JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal, though listed for admission, is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation determined by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short) in its judgment and award dated 10.11.2014 in MVC.No.2524/2013. 3. Parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the Claims Tribunal. 4. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that, on 11.02.2013, at about 7.25 p.m., when the deceased Shiva Kumar was riding his motorbike bearing registration No.KA-04-EP-92 from Bannerghatta towards Nice Road, near Begur Bridge, he dashed into a Lorry bearing registration No.TN-23-AB-9675 which was parked negligently without any signal lights or indicators. Due to the impact of the accident, he sustained injuries and succumbed to the same on the spot. 5. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act on the ground that the deceased was aged about 38 years at the time of accident and was working as Granite worker and earning Rs.7,000/- p.m. Due to the untimely death of the deceased, the family lost the sole bread winner and hence, they claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/-. 6. On receipt of notice, respondent No.1 appeared before the Tribunal and filed written statement by admitting that the Lorry was insured and the insurance policy was in force as on the date of the accident but denied other petition averments i.e., denied the age, occupation, income of the deceased and the manner in which the accident taken place as contended by the claimants. It further contended that the claimants were not depending on the deceased for their livelihood and also denied the riding of the deceased and he possessing valid driving license. It was further contended that as the offending Lorry driver did not possess a valid driving license and the Lorry did not have any fitness certificate, there was violation of the policy conditions by the owner of the Lorry and hence, no liability can be fastened on the Insurance Company. Respondent No.2 neither appeared nor filed any written statement hence, he was placed ex-parte. 7. Respondent No.2 neither appeared nor filed any written statement hence, he was placed ex-parte. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant No.1 examined herself as PW-1 and got exhibited 14 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P14 to prove the case. Insurance Company on its behalf examined its Legal Manager as RW-1 and produced the insurance policy of the offending Lorry which was marked as Ex.R.1. The claims Tribunal by the impugned judgment, inter-alia, held that the accident took place on account of negligent parking of the offending Lorry by its driver, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and died on the spot. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.8,70,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Being aggrieved, the claimants are in appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the claimants would contend that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- p.m. which is meager as the accident is of the year 2013 and also adding future prospects at 50% to the income of the deceased as he was aged 38 years at the time of the accident. 9. Learned counsel for Insurance Company contends that the claimants neither produced any documents nor examined any witness with regard to the income of the deceased. Hence, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal by taking the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- is just and reasonable and is in accordance with law. 10. We have considered the submissions made by Sri K.V.Shyamprasada, learned counsel for appellants-claimants and Sri A.N.Krishna Swamy, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 - Insurance Company and have perused the record. 11. Admittedly, the claimants have not produced any evidence with regard to the income of the deceased. 10. We have considered the submissions made by Sri K.V.Shyamprasada, learned counsel for appellants-claimants and Sri A.N.Krishna Swamy, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 - Insurance Company and have perused the record. 11. Admittedly, the claimants have not produced any evidence with regard to the income of the deceased. The deceased was working as Granite worker and earning Rs.7,000/- p.m. As per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, since the accident has taken place in the year 2013, the notional income of the deceased can safely be determined at Rs.7,000/- p.m. To the said amount, 40% has to be added on account of future prospects as the deceased was aged 38 years, in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) AIR SC 5157. Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.9,800/-. Out of which, we deem it appropriate to deduct 1/3rd towards personal expenses as the dependants are three members and therefore, the monthly dependency comes to Rs.6,533/-. Taking into account the age of the deceased who was aged 38 years at the time of accident, multiplier of 15' has to be adopted. The claimants are entitled to Rs.11,75,940/- (Rs.6,533/- x 12 x 15) on account of loss of dependency. 12. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram, (2018) ACJ 2782, the claimants are entitled to 40,000/- each as loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. Thus, the total amount of compensation under this head is assessed at Rs.1,20,000/-. In addition, the claimants are entitled to Rs.30,000/- on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses. 13. Thus, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.13,25,940/-. Needless to state that the aforesaid amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till payment is made. 14. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of with the modification of the award of the claims Tribunal to the aforesaid extent.