JUDGMENT V. Srishananda, J. - Mfa No.20588/2009 is filed by the claimants, while MFA No.20201/2009 is filed by the Insurance company. These two appeals are arising out of one and the same judgment and award passed by MACT-I, Karwar questioning the correctness of the judgment and award in MVC No.277/2007, dated 23.09.2008 2. The parties are referred to as per their original ranking before the tribunal. 3. The brief facts which are germane for the disposal of these appeals are as under : It is contended that in the claim petition on 28.12.2005, Sanganagouda and others were traveling in a tractor bearing No.KA-25/T 6742 and trally No.T-6743 from Nelliharavi in Kalaghatgi taluk to Balehadda village in Yellapur taluk to bring banana trees to their owner's land; At that juncture, respondent No.3 drove the said tractor in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over it and in the process of driving it, in the manner stated over took another tractor, as a result it fell down from the road down side. The persons who are sitting in the tractor fell down from the road to valley, resulting in grievous injuries. Immediately, said Sanganagouda was shifted to Pandit General Hospital, Sirsi for treatment but, he succumbed to the grievous injuries on the same day at 10.00 p.m. The deceased was doing coolie work and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month and therefore, the claim petition came to be filed by the mother and brother of the deceased. 4. In pursuance of the notice, respondent Nos.1 to 3 appeared before the tribunal and respondent Nos.2 and 3 contested the petition by filing separate written statement. The respondent No.1 adopted the written statement of respondent No.3. In the written statement they denied the fact that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. They also denied the claim petition averments. 5. The second respondent Insurance company contended that based on the investigation report submitted by Smt. Nagaratna C. Halakatti, it is revealed that deceased Sanganagouda was driving the tractor bearing No.KA-25/T-6742-T-6743 and due to rash and negligent driving by the deceased himself the accident has taken place. They also denied the claim petition averments. 5. The second respondent Insurance company contended that based on the investigation report submitted by Smt. Nagaratna C. Halakatti, it is revealed that deceased Sanganagouda was driving the tractor bearing No.KA-25/T-6742-T-6743 and due to rash and negligent driving by the deceased himself the accident has taken place. They also contended that one Chandru Channayya Hiremath the driver of another tractor has filed the complaint in Yellapur Police station for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304(a) of IPC against the deceased and the Police after thorough investigation, have filed B summary report and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. In support of claim petition averments, respondent No.1 got examined herself as PW1 and they also examined one witness by name Lingaraj S.Tirlapur as PW2 and got examined one Chandru Channayya Hiremath as PW3 to prove the accident. On behalf of the petitioners, the copy of the FIR and Post Mortem report were exhibited as documentary evidence and were marked as Ex.P1 and P2. 7. On behalf of respondents, Mallappa Mahadevappa Tolali who was examined as RW1, who is none other than respondent No.1. Likewise they also examined respondent No.3 Shekappa Shivappa Jannur as RW2 and 7 documents got marked as Ex.R1 to R7. 8. Based on the oral and documentary evidence on record, the tribunal allowed the claim petition by awarding adjudged compensation of Rs.1,85,000/- with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. It is that judgment challenged by the appellants herein in both the appeals. 9. The learned counsel for the claimants contended that the adjudged compensation awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side and sought for enhancement. 10. It is their specific contention that the tribunal ought to have taken the income of the deceased at Rs.3,500/- per month for the accident which has occurred in the year 2005 as per chart prepared for the settlement in Lok Adalath. Whereas, the tribunal has taken the income of the deceased only at Rs.3,000/- per month and deducted 50% towards personal expenses, which has resulted in injustice to the claimants. Whereas, the tribunal has taken the income of the deceased only at Rs.3,000/- per month and deducted 50% towards personal expenses, which has resulted in injustice to the claimants. The learned counsel also contended that the tribunal failed to consider legal principle enunciated in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) AIR SC 5157 and prayed for addition of 40% of the assessed income having regard to the fact that the deceased was aged about 31 years and prayed for grant of enhanced compensation. 11. It is further contended that the tribunal erred in adopting multiplier of 9' instead of 16' and sought for enhancement on that score also. 12. Per contra, it is the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent Insurance company that the very accident itself is in dispute and therefore, the claim petition should have been dismissed by the tribunal. He further contended that complaint lodged by Chandru Channayya Hiremath, who is examined as PW3, the Police have filed 'B' report and as such, the accident in question is not proved. He further contended that in order to grab the compensation amount another complaint came to be filed, wherein, it is falsely reported that, it is the third respondent, who was driving the tractor and as such, this aspect to be taken note by this court and the appeal of claimants is to be dismissed and appeal filed by insurance company is to be allowed. 13. On the question of quantum the learned counsel for the Insurance company submitted that since the accident itself is in dispute, no amount of compensation can be granted, hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 14. In view of the rival contentions raised by the parties, the points that would arise for consideration of this court are : 1. Whether the insurance company has made out sufficient grounds to dismiss the claim petition by allowing the appeal of Insurance company? 2. Whether the appellants-claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation? 15. Answer to the above points in the negative and in the affirmative respectively for the following: REASONS 16. The prime contention that is urged on behalf of the Insurance company is that, the accident itself is in dispute. 17. 2. Whether the appellants-claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation? 15. Answer to the above points in the negative and in the affirmative respectively for the following: REASONS 16. The prime contention that is urged on behalf of the Insurance company is that, the accident itself is in dispute. 17. In order to buttress the argument, the learned counsel for the Insurance company wanted this court to reappreciate the probative value of Ex.P1 vis-a-vis Ex.R1 the first complaint lodged by Mr.Chandru Channayya Hiremath. He also pointed out that a complaint lodged soon after the accident by Mr.Chandru Channayya Hiremath shows that the deceased was driving the tractor in question, therefore, the very filing of the second complaint at Ex.P1 is doubtful. 18. He further pointed out that as an afterthought, with an intention to grab the compensation from the Insurance company the false complaint came to be filed by Shekappa Shivappa Jannur, who is examined as RW2 and therefore, the tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition as there is no proper proof placed by the claimants to prove the accident, wherein the Sanganagouda got injured and ultimately succumbed to the injuries. 19. However, it is pertinent to note that, in the objection statement the Insurance company has specifically stated that they had appointed Smt. Nagaratna C.Halakatti as investigator to investigate into the alleged accident and she has purportedly given the report stating that it was Sanganagouda, the deceased who was driving the tractor at the relevant point of time. But, for the reason best known to Insurance company, no oral or documentary evidence is placed by the Insurance company in this regard. 20. What prevented Smt. Nagaratna to be examined as witness in favour of respondent-Insurance company, is not explained by the learned counsel for the appellant even before this court. The insurance company also did not deem it fit to at least produce the investigation report conducted by Smt. Nagaratna as documentary evidence to support their case. 21. It is seen from the records that the Police ave investigated the complaint filed by Chandru Hiremath and filed an abated charge sheet. On record, no material are placed as to what happened to the second complaint filed by the father in law of the deceased. The Insurance company also did not adduce any evidence in this regard. 22. Be it what it may. On record, no material are placed as to what happened to the second complaint filed by the father in law of the deceased. The Insurance company also did not adduce any evidence in this regard. 22. Be it what it may. Facts remains that in an accident that took place on 28.12.2005 at 9.00 p.m. whereby Sanganagouda sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to Pandit General Hospital, Sirsi and succumbed to the injuries there, is established by the material on record. 23. The tribunal also discussed this in detail in the judgment and specifically came to the conclusion that the claimants have proved the death of Sanganagouda in the accident. 24. Thus, even after reappreciation of the entire material on record, this court is of the opinion that the Insurance Company failed to make-out that the accident has occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of deceased himself. 25. Therefore, the grounds urged in the appeal filed by the Insurance company sans merit. Accordingly point No.1 answered in the negative. 26. The learned counsel for the claimants has urged that the tribunal erred in computing monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. In the claim petition, it is contended that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month from the coolie work, but there is no plausible material placed by the claimants to establish the income of the deceased. 27. Under such circumstances, the tribunal has notionally assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. 28. This court and Lok Adalath consistently have assessed the income of the victim for the accidental claim of the year 2005 at Rs.3,500/- notionally. Accordingly, this court is of the considered opinion that the monthly income of the deceased should be reassessed notionally at Rs.3,500/- 29. The learned counsel for the appellantsclaimants submitted that the tribunal did not award any compensation on the head of future prospects. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants relied upon the legal principle enunciated in Pranay Sethi supra in relevant portion of said judgment is culled out for reference. "(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S.166, S.168 Compensation Future prospects Determination (I) Self- employed or fix salaried deceased:- Deceased below 40 years, addition of 40%; between 40 to 50 years, addition of 25% and between 50-60 years, addition of 10% of established income to be made. "(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S.166, S.168 Compensation Future prospects Determination (I) Self- employed or fix salaried deceased:- Deceased below 40 years, addition of 40%; between 40 to 50 years, addition of 25% and between 50-60 years, addition of 10% of established income to be made. (II) Deceased with permanent job:-Deceased below 40 years, addition of 50%; between 40 to 50 years addition of 30% and between 50 to 60 years, addition of 15% of actual salary to income of deceased towards future prospects to be made. (2013) 9 SCC 54 , Over ruled." 30. Appling the legal principles enunciated in Pranay Sethi's case to the facts of this case, there should be an addition of 40% of the assessed income to the monthly income towards future prospects. 31. Having regard to the age of the victim is 31 years as on the date of accident. Since the deceased was bachelor, 50% of the assessed notional income is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. Therefore, on the head of loss of income, the appellantsclaimants are entitled the compensation under the head of loss of income. Rs.3,500+40%=1,400+3500=4900 50% of 4,900=2,450/- Rs.2,450X12X16=4,70,400/- 32. The tribunal has granted Rs.23,000/- on the conventional heads. As per the decision of Pranay Sethi the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.70,000/- towards conventional heads. Accordingly, the appellantsclaimants would be entitled for the enhanced compensation as under: 1 Loss of dependency including future prospects 4,70,400/- 2 Conventional heads 50,000/- TOTAL 5,20,400/- 33. The appellants-claimants would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,20,400/- as against Rs.1,85,000/- with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The appeal is allowed in part. The apportionment and deposit would remain as ordered by the tribunal in the same proportion. The respondent Insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Draw modified award accordingly.