. On perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the accident has occurred on 28.08.2012 at 6.30 a.m. on Varthur Main Road near HAL Bengaluru and in the said accident, Chandrakala, the wife of petitioner No.1 sustained injuries and died on the spot. It is also not in dispute that the Police registered FIR and filed charge sheet against the driver of the borewell lorry. The Tribunal has answered issue No.2 in favour of the claimants holding that the said accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the borewell lorry. However, the Tribunal while computing the loss of income and while awarding compensation has held that there was contributory negligence to the extent of 25% on the part of the rider of the motorcycle i.e. petitioner No.1 because he failed to produce the Driving License. In my considered opinion, the finding of the Tribunal holding that there is contributory negligence only on the ground of nonproduction of the Driving License by the rider of the motorcycle is not correct in view of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudhir Kumar's case (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a similar set of facts has held at paragraph 8 as under: "8. If a person drives a vehicle without a licence, he commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion, may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident. It has been held by the courts below that it was the driver of the mini-truck which was being driven rashly and negligently. If a person drives a vehicle without a licence, he commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion, may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident. It has been held by the courts below that it was the driver of the mini-truck which was being driven rashly and negligently. It is one thing to say that the appellant was not possessing any licence but no finding of fact has been arrived at that he was driving the two-wheeler rashly and negligently. If he was not driving rashly and negligently which contributed to the accident, we fail to see as to how, only because he was not having a licence, he would be held to be guilty of contributory negligence." Based upon the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the finding of the Tribunal holding 25% of negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle i.e. petitioner No.1 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I answer issue no.1 in favour of the claimants. 14. As regards the computation of compensation, it is not in dispute that the deceased Chandrakala was employed in a private company and was earning Rs.7,290/- per month as per Ex.P.1, the salary certificate. As per the principle laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), 40% of the income to be added towards the future prospects for the age group upto 40 years. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has also not disputed the fact that the deceased had an established income and comes under the salaried class. If the income of the deceased is calculated as Rs.7,290/- per month and if 40% of the income at Rs.2,916/- is added, it comes of Rs.10,206/-. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that as per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Limited and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), if the claimants/dependants are more than three, then 1/4th of the income has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in the case of Birender (supra) has considered that even if there are adult children who are also earning members, they shall also be treated as dependents as they would be getting a meager salary. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in the case of Birender (supra) has considered that even if there are adult children who are also earning members, they shall also be treated as dependents as they would be getting a meager salary. However, in the case on hand, petitioner No.1, the husband of deceased Chandrakala is aged about 41 years and he is an earning member. He has also not stated in his petition that he is also the dependant on the income of his wife Chandrakala. Even in his evidence, he has not stated that he is dependant on his wife except taking the contention that the deceased used to maintain the family and the children. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the appellants/claimants that petitioner No.1 also should be considered as dependant on the deceased wife cannot be acceptable. However, petitioner No.1 being the husband of deceased Chandrakala is entitled for loss of consortium and I hold that claimant Nos.2 to 4, who are the minor children at the time of accident are considered as dependants on the deceased as per the decision in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). If her income is considered as Rs.10,206/- per month, if 1/3rd of the income at Rs.3,402/- is deducted towards personal expenses, Rs.6,804/- would be the monthly income and Rs.81,648/- (6804x12) would be the annual income and by applying the multiplier of 15, it comes to Rs.12,24,720/- towards the actual loss of dependency. Petitioner No.1 being the husband of deceased Chandrakala is entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. In all, the claimants are entitled to Rs.12,94,720/- as compensation. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Devi (supra), the claimants are not entitled to more than Rs.70,000/- under the conventional heads. Though the appellants claimed only Rs.10,00 lakhs before the Tribunal and also in the appeal, however, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramla and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others, (2019) 2 SCC 192 , the Court has power to award just and fair compensation over and above the compensation claimed by the claimants. The claimants cannot be deprived of receiving fair compensation merely due to lack of knowledge of law. The claimants cannot be deprived of receiving fair compensation merely due to lack of knowledge of law. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to the compensation of Rs.12,94,720/-. Hence, the appeal is liable to be allowed. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The finding of the Tribunal regarding contributory negligence is set aside. The claimants are entitled for the enhanced compensation of Rs.12,94,720/- with interest at 6% per annum from that date of petition till realization from the owner and the insurer of the borewell lorry. However, the apportionment of compensation amongst claimants remains unaltered. The respondent No.1-Insurance Company is liable to pay the entire compensation to the appellants/claimants.