JUDGMENT S.G. Pandit, J. - The claimants are before this Court not being satisfied with the compensation awarded under judgment and award dated 21.03.2016 in MVC No.237/2015 on the file of the file of the VI- Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional M.A.C.T., Belagavi and praying for enhancement of compensation. 2. Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for parties, heard finally and disposed of. 3. The claimants are wife and children of deceased Krishna Kundekar, who died in a road traffic accident. The deceased was aged 55 years as on the date of the accident. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the death of Krishna Kundekar in a road traffic accident, which occurred on 18.12.2014. 4. The accident and the accidental death of Krishna Kundekar are not in dispute in this appeal. 5. The Tribunal on examination of the material placed before it, awarded total compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. While awarding the above compensation, the Tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- p.m. and deducted 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased. The claimants not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation are before this Court praying for enhancement of compensation. 6. Heard the learned counsel for appellants and the learned counsel for respondent/NWKRTC. Perused the material on record. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants prays for enhancement of compensation on three grounds. Firstly, he has contended that the income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.7,000/- per month is on the lower side. He submits that the notional income ought to have been assessed at Rs.7,500/- per month or more. It is his submission that the deceased was working as a mason and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Thus, he prays for enhancement of monthly income assessed by the Tribunal. Further, he submits that the Tribunal failed to award any compensation on the head of future prospects, since the deceased was aged 55 years, the claimants would be entitled for adding of 10% of the assessed income of the deceased towards future prospects. Thus, he prays for enhancement of monthly income assessed by the Tribunal. Further, he submits that the Tribunal failed to award any compensation on the head of future prospects, since the deceased was aged 55 years, the claimants would be entitled for adding of 10% of the assessed income of the deceased towards future prospects. It is also submitted that the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3rd of the assessed income towards personal expenses of the deceased since there are three dependants on the deceased but the Tribunal committed an error in deducting 50% of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, prays for enhancement of compensation. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent/ corporation submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation and needs no interference. He submits that the claimant No.2 and 3 are majors and they were not depending on the deceased and only the wife/first claimant was depending on the deceased. The Tribunal is justified in deducting 50% of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, prays for dismissing the appeal. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for parties, and on perusal of the material on record, the points that would arise for our consideration are as under: i) Whether the income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.7,000/- per month is correct and proper? ii) Whether the claimants would be entitled for adding of 10% of assessed income towards future prospects. iii) Whether the Tribunal is justified in deducting 50% of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased? 10. The answer to point No. 1 and 3 would be in the negative and point No.2 would be in the affirmative for the following:- REASONS 11. As stated above, there is no dispute with regard to the accident occurred on 18.02.2014 between KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-22/F-1576 and bicycle and also with regard to the death of Krishna Kundekar in the said accident. 12. The income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.7,000/- per month of the deceased is on the lower side. The claimants have stated that the deceased was doing mason work and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. No material was placed to establish the income of the deceased. In the absence of material to establish the income of the deceased, the Tribunal or Courts will have to assess the notional income. The claimants have stated that the deceased was doing mason work and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. No material was placed to establish the income of the deceased. In the absence of material to establish the income of the deceased, the Tribunal or Courts will have to assess the notional income. This Court and the Lok-Adalaths while settling the accident claims of the year 2014, normally assesses the notional income at Rs.7,500/- per month. In the present case also in the absence of material on record to establish the income of the deceased, it would be appropriate for us to assess the notional income at Rs.7,500/- per month. The deceased was aged 55 years as on the date of the accident and as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) AIR SC 5157 , the claimants would be entitled for adding of 10% of the assessed income i.e. Rs.750/- towards future prospects, since the deceased was between the age group of 55 to 60 years. 13. Further, the Tribunal committed an error in deducting 50% of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased. The claimants are wife and two sons of the deceased. The sons of the deceased are aged 24 years and 20 years, respectively, as on the date of the accident. The third claimant was aged 20 years and it is shown as he was a student. Therefore, claimants 1 and 3 would be considered as depending on the deceased. Hence, the deduction ought to have been taken by the Tribunal at 1/3rd in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) AIR SC 3104 . Thus, 1/3rd of the income is taken towards personal expenses of the deceased. After deducting 1/3rd of the assessed income towards personal expenses, it would come to Rs.5,500/- per month (Rs.8,250 Rs.2,750 = Rs.5,500). Multiplier ''11' applied by the Tribunal is correct and thus, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.7,26,000/-(Rs.5,500 x 11 x 12 = Rs.7,26,000/-) towards loss of dependency including future prospects. 14. Further, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants would be entitled for Rs.77,000/- on conventional heads. 15. Multiplier ''11' applied by the Tribunal is correct and thus, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.7,26,000/-(Rs.5,500 x 11 x 12 = Rs.7,26,000/-) towards loss of dependency including future prospects. 14. Further, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants would be entitled for Rs.77,000/- on conventional heads. 15. The amount awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses need not be disturbed, since the same has been awarded on the basis of medical documents produced by the claimants. 16. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the appellants/claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.9,18,000/- as against Rs.8,00,000/- that has been awarded by the Tribunal with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The apportionment and deposit would be as ordered by the Tribunal in the same proportion. Draw the modified award accordingly.